Citation
The economic development of Florida, 1870-1930

Material Information

Title:
The economic development of Florida, 1870-1930
Creator:
Nelson, Wallace Martin, 1912-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 430 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture ( jstor )
Censuses ( jstor )
Counties ( jstor )
Governors ( jstor )
Legislature ( jstor )
Manufacturing industries ( jstor )
Public land ( jstor )
Railroads ( jstor )
Taxes ( jstor )
Workforce ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Economics -- UF
Economic conditions -- Florida ( lcsh )
Economics thesis Ph. D
Flagler County ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 420-430.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
000559423 ( ALEPH )
13489692 ( OCLC )
ACY4879 ( NOTIS )
AA00004952_00001 ( sobekcm )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF FLORIDA

1870-1930












By
WALLACE MARTIN NELSON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
June, 1962













PREFACE


This dissertation is divided into two parts. Part I presents

an historical and quantitative narrative of Florida's economic devel-

opment from 1870 to 1930 in terms of institutional background, economic

factors, and economic sectors. Extensive use is made of a statistical

device known as the shift technique to portray Florida's development

in relation to that of the nation and to that of certain other states.

Part II presents the methodology employed in developing the quantita-

tive materials in the reference tables; particularly in relation to

the substate areas of Florida. Much of this material is incorporated

in summary fashion in Part I. The substance of the study is thus in

Part I; with Part II and the reference tables providing part of the

quantitative framework and backup.

Part of the research for this study was accomplished as a

graduate assistant under a research grant from Resources for the

Future, Inc. and part as a fellow of the Inter-University Committee

for Economic Research on the South. Grateful acknowledgement is made

for this aid.

I am deeply indebted to my Supervisory Commnittee) especially

Professor Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., its Chairman, for his advice and patience

in supervising this dissertation and for the computational aid which

was rendered by his office. It should also be recorded that

Dr. John N. Webb assumed an extra supervisory burden during a leave











of absence of the Chairman and that the nature of this study was

greatly--if indirectly--affected by Dr. Rembert W. Patrick.

I am indebted also for the outstanding facilities for research

on Florida made available by the very competent library staff of the

P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, located at the University of

Florida.







































iii













TABLE OF CONTENTS


PREFACE ...........

LIST OF TABLES .

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .

LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES .

PART
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION .

II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .

III. QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW

IV. THE 1870's .

V. THE 1880's .

VI. THE 1890's .

VII. THE 1900's .

VIII. THE 1910's .

IX. THE 1920's .

X. POSTSCRIPT .

PART


Page
. ii


. viii


. ix
oeoeeeeeeeo


DEVELOPMENT


2

14

57

95

132

162

187

220

258

301


METHODOLOGY


I. MEASURING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .

XII. MEASURING FLORIDA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


APPENDIX . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . .


307

352


573

419


I


. .


e e e e e e o

. e e o e e e

o e e e o o e e .

eeoeeeeeeeoee

e e e e e e .








. .


~




















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Total Population and Constituent Elements ... 41

2. Net Migration Rates of Native Whites 43

3. Net Migration Rates of Negroes or Nonwhites 44

4. Comparison of Net Internal and Net External Migration 45

5. Comparison of Percentage Rates of Population Increase 47

6. Computation of Comparative Labor Force Participation Rates 49

7. Summary of Comparative Labor Force Participation Rates 50

8. Florida Labor Force Participation Rates Differentiated
by Age and Sex ..................... 50

9. Comparison of Urban Percentage Rates of Increase .. 52

10. Comparison of Urban Percentage of Total Population .... 52

11. U.S. Growth Rates by Sector by Decade 54

12. Total Net Shift in Labor Force .... .56

15. Total Net Shift in Labor Force as Percentage of
Total U.S. Shift ... .. 56

14. Total Competition Shift ... 57

15. Total Composition Shift .... 59

16. Total Competition Shift as Percentage of Total
Net Shift .... .. ... .. ..... ..... 60

17. Total Composition Shift as Percentage of Total
Net Shift .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... 61

18. Comparative State Percentage of Total
U.S. Competition Shift .... 62

19. Comparative State Percentage of Total
U.S. Composition Shift . 65



v

I











LIST OF TABLES--Continued


Table Page

20. Sector Net Shifts--State Shift as Percentage
of U.S. Shift by Decade . 64

21. Comparative Sector Contributions to State Net
Shifts by Decades . 70

22. Summary Average of Comparative Sector Contributions
to State Net Shifts .. 77

23. Sector Contributions to Florida Total Labor Force
by Decades .... .... .79

24. Florida Share of U.S. Net Shift by Sectors by Decades 82

25. Sector Contributions to Florida Net Shift by Decades 85

26. Summary of Florida Competition and Composition Net Shifts
as Percentage of Total U.S. Net Shift by Decades .. 86

27. Composition Index Summary by Decades .... .88

28. Florida Percentage of National Wealth by Selected
Categories . ... ..... 90

29. Wealth of Florida and the U.S. by Selected Categories
in Current Dollars ................... 91

50. Components of Personal Income in Florida for
Selected Years . ... 92

31. Components of Personal Income in Florida and U.S. on
Per Capita or Per Worker Basis ... 93

32. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1870's 122

33. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1870's 124

34. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1870's 124

35. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1880's 155

56. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1880's 156

37. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1880's 157


vi










LIST OF TABLES--Continued


Table Page

58. Florida Banks, 1890 1898 .... 175

59. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1890's 176

40. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1890's 177

41. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1890's 178

42. Statistics on Florida Corporations for Fiscal Year
Ending June 50, 1910 ....... 206

45. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1900's 207

44. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1900's 208

45. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1900's 209

46. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1910's 241

47. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1910's 242

48. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1910's 245

49. Principal IndustriesRanked by Value of Products, 1919 249

50. Per Capita Debt of Selected Florida Counties Between
1922 and 1952 . .. 275

51. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1920's 280-

52. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1920's 281

55. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1920's 282

54. Biennial Change in Average Wage Earners in
Manufacturing, 1919-29 ... 291

55. Distribution of "Laborers, Not Specified" (LNS)
in Florida, 1870-1900 ..... .... 558

56. Distribution of Clerical Occupations
in Florida, 1910-190 . .. 59

57. State Labor Force Control Series ... 540



vii

.d


^Wivs^aA














LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Key Role of Labor Force in Measurement of
Economic Growth ................... .. 38


2. Components of Productivity. ... 550


3. Map of Florida ...................... 345


viii













LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES


Table Page

G-l County Group Designators 74

P-1 Florida Population, by Counties, by Decades, 1870-1950 .. 375

P-2 Florida Population, by Comparable Substate Groupings,
by Decennial Periods, 1870-1950 .. 577

M-l Florida Rates of Natural Increase, by Category,
1870-190 ........ 81

M-2 Florida Net Migration, by Counties by Decades,
1870-1950 . 385

M-3 Florida Net Migration, by Comparable Substate Groupings,
by Decades, 1870-190 ... 385

M-4 Summation of County Net Migration, by Category,
1870-1950 . ... 87

M-5 Net Migration as Percentage of End Population Both
External and Internal, by Decades, 1870-1950 .. 389

M-6 Net Migration as Percentage of End Population, by Com-
parable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 390

LS-1 Labor Force and Population, by Categories, by Decades,
1870-1950 .... 92

LS-2 Labor Force Participation Rates, by Categories,
by Decades, 1870-1950 ... 3. 59

LS-3 Florida Labor Force Control Series, by Industrial
Sectors, by Decades, 1870-1950 ........ 394

LS-4 Sector Percentage Change, by Decades, 1870-1950 .. 395

LS-5 Sector Percentage of Florida Labor Force, by Decades,
1870-1930 .. .. 395

LS-6 Distribution Comparisons for Sector Labor Force
in 1930 .. .396



ix



"i


44,11,. -/ .%











LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES--Continued


Table Page

LC-1 Florida Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate
Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 .. 398

LC-2 Florida Labor Force Participation Rate Estimates, by
Comparable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 403

LC-3 Agricultural Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable
Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 ... 407

LC-4 Mining Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate
Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 ... 411

LC-5 Manufacturing Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate
Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1950 ... 413

LC-6 Sector Distribution of Florida's Labor Force, 1930 .... 417































x


Wib.fi





























PART I


DEVELOPMENT













CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


Florida has a unique and fascinating history and the economic

aspects of its history contribute to this uniqueness and fascination.

With its background of Southern traditions, Western frontiers, and

Eastern connections, it is a region which blends some of our major

national ingredients. To tell the story of Florida's economic devel-

opment over six decades in full is not possible herein. But this study

will attempt its portrayal on the basis of two hypotheses. The first

is that the study of the economic development of a region must be

based upon a quantitative structure which meshes the region with both

the larger area and its component areas; specifically, meshes Florida

with the nation and with Florida substate areas.1 This task is largely

undertaken in Part II of the study and the detailed results are numer-

ically presented in the reference tables. The second hypothesis is

that this skeleton of quantitative structure must be fleshed by a



1Abbey writes: "State history may be approached from two points
of view. It may be conceived as a group of developing localities assem-
bled under one political organization, or it may be regarded as a region
which has shared in the unfoldment of larger areas, a section, a nation,
or a colonial empire." Kathryn Trimmer Abbey, Florida, Land of Change
(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1941), p. vii.
This study emphasizes the latter view but does contribute estimates
which relate to the former view.



2



..











qualitative picture of the times, including the institutional back-

ground. This task is undertaken in Part I of the study. Part I draws

heavily on Part II for its quantitative framework. Qualitatively it

draws heavily on the economic, political, and social content of the

biennial messages of Florida governors for thematic continuity in

reflecting the changing times and attitudes, and on the work of the

many who have written about this period of Florida history.

The purpose of this study is to portray the economic develop-

ment of Florida from 1870 to 1950, relating Florida both to the nation

and to its spatial components (counties or county groups). An inte-

grated quantitative structure will be used, both to control the por-

trayal and to make it more explicit. The structure will deal with such

primary areas as population redistribution, labor force changes, and

income distribution. This structure will depend extensively on the

monumental reference work Population Redistribution and Economic Growth

to place Florida in the national economic scene in each of these pri-

mary areas.2 Thus oriented, Florida will be structurally dissected to

provide a comprehensive and consistent series of substate economic data.



2Everett S. Lee, and others, Population Redistribution and
Economic Growth, United States, 1870 1950, Vol. I: Methodological
Considerations and Reference Tables (Philadelphia: The American
Philosophical Society, 1957). The usefulness of this publication
for the purpose is pointed up by the following quotation taken from
a review by M. S. Gordon in the June, 1961, issue of The American
Economic Review," pp. 482-4: "The results are immensely valuable as a
convenient source of statistical data, much of which is in a form
not available elsewhere. The future investigator who is concerned,
for example, with an analysis of a particular state or region will
find his task immeasurably lightened as a result of the availabil-
ity of reclassified census series and migration estimates for his state
or region."









Much of the man-hour effort involved in this study has neces-
sarily been devoted to the mechanics of developing the quantitative

structure. It is hoped that this structure will have enough general-

ized integrity to provide a base for research exploration going beyond

the scope of the dissertation itself. If so, it will provide a frame-

work for further study of Florida's economic development.

If written a few years ago, a dissertation on this subject
would necessarily have assumed a different character. This paper

depends very much in its methodology, perspective, and assumptions on
such recent books as Methods of Regional Analysis;5 Regions, Resources,

and Economic Growth;4 Population Redistribution and Economic Growth;5

and current additions to the National Bureau of Economic Research

series. Methods is a current survey of the primary techniques avail-

able for the analysis of a regional economy. Regions is a current

application of regional analysis methodology which has directly in-

fluenced this study. Regions also contributes to placing Florida in

its regional and temporal setting within the United States. Population

provides in its reference tables a quantitative reconstruction of key

economic variables of the period of interest. This reconstruction,


'alter Isard, Methods of Regional Analysist an Introduction
to Regional Science (New Yorki John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960).
Hereafter referred to as Methods.
4Harvey S. Perloff, Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., Eric E. Lampard, and
Richard F. Muth, Regions, Resources, and Economic Growth (Baltimoret
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1960). Hereafter referred to as Regions.

Lee. Hereafter referred to as Population.






J


*ltri &.











disaggregated by states, thus provides a framework which relates

Florida to every other state and to the nation. Acceptance of this

framework, in its essential details, permits this study to concentrate

on a further disaggregation of these variables at a substate level to

provide the internal framework. The economic development of Florida

can then be viewed as the resultant of both external and internal forces;

with both sets of forces quantified on a generally comparable basis.

The external data serve to control the summation of the substate data.

Population contains four main sets of estimates: first, estimates of

inter-state migration; second, estimates of labor force changes by

primary economic sectors third, various series pertaining to the

redistribution of manufacturing activity; and fourth, estimates of the

redistribution of income.

Isard writes of the several possible theoretical approaches to

"the basic spatial interrelations which underlie the location of econ-

omic activities and regional development." Relative to the histor-

ical approach he writes:

Unquestionably, historical generalizations, more comprehensive
and at the same time more incisive than those we now possess, can
be achieved in the study of the past and current spatial and
regional structure of the world economy and its various sectors.6

Of this essentially evolutionary approach he further writes:

It not only furnishes a convenient and meaningful breakdown
for studying historical sequences of locational structures and



Walter Isard, Location and Space-Economy (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956). Hereafter referred to as Location.
p. 15.











for classifying historical facts but will also be very suggestive
for pursuing dynamic analysis, once an improved general static
theory has been achieved.'

After a considerable review of the literature with respect to

Florida's economy it seems an unrewarding task to assemble more mater-

ial without a good quantitative foundation. Masses of unrelated and

non-comparable statistics on the various aspects of the economy are

available but they are of little utility in developing a balanced view

of Florida's economy. So far as is possible data will not be intro-

duced in this study unless they contribute directly to developing its

quantitative framework or in fleshing out the structural bones. The

principal source for data will be the several Censuses. Though gen-

erally providing the most reliable and significant data available this

source does pose many problems of comparability and coverage. These

problems are mitigated considerably by the lesser degrees of non-

comparability between successive decades than between the exterior

decades of 1870 and 1950. Leontieff brings this out very clearly in

this composite passage:

Comparing the structure of an economic system in two stages
of its historical development sufficiently removed from each other,
one might easily find them to be as unalike as a butterfly and a
caterpillar the commodities and services found in the two
stages might turn out to be entirely dissimilar. A quantitative
comparison, a measurement of the difference between the two stages,
would in such a case be out of the question. .. However different
the goods and services observed at the opposite ends of a long
chain of economic transformation, its successive links are neces-
sarily intermeshed. The operation of "splicing time series"
turns out in this formulation to be logically identical with that


7Ibid., p. 50.










of "aggregating commodities," that is, combining distinct indus-
tries. The same theoretical and practical arguments which can
be must be advanced in criticism of various attempts to
depict the quantitative aspects of economic development in terms
of artificially constructed long-run time series. A differentiated
step-by-step description which would reflect the essential contin-
uity of the economic process without assuming a non-existing qual-
itative uniformity will eventually offer a methodologically more
satisfactory alternatives [Underlining supplied.j


Any treatment of history involves a choice between, usually

a compromise between, the chronological and the topical. In the

present compromise, the time period from 1870 to 1950 is disaggregated

into decennial units which are treated in separate chapters, in turn

topically subdivided. In addition to the methodological reasons, sug-

gested in the foregoing quotation, this arrangement permits a more

efficient exploitation of the vast amount of data available from the

several censuses, both state and national.

As an added compromise, since decennial segments are perforce

arbitrary and impede the flow of historic time, the six decennial

chapters in Part I are preceded by two preliminary chapters which

attempt to establish an overview of the period. The first of these

preliminary chapters sketches the historical background of economic

development in terms of events and themes. The second preliminary

chapter seeks to provide a general perspective of the period in terms

of a few key economic variables a quantitative or dimensional picture

of economic development. The decennial chapters then unite and add


8Wassily Leontieff, and others, Studies in the Structure of
the American Economy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955),
pp. 20-22.





J


.1 ,.-.: w










detail to the qualitative and quantitative structure of Florida's

economic development.

Essentially then, the decennial chapters will bring together

a quantitative economic framework and descriptive Florida history; with

emphasis on the conditioning institutional background, specific econ-

omic factors, and economic sectors. Galbraith has written that "the

marriage of economics and history produces a hybrid which regularly
combines the the inadequacies of both." He then proceeds to consum-

mate such a marriage by reconsidering the "contemporary myth" of the

economic and financial history of the Civil War--and the post-war
effects on the economy of the South. Galbraith's marriage of econ-

omics and history might be termed a trial marriage. He tried Keynesian

economics out on Southern history and the hybrid should be no surprise.
In broader terms, however, there is no economics without

history; economics without history is wholly inadequate. But this

paper does not attempt to marry economics and history. Its aim is

much more modest; it is an attempt to bring out some relationships of

patterned economic data against a background of descriptive and

interpretive Florida history. To this end a rough and ready pattern
will be employed in structuring the treatment of each decennial period.

Each decade will be treated under three major headings. The

first heading will be titled "Institutional Background." It will draw


John Kenneth Galbraith, The Liberal Hour (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1960), p. 5.






J









largely on secondary sources which relate to the political, social and

economic history of Florida, either directly or through pertinent
history of the South. The second major heading will be titled

"Economic Factors." Under this heading will normally be subheads of

population, including migration and labor; of land, including public

lands and reclamation; and of capital, including banking and property
valuation. The area covered by the subhead of population will receive

relatively detailed treatment, including some analytical manipulation,
and some data will be presented in the other areas. The third major

heading will be titled "Economic Sectors" and this will normally in-

clude a breakdown of the labor force into some seven or more indus-

trial sectors, based on the estimates of Part II. An attempt will be

made to portray Florida's economic development within this quantitative

framework by integrating the institutional background and economic

factors with additional material on the substantive makeup of the sev-

eral industrial sectors.10

In outlining the institutional background of Florida's devel-
opment, and in discussing some of the economic factors in this devel-

opment, considerable emphasis will be given to the content of the

messages of the Florida governors to their respective legislatures.


10This all seems rather formidable. But, to paraphrase the
author of a recent book review, we need to convey a sense of the
uniqueness of Florida, the smell of it. Walter C. Neale, The Journal
of Economic History, XXL (March, 1961), 107. And the smell of it is
a compound of the manifold and transient aromas of a specific time
period. So, for each decade, we compound some of the varied and
diverse ingredients which seem to have shaped the economic develop-
ment of Florida.





.J











They provide a useful summary of the development of many Florida

institutions. Their format is rather stable and helps mirror the

changing outlook of the several governors to the changing problems of

the state (in some instances, the unchanged outlook to the unchanged

problems). It is recognized that there is bias in these executive

messages, both executive and personal bias; and other sources, such as

the general histories of Florida will be depended upon to reduce this

bias. Discounting executive bias and the tendency to self-justifica-

tion, a study of this series of messages impresses one with the per-

manency of certain aspects of Florida's growth and the recurrent themes

which pervade it.11

It appears pertinent to consider briefly why and how the

governors' messages reflect the economic and political history of

Florida. Perhaps an underlying hypothesis can be adapted from Rich-

ard Hofstadter. In American Political Tradition, he employs a series

of twelve biographical essays to analyze the political development of



11In order to retain the flavor of the times, many quotations
(frequently brief phrases) are taken from the messages of the several
governors. Each such quotation is identified in the text by the name
of the governor and the year of the message. Since each of these
messages is short, is topically arranged, and is published in several
sources--it seems pointless to employ footnotes to cite page numbers
and sources. The House and Senate Journals for the corresponding years
were the sources usually employed and quotations can readily be ver-
ified therein.
The division of the Governors' messages into groups by decennial
periods presents a minor problem. Since a gubernatorial message de-
livered, for example, in 1891 reflects conditions in the state during
the two preceding years, 1889 and 1890, it is somewhat arbitrarily
determined that generally the message of 1891, and comparably placed
years in other decades, will be included in the chapter on the prior
decade, in this case the 1880's.


__ ~__









the nation in terms of the men who made notable contributions to it.12

He dealt with these men in their capacity as leaders of popular thought.

In effect, he concluded that these leaders generally conformed to

guidance of popular thought and he stressed the need for emphasizing

the common climate of American opinion. In this study the sixteen

Florida governors of the period covered will be accepted as the most

generally authentic contemporary voice of popular thought. As a by-

product, with more advantage than disadvantage, each of these period

spokesmen is voicing the common opinion in the same frame of refer-

ence; to the extent that a pervasive mood develops--through the con-

tinuity of the executive-to-legislative tone and perspective.

The governors of Florida have, without exception, placed con-

siderable stress on the economic development of Florida; in words if

not always in action. Generally, during the period covered, each

governor served one term of four years and delivered two messages to

the legislature; the first usually in the April following his November

election and the second two years later, about mid-term. After 1885 they

were not eligible for immediate re-election and their messages gener-

ally appear to reflect their desires to establish a statesman-like

stance on the stage of Florida history. Commonly, they advocated

economic, political, and social reforms somewhat in advance of their

acceptability to the state legislature. Normally, in view of their

brief tenure, they were limited in effective advocacy to issues com-

patible with the current climate of public opinion. In general, the


12(New York: Vintage Books, 1948).




j










governors appear to have been more responsive to the democratic will

of the people than were the legislatures; but this must be qualified

to the extent that the governors are largely judged by their words

and the legislatures by their actions.

In using this series of some thirty-five gubernatorial messages

(including extra sessions) to reflect the institutional background to

Florida's economic development, it is thus my hypothesis (descriptive

not explanatory) that they are a rather accurate reflection of the

contemporary attitudes of Floridians to economic development. Not

only did the campaign promises of the successful candidate have to be

generally acceptable to the electorate; afterwards the governor could

translate these political promises into statesman-like transmissions

to the legislature which largely removed the dross of the campaign to

give specific proposals for legislative action. In support of this

hypothesis, Doyle, in his thorough work on Florida government, wrote

that governors' messages "reflect, as does no other source, the

economic and political history of Florida."13

It may be argued that excessive attention has been paid to the

role of the state government in respect to the economic development of

Florida; and that not enough attention has been devoted to the under-

lying economic factors operating in the private economy. This criticism

is accepted, in part.14 More attention could well be devoted to the


13Wilson K. Doyle, and others, The Government and Administra-
tion of Florida (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1954), p. 66.

14Although economic activity in the private sector vastly
exceeds that in the public sector, one might counter that it is only










latter area. It is considered, however, that the priorities dictated

first, a reasonably detailed presentation of the institutional back-

ground and second, the development of some consistent quantitative

measures of Florida's economic development. From this base further

progress is possible; without it further progress is difficult. And

essentially, the scope of this study is concentrated on the develop-

ment of this base. Further to buttress this emphasis on institutional

background one might cite Joseph A. Schumpeter who bases his prefer-

ence for the study of economic history on three grounds:

First, the subject matter of economics is essentially a unique
process in historic time. Nobody can hope to understand the econ-
omic phenomena of any, including the present, epoch who has not
an adequate command of historical facts and an adequate amount of
historical sense or of what may be described as historical exper-
ience. Second, the historical report can not be purely economic
but must inevitably reflect also "institutional" facts that are not
purely economic: therefore it affords the best method for under-
standing how economic and non-economic fact are related to one
another and how the various social sciences should be related to
one another. Third, it is, I believe, the fact that most of the
fundamental errors currently committed in economic analysis are
due to lack of historical experience more often than to any other
shortcoming of the economist's equipment.15












through the public sector and its related institutions that society
as a whole can affect the course of economic development.

15As quoted in a brochure of the Columbia University Graduate
School. The source in Schumpeter's writings is not identified.


I-' I M e














CHAPTER II


HISTORICAL OVERVIEW


General


The purpose of this chapter is to present, in summary fashion,

the historical background--and some of the foreground--of Florida's

economic development from 1870 to 1930. It will provide an essential

backdrop for the following chapter which presents an overview of

Florida's economic development in terms of quantitative change in key

economic variables. The chapter draws on the institutional content of

the series of chapters which deal with each decennial period as a

structural unit of the over-all period. The second section of this

chapter will briefly consider the major events of the period and their

influence on Florida's economic development. The third section will

attempt a summarization of the major themes of the period as they

impinged on economic development.

First, however, a note on the pre-history of the period may be

useful. Since there is no end in tracing historical antecedents,

discussion of pre-1870 developments is arbitrarily kept to a minimum.

Ante-bellum Florida is generally described as a plantation economy based

upon the institution of slavery. After the War military rule prevailed

until 1868 and the subsequent Reconstruction under civil control con-

tinued to 1877, based on the 1868 Constitution. Reconstruction was









a trying period for Florida, as for the other Southern states. Florida

was what would now be termed an underdeveloped area, was faced with

extensive post-war adjustments, and was in the midst of a major social
upheaval.

Some comment as to the effect of the Civil War on the economic
development of the South generally is probably indicated. Perhaps the

extreme "liberal" view is that:

After a hundred years, the South has not entirely got over
the habit of attributing its economic misfortunes to the Civil
War and the aftermath--an attribution for which there is no
supporting evidence
This allegation seems somewhat less pertinent to Florida than to the

South generally but nevertheless Florida was a more active participant

in the war than is sometimes realized: engagements were fought on its

territory; its major ports were occupied; and it was a most important

source of supplies, notably salt and cattle.2

Galbraith argues that Civil War financing through borrowing
did not have serious post-war consequences since:

The confederate bonds that became worthless were the claims
of those who had supplied savings to repayment with interest out
of later public revenues. They weren't repaid, which meant that
the revenue remained with other persons for other use.3

1John Kenneth Galbraith, The Liberal Hour (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1960), p. 3.
2Though few would subscribe to Dacy's statement relative to
keeping the supply lines open: "It is common knowledge that the Civil
War might have ended several years earlier than it did except for the
stirring and brilliant victory at the Battle of Olustee" in
Florida. George H. Dacy Four Centuries of Florida Ranching (St. Louis:
Britt Printing Co., 1940;, p. 56.

5Galbraith, p. 90.





1










As to real capital, Galbraith argues that: "The physical capital of
the South suffered, but the impression of enduring harm must be squared

with the rapid rebuilding." He cites recent West German recovery as

an example of the ambiguous impact of war on an economy--even to the

loser. An obvious rebuttal to the pertinence of this example would

question its relevance in comparing situations so far removed in time

and space--and culture. Moreover the United States appears to have

been more magnanimous in aiding in the economic reconstruction of

a defeated Germany than a defeated South. Of the post-war period

Woodward writes: "No sooner had the Southerners returned to Washing-

ton and presented their internal improvement bills, however, than they

were informed that the Great Barbecue was over and that they were too

late."4

To continue Galbraith's argument, he refers to the "mystical

destruction of the capital of the South" represented by some four

billion dollars worth of wealth in the form of slaves.5 He states:


4C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877 1913
(Louisiana State University Press, 1951), p. 50.
5The 1870 U.S. Census notes: "The great reduction in the
assessed values of personal property in the Southern States since 1860
is, in the main, due to the emancipation of the human chattels which,
at the Eighth Census, formed so large a portion of the wealth of those
States." (Vol. 5, p. 7) The assessed value of Florida real estate
went down from some $21.7 to $20.2 million from 1860 to 1870 but the
assessed value of personal property went down from $47.2 to 142.3
million in that period. Total assessed valuation went down from $68.9
to $32.5 million but "true valuation according to the Census esti-
mates, only decreased from $73.1 to $44.2 million. (Ibid., p. 21)







A


, li, -










None of this makes sense by any modern view. The capital
in the slaves was not destroyed. It was transferred from planta-
tion owner to freedmen, and there was social loss only so far as
the labor produced by the latter was less efficient.6

Summarizing, Galbraith writes:

It would seem possible that the South was in a bad way before
the war--that it had, in fact, an obsolescent agrarian economy
in which poverty was disguised by slavery and the power, prestige
and income of a considerable ruling class on which all attention
centered.
We may go on to speculate as to why industry came later to
this part of the country. Perhaps it was a late start in which
slavery played a part. Perhaps it was an accident of commerce
routes and geography and the course of immigration. There are
many possible reasons, and among them the war would seem to be
among the least.7

Foregoing is the economic argument of Galbraith. He is attacking the

"folklore" explanation of the supposedly deleterious effects of the

Civil War on the economic development of the South. But preceding

this attack he presents an hypothesis as to how this historical mis-

understanding came about. In summary he defines a "great historical

event" as one which "changes people or, more precisely, the way they

think, so that they are never the same again"; and as one giving

"deep sorrow, fear, or pain to a large majority of the people."

He postulates the Civil War as the greatest historical event influ-

encing the United States in the last century, not excluding both world

wars and the depression of the 1950's. He writes that in the Confed-

eracy "the trauma of war and its aftermath was profound" and that such

events change people and thus the course of history.8


6Galbraith, p. 90.

Ibid., p. 92.

BIbid., pp. 79-82.











Galbraith's economic argument minimizes the direct effects of

the Civil War on the subsequent economic development of the South. But

Galbraith himself, in the preceding paragraph, advances a hypothesis

which emphasizes the direct effects of the Civil War in changing the

way people think "so that they are never the same again." If one

subscribes to the theory that the way people think has a vital bearing

on the nature of the development of their economy it appears that

Galbraith, in minimizing the direct economic effects of the Civil War,

may have tended to ignore the indirect economic effects--conceivably

more important. Naturally an economist prefers to isolate the econ-

omic factors and demonstrate their operation. Untangling indirect

effects is difficult and in large part impossible. Yet they cannot

be ignored.

This is not to say that Galbraith's attack on the conviction

"that the war put a permanent blight on the fortunes of the entire

region" was not justified. In fact, one might argue that the economic

consequences of the Civil War were, in the long run, quite the con-

trary; that the Civil War acted to eliminate blighting institutions

and blighting ways of thought; that the economic consequences of the

war were, in the net, beneficial to the economic development of the

South.










Major Events


The major event of the 1870's was the transition from the

Reconstruction period to the Redemption period; from Republican

control to Democratic control; from an effort to base political control

on control of the masses to political control based on economic power.

The Reconstruction period from the Constitution of 1868 to 1876 was

not as radical in Florida as in many southern states and the reaction

under the Redemptionists was not as severe. The moderate nature of

this transition is brought out in detail in Chapter IV. As continues

to be the case, the successors to political power found they could not

eradicate all the changes brought about by their predecessors. They

were forced to build in large part on the inherited foundation. But

on this foundation they made major changes in the relationship of

state government to the controlling economic classes.

The major event of the 1880's was the vast expansion in rail-

road transportation. At this time in Florida's economic development,

transportation was the key. The land existed and potential migrants

existed; only transportation could bring them together. But trans-

portation was not a free costless good. The people, through the state

government, spent millions of acres of public land--more than half the

land area of Florida--to buy this transportation network. And they

bought more than transportation; they bought access to markets and

access to raw materials and they bought expansion in every industrial

sector. They bought the migration wave which quadrupled the net migra-

tion of the preceding decade in absolute terms; and almost tripled






20


it in terms of percentage of end population.

The major event of the 1890's is more difficult to specify.

Perhaps three should be named. In the political area the populist

movement, in all of its ramifications, did not attain political suprem-

acy but it did attack the linkage between economic power and political

power and pave the way for progressive ascendancy in the following

decade. In the physical world the great freezes of the 1890's drove

the locus of citrus production a hundred miles to the south; a disaster

at the time but one which had major implications for economic develop-

ment. In the international area the Spanish-American War gave great

impetus to Florida's economic development. Immediately, it doubled

the capacity--not the mileage--of Florida's transportation network and

stimulated a valuable cash flow for agricultural products, again with

a shift of locus to the south. As the mounting out and staging area

for Cuba, the War brought troops and fame to Florida; probably the major

causal factor behind the migration wave of the following decade.

The major event of the 1900's in the political area was the
ascendancy of the Progressive wing of the Democratic party; a liberal-

izing and liberating influence. Initiated in many respects by Gov-

ernor Jennings, but centering on Governor Broward and his immediate

successors, the progressive era and spirit may be assigned a major

causal role in Florida's economic expansion. As detailed in Chapter VII,

Broward's ideas in some respects were ahead of Florida's absorptive

capacity at the time but served to break new mental ground at least.

And in the field of reclamation, for example, he broke new physical






J











ground, as later detailed. In the economic area we have already

ascribed to the Spanish-American War a major causal role for the

migration wave of the 1900's. But the progressive spirit and the

physical fact that large reclamation projects were being undertaken

can also claim a contributing role in almost tripling the absolute net

migration of the prior decade; and almost doubling net migration in

terms of percentage of end population.

The major event of the 1910's, in influencing Florida's econ-

omic growth, was World War I; both directly and through its ramifica-

tions. During the early part of the decade Florida was, by some meas-

ures, experiencing a retrogression. Forestry which had made a rela-

tively small contribution to Florida's development of itself, became

a declining industry in the 1910's. But raw materials from the for-

estry sector constituted about half of the raw materials going into

Florida's manufactured products, including some principal export prod-

ucts. The war stimulated manufactures in these products and changed

net losses for the first half of the decade to large gains for the

entire decade. A major new industry, steel ship and boat building,

was a transient war-time phenomenon but produced secondary beneficial

effects. Analagous to the effect of the Spanish-American War in the

production of a migration wave in the 1900's, it is considered that

World War I played a major role in producing a migration wave in the

1920's. The magnitudes of increase were almost identical as between

the 1890's and 1900's as contrasted with the relationship of the 1910's

and the 1920's. Net migration in the 1920's almost tripled that of










the preceding decade, in absolute terms; and almost doubled the pre-

ceding decade in terms of percentage of end population.

Among the main events of the 1920's, we may perhaps identify

the boom and bust of mid-decade and the advent of the great depres-

sion of the 1950's at the end of the decade. Florida experienced a

net migration during this decade which, in absolute terms, approxi-

mated the net migration of all five prior decades; some 557,700 net

in-migrants in the 1920's as compared with some 550,700 in the five

preceding decades. It seems probable that this large influx of the

1920's, which totaled 25 per cent of Florida's 1930 population, was

a major factor in bringing about the boom of mid-decade through press

ure on usable land and available facilities. Heretofore, substantial

migration waves in the 1880's and 1900's had largely been absorbed

in moving the frontier southward. In the 1920's, however, we find

that the cantering urbanization of prior decades was now at full

gallop with an urban rate of increase of 115 per cent from 355,500

in 1920 to 759,880 in 1950. One of the concomitants of urbanization

in Florida was diversification. Florida was doubly fortunate in

also experiencing increasing diversification in the agricultural

sector. Among the major sectors in Florida in 1950, about one-fourth

of the labor force was engaged in agriculture, about one-fourth in

manufacturing, about one-fourth in trade and transportation, and about

one-fourth in services. The diversification of Florida's economy in

the 1920's, following the pattern of earlier decades, aided Florida

greatly in reducing to some degree the rigors of the ensuing depres-

sion.










In the foregoing section, some of the major events of the

period have been briefly discussed in reference to their impact on

Florida's economic development. The rather heroic generalizations

involved are given some detail, depth, and qualification in the

chapters related to each decade. This will also be true for the

following section in which we briefly consider some of the major

themes relating to Florida's growth; primarily as distilled from

gubernatorial messages.


Major Themes

General

Abbey concisely writes that "the entire economic struggle of

Florida from Ponce de Leon to the present has been the conquest of

. poor communications, sparse population, and undrained lands."9

Communications was largely a problem of entrepreneurship, capital,

and technology; population was a problem of inducing immigration; and

the undrained lands posed financial and technical problems, compli-

cated by the problem of public land utilization or disposal. To a

considerable degree, Florida used one problem to help solve the

others. Public lands were used to entice the capital to build the

communications to bring in the migrants. Thus a major theme running

through this period concerns the attitude of the state toward these

various factors of production.


9Abbey, p. 345.





J










Another major theme of this period relates to the availabil-

ity and use of state resources, other than land, to promote economic

development. This mainly concerned state finance and state regulatory

power, with frequent relationships between them. State finance in

Florida was primarily concerned with the nature, magnitude, and fair-

ness of taxes with the economical use of state revenues for state

objectives, and with the subject of state and local government debt.

The state objectives, other than those inherent in the preced-

ing themes, could be taken as a separate major theme. The development

of the common schools and the state institutions of higher learning

constituted a very large investment in the human capital of Florida.

Common schools were primarily funded at the local level but the state

exercised the ultimate control over both funding and operations.

Among the ameliorative type institutions, the penal system was a

recurrent theme which pervaded the gubernatorial messages for the

entire period.

The last of the major themes, which could be given some

attention here, is related to control of the state. Of interest here

would be the relationship of economic power to political power. This

of course brings in questions of suffrage, election procedures, appor-

tionment, and lobbying. Florida's governors devoted much attention to

these questions in their several messages. They constitute a theme of

very considerable import in relation to the economic development of

Florida.

The remainder of this section sunnarizes some of the high-

lights of the first of these major themes, based on more detailed









treatment in the series of chapters on each decade.10 Detailed treat-

ment of some of the more peripheral areas has had to be curtailed or

omitted to reduce the bulk of this study. Among these areas are those

dealing with public education, the ameliorative institutions, and the

issue of political control of the state as a function of economic

power and as a measure of democracy.


State Attitudes

Population.--There seems to be correlation of sorts between the

state attitude to population increase, as expressed in gubernatorial

messages, and the magnitude of immigration. The Reconstruction gover-

nors pressed heavily for immigration measures and spoke optimistically

about the success of their efforts, despite laggard legislatures and

some lack of public interest. Governor Harrison Reed claimed an influx

of 40,000 migrants between 1868 and 1871 and, in 1875, Governor Marcellus

L. Stearns noted a general increase and looked hopefully forward to a

population of one million by 1900; a goal only half met by that date

and not achieved until 1920.

It seems likely that the transition from Reconstruction to

Redemption in 1877 tended to slow down the influx of migrants into

Florida until after 1880. The Redemption governors still pressed to

promote immigration but the legislators responded sluggishly--if at all.

In the 1880's, Governor William D. Bloxham and Governor Edward A. Perry

continued to move for action to increase immigration. The Department

of Immigration of 1870 had died and had been succeeded by a Bureau of

10Thus the sources for statements in this section are to be
found in these later chapters, unless otherwise cited.





4










Immigration in 1879; followed in turn by a voluntary "Florida Immi-

gration Association" in 1887 and then by another Bureau of Immigration--

headed by the governor and directly financed by a one-eighth mill prop-

erty tax. The Bloxham sale to Hamilton Disston in 1881 had multiple

objectives, not the least of which was to remove major road-blocks to

immigration.

As a result of many and complex causal factors, immigration

in the 1880's greatly exceeded that in the 1870's. The 1890's, how-

ever, brought a large decline in immigration. This may have been due

in part to the yellow fever epidemics in the late 1880's, which forced

an extra session of the legislature, and which undoubtedly were well

publicized in the nation. The gubernatorial messages of the 1890's

also demonstrated an unusual disinterest in specific action to promote

immigration. Cyclical migration waves, which were thus given the

pattern of a low in the 1870's, a high in the 1880's, and a low in the

1890's, continued in this pattern for the rest of the period. The in-

fluence of the Spanish-American War and World War I on migration are

credited in the preceding section on major events. The fortuitous

timing of these wars, however and moreover, may have greatly reinforced

the hypothesized cyclical effect, at least in amplitude.11



lln a study of the California experience between 1900 and
1950, Gordon discusses the timing of migration waves in relation to
population growth. While not necessarily concluding that these waves
are cyclical (in the sense of being self-generating), Gordon does point
to the possibility that unusually high migration in one period will
be followed by a period of absorption "before economic conditions are
favorable for a new influx of migrants." In Florida, these periods
seem to have assumed the character of decennial periods in timing and










State attitudes toward inducing immigration were generally

favorable in the decade of the 1900's; Governors Napoleon B. Broward

and Albert W. Gilchrist advocating advertising campaigns and

Gilchrist advocating free transportation for intending settlers.

The advent of the Progressive era also brought with it more concern for

the welfare of the population. Such areas as child labor, arbitration

of labor disputes, employee safety provisions, and employer's liability

became the subject of frequent gubernatorial proposals.

This concern continued on into the 1910's and in 1919 Governor

Sidney J. Catts suggested that union labor had asserted sufficient power,

in bringing the eight-hour day to the railroads, to warrant treatment of

union labor as part of the great body politic. Not much action was taken

in respect to inducing migration during the 1910's. Governor Park

Trammell proposed a rather trifling Settler's Act and Catts, at the end

of the decade, proposed that a special train loaded with Florida products

tour the nation to advertize Florida. This decade, generally, appears

to have been a period of absorption. There was, however, a violent

change in the racial composition of immigration. This is detailed

in the decade chapter but, essentially, white immigration increased

substantially while colored immigration virtually stopped. Within the

state, there was a very moderate shifting about of the white popula-

tion among the counties in the net but a violent internal movement



duration but it is suspected that their character would have been
greatly modified if the wars had been otherwise timed. See Margaret
S. Gordon, Emplyment Expansion and Population Growth (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1954), p. 147.










of the colored population. The explanation for this departure from

prior migration patterns is largely to be found in the increasing

racial tensions which, both logically and paradoxically, accompanied

the Progressive era. Some details are provided in the racial aspects

section of the chapter on the 1900's. The tensions had reached the

point where Broward, in 1907, was seriously proposing colonization

of the Negro; an idea which Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln had enter-

tained in their times.

The state attitude toward population increase in the 1920's

was more concerned with how to provide facilities, governmental and

otherwise, for the vast in-migration than with trying to induce more.

Not that more people were not desired but natural forces appeared to

have taken control of that problem. The temper of the times is well

illustrated in the following quotations from a book by Stockbridge and

Perry, published in 1926 but completed in 1925. Governor John W.

Martin wrote the foreword which congratulated the authors on their

"monumental work," noting that they had gone below the surface of events.

Starting with the premise that Florida land had sold for 25 cents per

acre in 1880 when the population of Florida was only one-quarter of a

million, the authors pointed out that the population in 1925 was five

times as great and the same land was selling for 700 dollars per acre.

They then asked this rhetorical question: "What will it be worth when

the population of Florida is again multiplied by five?"12 It is perhaps


1'Frank Parker Stockbridge and John Holliday Perry, Florida
in the Making (New York: The de Bower Publishing Co., 1926), p. Xvi.










technically unfair to the authors to extrapolate the implications of

this question in mathematical terms but, if the same proportions held,

Florida land would sell for a tidy 1,960,000 dollars per acre. The

authors quote former Governor Cary A. Hardee to the effect that nowhere

else can land be found "that will produce, with careful, industrious

and intelligent cultivation, crops of a net value of from $200 to $1000

per acre, that can still be bought at from $50 to $200 per acre."13

In a concluding vision the authors write that Florida' s boom has only

begun and that: ,

Long before the middle of the twentieth century Florida is
destined to be one of the three or four most densely populated
states in the Union, with at least ten million permanent in-
habitants and a winter population of as many more.14

Actually, the population of Florida in 1950 was about 2,771,300.

Land.--The land problems of Florida antedated the Reconstruc-

tionists. Public lands had been used to provide a reserve to guarantee

the payment of railroad bonds before the Civil War. The Reconstruction

governors inherited the land problem and then they aggravated it. When

the Redeemers took power there was no essential change in the policy

to use land to subsidize railroads and canals on the basis of public

necessity. Bloxham cleared the title on state lands in 1881, in the

manner described on page 133, and the state then really entered the

subsidization business. A minor hitch developed in 1887 when Perry

found that the national government was not patenting lands to the



13Ibid., p. 48.

14'bid., p. 298.










state as fast as the legislature was granting them to the railroads.

Less than 2 million acres of state public lands had been disposed of

prior to 1881; but by 1888 the figure had reached about 16 million acres.

This was from a total state land area of about 55 million acres. By

1891, the state had claimed an additional 6 million acres in addition

to the 16 million already patented by the federal government; which

had been largely disposed of to the railroads. Of the more than

22 million acres claimed by the state it has been estimated by Dau, as

cited later, that about 10 million acres were falsely claimed in that

the land did not meet the technical qualifications in the basic federal

law.

Land reclamation efforts were launched by Bloxham in the 1880's

but large scale operations awaited the planning of Governor William S.

Jennings and implementation by Broward and his successors. The key

role of Broward in the drainage of the Everglades is well detailed, as

cited later, in Proctor's biography of Broward. The vicissitudes of

Everglades drainage are too complex to summarize readily. In 1927,

Governor Martin was proposing a $20 million bond issue to complete the

project but by 1931 Dovernor Doyle E. Carlton had tapped the federal

till for a $7 million contribution to be matched by $2 million from the

Drainage District. Taking a broad view, it appears that the acres of

land reclaimed by Everglades drainage were less important in the long

run than the impetus all this activity and publicity gave to the develop-

ment of South Florida in general.

Capital.--State attitudes to capital growth in Florida were

analagous to those relative to population growth, and the two were










frequently coupled. A specified purpose of immigration pamphlets was

to "attract the capitalists of the North"; as well as immigrants.

The public lands, themselves, were a prime capital resource to be spent

for social overhead capital and, conceptually only, for human capital.

The close linkage between population and capital formation is empha-

sized by Kuznets.15

The story of how the public lands were spent is told elsewhere.

However wastefully, they did bring about capital formation in Florida--

and the conditions for more capital formation. The decade chapters

give scattered statistics which indicate the general growth of banking

in Florida. During this period, banks were the primary financial in-

termediary in bringing about capital formation. In 1874, there was

only one national bank in Florida; in 1884, there were three; and in

1889, there were thirteen, with deposits of $2,352,000. In 1885, there

was only one state bank in Florida and there was no state banking law

until 1889.

In 1881, Bloxham proposed a constitutional amendment to tfept

capital by exempting new manufacturing operations from taxation for a

period of five or ten years. In 1893, Governor Henry L. Mitchell warned

against unfriendly legislation which would repel "foreign" (out of state)

capital. A glance at the bank deposits for that year, in comparison with

the immediately preceding years, provided some cause for Mitchell's alarm.



15Simon Kuznets, Capital in the American Economy: Its Forma-
tion and Financing (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961),
p. 327.










In 1905, Jennings noted that Florida had enjoyed the largest capital

increment in the South in the lumber industry during the prior five

year period, but he gave no source for this data. Jennings also noted

that in terms of physical railroad capital, Florida had more mileage

per capital than any other state; this, of course, not without problems

relating to railroad solvency.

In 1905, Broward was quite concerned about the drain on money

capital by out-of-state life insurance companies, a drain he estimated

as a net loss equivalent to a ten mill tax on the assessed value of

all Florida property. He proposed that the state go into the life

insurance business, and he reiterated this proposal in 1907. By 1910,

Florida's 154 state banks had deposits exceeding $17 million and the

45 national banks in Florida had deposits of about $26 million. For

the fiscal year ending June 50, 1910, there were about 1,500 corpor-

ations in Florida with a combined capital stock of $138 million and

indebtedness of $91 million. The net income of these corporations

for the fiscal year approached $9 million.

The 1920's were characterized by heavy public investment by

Florida's counties and municipalities. It is somewhat incongruous to

see the governors of Florida congratulating the state upon its splen-

did financial condition, lack of bonded indebtedness, and the immunity

of the state to loss of funds through bank failures, at the very same

time they were bemoaning the opposite attributes of those mere crea-

tures of the state--the political subdivisions of the state. Not that

the governors were not concerned and did not propose safeguards.










Hardee suggested as a minimum criteria that improvements funded by

bonds be as long-lived as the bonds, surely not an unreasonable

minimum. Martin, from the vantage point of 1927, called for a stop

to the wholesale issuing of bonds by counties and municipalities.

Though state finances "were never on a sounder basis" he noted that

Florida local governments had in 1925 issued some 35 per cent of all

bonds issued in the nation.

In 1925, Martin had declared that "Florida needs capital and

must have it"--along with the requisite labor force. Thus he urged

that "no statute should be enacted inimical to either." In 1927, he

was not dismayed by the current interruption and consequent necessary

readjustments. After all, he reported, millions of dollars of capital

had come into the state and large acreages of Florida land had been

sold for "splendid prices."

In 1929, Carlton acknowledged progress in the boom period,

citing an advance of 1000 per cent in public improvement in ten years,

but sternly warned of the cost yet to be paid. Carlton also declared

for the encouragement of industrial development; and resurrected

Bloxham's 1881 proposal for tax remission for new industries, subject

to a proviso that the new industries not be competitive with existing

state industries.

Any discussion of capital formation in Florida, however limited,

would be remiss if it did not mention the introduction of large amounts

of money capital by wealthy individuals who made Florida their new home--

or a second home. One must presume that normal investment considerations










largely governed the application of these funds to projects within the

state. However the motivations for coming to the state, while largely

unknown and probably complex, appear to have been based in part on

such considerations as personal health and climatic appeal.16 It is

also probable that there was an agglomerative effect based on the herd

instincts of society and wealth. To mention a few of these individ-

uals, Martin credits Flagler with having spent about $50 million in

Florida, primarily derived from a multi-million dollar fortune accum-

ulated prior to his arrival in 1885 at the age of 55.17 Abbey states

that "Flagler spent money in Florida, while Plant made money."18 It is

noted, however, that Plant had extensive holdings before his Florida

operations and his biographer cites a periodical of the late 1890's

which states that he employed more men in the operation of the South-

ern and Texas Express Companies than he did in his twelve railway

corporationa.19

16For example, Abbey quotes Flagler as stating: "I made a
careful survey of the situation, calculated upon the prospects and
concluded to take advantage of the opportunity, and we who made early
investments have proved the faith in our own judgment." See Abbey,
p. 557. But Martin, Flagler's biographer, writes (possibly in a dif-
ferent context): "The entire scheme seemed to be essentially a hobby.
Sustaining this hobby, too, was another motive. He regarded
furnishing large numbers of persons with employment as the highest
form of charity." Sidney Walter Martin, Florida's Flagler (Athenst
The University of Georgia Press, 1949), p. 115. The motivation sug-
gested by Abbey would appear more appropriate in a properly function-
ing democratic capitalistic society.
17Ibid., p. 202.
1Abbey, p. 557.
19G. Hutchinson Smyth, The Life of Henry Bradley Plant
(New Yorks G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), p. 154.





ii











There are many others who could be named. On the West Coast,

the Ringling family took up residence in the early 1910's and by 1925

John Ringling was reportedly worth $100 million--on paper; some por-

tions of which remained permanently invested in Florida.20 In the

Miami area Carl Graham Fisher poured a fortune into the development of

Miami Beach, according to the biography by his wife which probably

tends to exaggerate his achievements somewhat.21 A relative new-

comer to the Florida scene was Alfred I. duPont who had a block of

duPont stock with a market value of about $120 million prior to the

stock market crash in late 1929.22 Operating from Jacksonville, he

was a stabilizing influence in Florida finance, especially during the

critical period between 1926 and 1950. His investments in real estate

only amounted to about $1 million in urban property and $1 million in

land but his major role was in creating the largest banking system in

the state, and one with ample reserves. Total deposits in the duPont

chain of banks at the end of 1950 were over $27 million.23 This was

during a period when over 80 Florida banks closed.24 Patrick has writ-

ten that the depression was not as severe in Florida as in other states



20Henry Ringling North and Alden Hatch, The Circus Kings
(Garden Citys Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1960), p. 197.

21Jane Fisher, Fabulous Hoosiert A Story of American Achieve-
ment (New York: Robert M. McBride and Co., 1947).

22Marquis James, Alfred I. duPont: The Family Rebel (New York:
The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1941), p. 422.

25Ibid., p. 448.

24Ibid., p. 450.










and one might conjecture that this preliminary stabilizing operation

may well have been a major contributing factor to reducing the severity

of the depression.25 Many other names could be mentioned, perhaps

ranging down from the sublimely wealthy to their bamboozlers, the

legendary Mizners.26 But this chapter must now give way to one which

presents a quantitative summary of the period.
































25Rembert W. Patrick, Florida Under Five Flags (rev. ed.,
Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1955), p. 95.

26The title of a book by Alva Johnson, The Legendary Mizners
(New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953); a colorful account of
Palm Beach in the 1920's.














CHAPTER III


QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW


General


In the later chapters of Part I, each decade will be treated

as a structural unit of the total period. In these later chapters,

economic sectors and economic factors will be presented against the

institutional background of the times. Inevitably, there must be

compromise between a topical and a chronological arrangement. In

these later chapters the topical is subordinated to the chronological.

This overview chapter attempts some treatment of the whole period to

outline the quantitative framework of the following chapters. It may

thus help to provide a general perspective of the period in terms of

a few economic variables; both in absolute terms and in terms relative

to the nation and selected states.

The key economic variable in this study is labor force, for

reasons presented in the chapter on methodology. For our immediate

purposes, the key role of labor force as a measure of economic growth

is illustrated in the following diagram. On the supply side, labor

force and average workweek changes determine labor input changes.

Labor input and productivity changes provide a measure of economic

growth in terms of total output. On the demand side, labor force

and average wage changes determine labor income changes. Labor income


37










and property income changes provide a measure of economic growth in

terms of total income. The common ingredient is thus labor force

change which can be considered as determined by population and by

labor force participation rate changes. Population changes are then

resolvable into natural increase and migration.


LABOR INCOME PROPE


AVERAGE
WACE


Fig. l.--Key Role of Labor Force in Measurement of Economic Growth.


Florida's economic growth in absolute terms is simply presented.

To effectively present its growth relative to that of other states

and the nation, however, a statistical method known as the shift tech-

nique is employed. The relative measures of economic change thus

developed are readily understandable and do not require specific knowl-

edge of the shift technique itself (which is formally discussed in the

methodology chapter).











The choice of the other states or regions with which to compare

and contrast Florida's economic growth is a problem. One logical ap-

proach is to consider Florida in relation to the nation and to such

intermediate regions as are commonly considered to include Florida.

Even this poses questions; such as the specific states composing a

region--the outlines are always blurred. Even within a brief period

the choice is not always obvious. Over a span of six decades, the

problem increases because regional boundaries are not static. In

view of these considerations, and others, the choice of comparable

regions for the purposes of this study narrowed itself down to three

states and the nation. Georgia and Alabama were selected both as

neighboring states and as general representatives of the Deep South.

California was selected as another example of a rapid growth state

with somewhat comparable climatic conditions and a similar peripheral

coastal position relative to the nation's economic core.

The next section will deal with the population changes which

underlie labor force changes, especially the related aspects of mi-

gration, labor force participation rates, and urbanization. The third

section will consider labor force changes in several variations.

These two sections will emphasize economic change in Florida in rela-

tion to that in the nation and in the selected states. The fourth

section will then concentrate on the patterns of change in Florida

itself, both in respect to Florida's share of national change in the

several industrial sectors and in respect to what contribution these

individual sectors make to Florida's economic development and changing









economic structure. A final section will summarize some of the labor

force changes and will also introduce some wealth and personal income
comparisons. It should also be noted that somewhat more detailed
presentations of Florida's labor force changes are contained in the
series of chapters on the individual decades which follow this chapter.
Labor force estimates at the substate level are presented only in the
reference tables, as described in Part II.

Population Changes

This study focuses on labor force changes as a measure of
economic growth to a very considerable degree, for reasons stated
elsewhere. Underlying these labor force changes are changes in
population and changes in labor force participation rates, the per-
centage of the population in the labor force. Underlaying changes
in population are the factors of natural increase and migration.
The relative importance of these latter factors are set forth in
Table 1 which shows the population for each decade, the respective
numerical contributions of natural increase and net migration, a
measure of the decennial changes in rate of natural increase, and a
measure of the net migration for each decade as a percentage of the
end population of that decade. In summary, natural increase dominated
in the first three decades, net migration in the last three decades,
and net migration for the total period. The rate of natural increase
suffered a general decline over the period while the relative measure
of net migration increased in a wave-like or cyclical fashion; with





J










alternations each decade and with each successive decade higher than

the second preceding decade.1


TABLE 1

TOTAL POPULATION AND CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS


Year(s) Population Net Natural Increase Net Migration
100's Migration No. Rate %of end Pop.
100's 100's % %


1877


2695


3914


5285


7526


9685


14682


Source: Reference


144


579


429


1204


1151


3577



6884


Tables,


674


640


942


1037


1008


1620



5921


P-1 and M-1.


1Compare with the pattern of urbanization as described in a
later section. Factors relating to this cyclical pattern were dis-
cussed in Chapter II.


1870
1870's

1880
1880's

1890
1890's

1900
1900's

1910
1910's

1920
1920's

1930

Total


29.5


19.4


20.5


16.2


11.7


13.5


5.3


14.9


8.1


15.9


11.9


25.0










It is instructive to present the net migration rates for

Florida in contrast with those of the adjoining deep South states of

Georgia and Alabama, and in comparison with those of California.

Tables 2 and 5 do this in terms of the native white population and the

negro or nonwhite population. In summary, both Florida and California

had substantial in-migration rates; averaging about 160 and 245,

respectively, per thousand of native whites. Both states demonstrated

an increasing trend in rates over the period, with a temporary drop

in the 1890's. Georgia and Alabama, by contrast, had consistent out-

migration rates; averaging about 50 and 48, respectively, per thousand

of native whites over the period. There was no pronounced trend for

these two latter states over the period and, dropping one extreme

value, the out-migration rates varied between 24 and 64 for the eleven

measurements for the two states.

Nonwhite net migration figures for California are not available

but the contrast between Florida and its two neighbors for nonwhite

are rather similar to those for white population. Florida's average

in-migration of 112 per thousand would have approximated the white

average of about 160 except for low rates in the 1870's and 1910's--

periods when racial issues were boiling. The out-migration rates for

Georgia and Alabama averaged about 68 and 53 respectively; a bit higher

than for whites but not very dissimilar if the high rates in the 1920's

are discounted.

In examining these comparative net migration rates, as between

Florida and its two neighboring states, the inter-relationship between










them should be noted. It is a common generalization that (with nota-

ble exceptions) migration interchange varies inversely with distance.

To a large extent Florida's in-migrants were the out-migrants of Geor-

gia and Alabama. Out of some 277,100 native whites resident in Florida

in 1900, for example, some 185,500 were born in Florida. Of the remain-

ing 91,600, about 29,000 were born in Georgia and about 15,700 were

born in Alabama; these two states providing about one-half of the

total in-migrants. Similar figures for 1950 are 492,000 born out of

Florida; 125,700 from Georgia and 57,300 from Alabama, about 37 per

cent of the total in-migrants. It may be suspected that the decreased

percentages from 50 to 37 per cent (it was 59 per cent in 1870) repre-

sents to a large degree the influence of developments in transportation

and communication.2


TABLE 2

NET MIGRATION RATES OF NATIVE WHITES
(PER 1000 AVERAGE POPULATION)


Years Florida Georgia Alabama California


1870's 79 -59
1880's 166 -56
1890's 49 -42
1900's 156 -31
1910's 189 -24
1920's 319 -106
Summation 958 -298
Average 160 -50

Source: Lee, p. 78. The
used in deriving these figures.


-61 162
-26 183
-64 117
-38 329
-45 276
-55 400
-289 1467
-48 245

census survival method was


2These figures come from tables in Lee, p. 257.


ii










TABLE 5

NET MIGRATION RATES OF NEGROES* OR NONWHITESt
(PER 1000 AVERAGE POPULATION)


Years Florida Georgia Alabama California

1870's1 20 -40 -82
1880's+ 150 +18 -12
1890's+ 141 -53 4
19001s* 191 -18 -50
1910's* 19 -75 -90
1920's* 168 -260 -102
Summation 669 -406 -320
Average 112 -68 -55

Source: Lee, p. 78. The census survival method was
used in deriving these figures.


Although not a factor which directly affects the total popula-
tion of Florida, it may be useful to have a measure of internal migra-

tion within Florida to compare with Florida's net migration rates.
Assuming the correctness of our net migration figures for the state,
and assuming that state rates of natural increase are applicable to

the counties, it is a simple matter to compute the net migration for
each county. The algebraic sum of county net migration must neces-
sarily correspond with state net migration. However the nonalgebraic
summation provides some indication of the net internal flow of migra-
tion among the counties of Florida. This in turn provides some per-
spective in space, not only as to the county destination of net in-
migrants to the state, but also as to the ebb and flow within the
state, a significant consideration. County net migration totals,




j











as computed, are contained in reference table M-2. For our immediate

purpose we are concerned only with the summation of county net in-

migration and out-migration. These figures are presented in Table 4

and are discussed more fully in Part II. For comparative purposes,

the percentages of net internal migration and net external migration,

in terms of end population, are set forth in the table. Net internal

migration among counties consistently exceeds net migration into the

state, averaging about 22.4 per cent for the former and 15.2 per cent

for the latter over the period. This is a suggestive comparison only,

subject to the validity of the stated assumptions which have not been

tested. So much for this discussion on internal migration, which is

perhaps a digression but does serve to emphasize that population mobil-

ity has complexities that can not be measured at state borders.


TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF NET INTERNAL AND NET EXTERNAL MIGRATION
(As Percentage of End Population for Each Decade)


Net Internal Net External
Year Migration 4 Migration 4

1870-80 15.0 5.3
1880-90 25.3 14.9
1890-00 17.0 8.1
1900-10 21.7 15.9
1910-20 26.6 11.9
1920-30 28.7 23.0
Summation 134.3 79.1
Average 22.4 13.2

Note: Migration and population figures in 100's.

Source: Reference Tables P-l and M-5.










Now that we have some idea of the constituents of population

growth in Florida, and some conception of the relative influence of

net migration on population growth as between Florida and certain

other states, it is informative to contrast the percentage rates of

increase of total population for these states. As we see in Table 5,

Florida and California maintained percentage rates of population in-

crease above the national average in each decade of the period. Over-

all, the average rate for Florida was almost twice that of the nation

and California's rate was double the nation's. Florida and California

manifested no particular trends over the period and California's drop

in the 1890's, to about the national rate, was the most notable depar-

ture from these consistently high rates of population growth. On the

other hand, the national rate drops quite steadily over the period to

about half the starting rate--as does the rate for Alabama also.

Georgia's experience closely corresponds to that of Alabama, except

for a sharp drop in the 1920's to a negligible increase of only 1 per

cent in Georgia's population for that decade.




















j










TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE RATES OF POPULATION DECREASE


Years Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's 45 50 27 54 50
1880's 45 19 20 40 26
1890's 35 20 21 22 21
1900's 42 18 17 60 21
1910's 29 11 10 44 15
1920's 52 1 13 65 16
Summation 246 99 108 285 129
Average 41 17 18 48 22


Source: Based on U.S. Censuses. Actual population figures,
in round numbers, are used in Table 6.



Returning now to our focus on labor force we know by definition

that the labor force participation rate and the population determine

the labor force. Having considered the two major determinants of

population, and the nature of the resulting population changes, we

next examine the behavior of labor force participation rates over the

period. Table 6 sets forth the population and labor force figures for

the selected states and the nation for each decade of the period, and

the resultant computed labor force participation rates. Table 7 sum-

marizes Table 6 for ease of reference. Florida's experience was with-

in 1 per cent of that of the nation for each decade, except in 1920

when Florida jumped 2 per cent as the nation declined 3 per cent.

Georgia and Alabama started and ended with about the same participation

rates but Alabama enjoyed abnormally high rates in 1900 and 1910,











rates approaching those of California. Both Georgia and Alabama

started well above the national rate but ended at about the national

rate. California started even higher above the national rate and

closed at about the same level. Net change over the period for

Georgia, Alabama, and California was only in the 1 or 2 per cent range

while Florida and the nation, starting from much lower initial rates,

made rate gains of 9 and 8 per cent, respectively.

Kuznets reports that roughly half of the national rise in

labor force participation rates from 52 to 40 per cent between 1870

and 1950 is attributable to a relative decline in the population under

10 years of age. Other demographic factors, as well as non-demographic

factors, accounted for the remainder. Chapter II of the Kuznets book

is devoted to a discussion of the age and sex composition of the labor

force and the related changes in participation rates. Part II of this

study contains a section on labor force participation rates in Florida

counties and utilizes the age-sex-race compositional differences among

Florida counties to develop an independent series of substate labor

force estimates for each decade of the period.


SKuznets, Vol. II, p. 9.











TABLE 6

COMPUTATION OF COMPARATIVE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES


Year Factor Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870 Pop. 188 1184 997 560 586'
Labor F 61 445 565 259 125
LFPR 32 38 37 43 52

1880 Pop. 270 1542 1265 865 502
Labor F 92 598 493 377 174
LFPR 54 39 59 44 35

1890 Pop. 391 1857 1515 1215 629
Labor 157 669 542 544 227
LFPR 35 36 36 45 36

1900 Pop. 529 2216 1829 1485 760
Labor F 202 864 763 644 291
LFPR 58 39 42 43 58

1910 Pop. 753 2609 2138 2378 920
Labor F 522 1160 998 1108 382
LFPR 43 39 47 47 42

1920 Pop. 969 2896 2548 5427 1057
Labor F 385 1129 908 1513 416
LFPR 45 39 39 44 39

1930 Pop. 1486 2909 2646 5678 1228
Labor F 499 1162 1026 2501 488
LFPR 41 40 59 44 40


Notes: State Population and Labor Force figures in thousands.
*U.S. Population and Labor Force figures in 100,000's.
Labor Force Participation Rates in per cent.


Source U.S. Census for Decennial Periods.










TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES


Year Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870 32 58 57 43 32
1880 34 59 59 44 35
1890 35 36 36 45 36
1900 38 39 42 43 38
1910 43 59 47 47 42
1920 45 39 39 44 59
1930 41 40 59 44 40

Net Change
for Period +9 +2 +2 +1 +8


Source: Table 6.



Table 8 indicates the strong influence on participation

rates of the proportion of the population ten years old and older and

of the sex composition of the population, in specific relation to

Florida.

TABLE 8

FLORIDA LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES
DIFFERENTIATED BY AGE AND SEX

Year Total Population Male Population Female Population
All Ages Over 9 All Ages Over 9 All Ages Over 9

1870 32.3 46.3 53.8 77.5 10.5 15.0
1880 54.0 49.6 54.1 78.9 13.4 19.5
1890 36.8 50.9 57.3 78.8 15.0 20.8
1900 38.1 52.3 59.6 80.7 14.8 20.6
1910 42.8 57.0 63.2 83.2 20.4 27.5
1920 59.8 51.3 60.6 77.7 18.0 23.3
1930 40.8 51.0 60.9 76.1 20.5 25.7


Source
Census, 1950, p.


Adapted from Table 1 of Occupation Statistics, U.S.
337.










In Table 8, note the relatively reduced range of difference

in the participation rates for the population and over as compared

with all ages. Also note the relative stability in male rates and the

increasing trend in female rates.

Another aspect of population change has to do with the chang-

ing proportion of the population in urban and rural environments.

In 1870, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama were less than 9 per cent

urbanized, in contrast to a national level of 26 per cent and Califor-

nia's level of 57 per cent. By 1950, Florida with 52 per cent of its

population urbanized was approaching the national level of 56 per cent.

Georgia and Alabama had dropped well behind with levels of 51 and 28

per cent, respectively, while California had jumped up to 75 per cent.

Table 9 states the percentage rates of increase in urbanization for

each decade for these states and the nation to give some conception

of the varying rates and magnitudes of change over the entire period.

As a generalization which applied to Florida and Alabama exactly, and

to Georgia, California, and the nation, with exceptions, we find that

urbanization tended to come in waves, roughly corresponding to the

waves of net migration. Relatively, the 1870's, 1890's, and 1910's

were decades with low percentage rates of urban increase. The alter-

nate decades of the 1880's, 1900's, and 1920's were generally decades

of high rates of increase. Florida's average decennial rate of increase

was almost double that of Georgia and Alabama, and much higher than

that of California; but the latter, starting with a high urbanization

percentage, continued to maintain its commanding lead in percentage of

urbanization throughout the period, as shown in Table 10.











TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF URBAN PERCENTAGE RATES OF INCREASE


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's 76 45 9 77 43
1880's 188 77 122 59 56
1890's 58 35 42 52 56
1900's 105 55 71 89 59
1910's 61 55 57 59 29
1920's 115 25 46 78 27

Summation 585 270 527 594 250

Average 97 45 55 66 38


Sources Computed from reference tables in Lee, p. 555.







TABLE 10

COMPARISON OF URBAN PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.


1870 8 8 6 57 26

1950 52 51 28 75 56


Source: Computed from Tables 6 and 9.











It may be pertinent at this point to note that there are many

inter-relationships between the degree of urbanization and the other

aspects of population and labor force change considered in this study.

The age-sex-race composition of the population has an obvious bearing

on urbanization; natural increase and migration are its determinants;

and we shall later consider the influence of the varying proportions of

labor force in the several industrial sectors.


Labor Force Changes


General

In the foregoing sections we have dealt with absolute changes

in such factors as natural increase, net migration, labor force par-

ticipation rates, and urbanization. In the following sections we shall

employ the shift technique to dissect and analyze relative changes in

the labor force, particularly at the industrial sector level. The

shift technique is formally described under the methodological chapter

in Part II, but can be readily followed on a step by step basis as

developed in the following sections. We shall first be concerned with

the total net shift of labor force in Florida and comparative states;

second, with the components of this total net shift; third, with

sector net shifts; and fourth, with sector contributions to state

labor force changes.

During the sixty-year period under consideration, the labor

force of the nation grew--or declined--differentially in each indus-

trial sector in each decade. With unity representing no change in the







54



labor force from one decennial period to the next, the national growth

rates for each sector for each decade are set forth in Table 11.


TABLE 11

U.S. GROWTH RATES BY SECTOR BY DECADE

Sectors 1870's 1880's 1890's 1900's 1910's 1920's

Total 1.591 1.307 1.279 1.515 1.090 1.173

Agriculture 1.294 1.104 1.215 1.209 0.861 0.985

Fishing 1.526 1.455 1.146 0.990 0.774 0.871*

Forestry 1.578 2.050 1.086 1.514 1.166 0.871'

Mining 1.505 1.555 1.455 1.712 1.150 0.905

Manufactures 1.409 1.456 1.267 1.652 1.205 1.099

Trade 1.174 1.45533
1.520 1.837 1.433 1.312
Transport 1.161 1.254

Services

Professional 1.3355 1.522 1.289 1.518

Public ----- ----- 1.677 1.111
1.518 1.302
Other 1.280 1.070 0.905 1.455

Clerical ----- ----- 1.800 1.287


Note: *Combined for the 1920's only.

Source Unpublished computations based on U.S. Censuses.











Total Net Shift

It is obvious that the several states had growth rates which

varied from the national growth rates. One convenient way to measure

these state variations is termed the shift technique. By applying

the national growth rate for the 1870's to the Florida labor force

in 1870 we can derive a hypothetical Florida labor force for 1880 on

the assumption that the national growth rate and Florida's growth rate

were identical. However we normally find that the Florida labor force

figure derived under this assumption does not correspond to the actual

Florida labor force as enumerated in the 1880 census. The degree of

this noncorrespondence is a useful measure and is termed the total

net shift. The total net shifts for Florida, and the three states used

for comparative purposes, are set forth for each decade; both in labor

force figures, in Table 12, and in percentages of a national total

of + 100 per cent, in Table 18.4

Florida's performance is unique in that its growth experience,

in terms of total labor force, was above the national norm in each

decade of the period. Georgia and Alabama, after subpar growth in

the first two decades, spurted ahead rapidly in the 1890's and 1900's

and then again fell below par in the last two decades. California's

4These tables, and all others in this study which are related
to the shift technique, are based on unpublished shift computations
which are much too volininous to reproduce herein. The cost of pre-
paring the basic shift data was funded under a project of Resources
for the Future, Inc., and the data are in the custody of Dr. Edgar S.
Dunn, Jr. of the University of Florida. Consequently, related tables
used in this study will not be further identified as to source.
Perhaps it should also be noted that data from the several U.S.
Censuses underlie the shift computations.











growth was of course phenomenal, except for a brief slump below national

levels in the 1890's. Quantitatively, Florida's gains over the period

were about equivalent to Alabama's losses and about 22 per cent of

California's competitive gains.


TABLE 12

TOTAL NET SHIFT IN LABOR FORCE (IN 100's)

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's + 71 206 152 + 446
1880's + 172 -1128 -1026 + 520
1890's + 266 + 94 + 706 516
1900's + 575 + 252 44 +2619
1910's + 541 -1557 -1794 +5051
1920's +1468 -1628 594 +7256
Summation +2895 -5975 -2704 +15576





TABLE 15

TOTAL NET SHIFT IN LABOR FORCE AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL U.S. SHIFT

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's + 0.7 2.1 1.6 + 4.6 +100
1880's + 1.5 -10.1 9.2 + 4.7 7100
1890's + 2.8 + 1.0 + 7.5 5.5 +100
1900's + 5.4 + 1.5 0.3 +15.5 7100
1910's + 2.2 8.6 -11.4 +19.4 ;100
1920's + 7.5 8.5 2.0 +57.2 7100
Summation +18.1 -26.6 -17.0 +75.9

Average + 3.0 4.4 2.8 +12.6











Components of total net shift.--Total net shifts are a useful

measure of relative growth but it is revealing to go beneath this meas-

ure to examine the two components of total net shift. First, we can

consider the labor force of each industrial sector individually, in

the same manner as we did the total labor force. Thus we compute the

net shift for each state for each decade for each sector. This pro-

vides a measure of how the states fare competitively with one another

in respect to sector labor force with their relative success based

largely on their relative access to inputs and markets--variable over

time. In the following table the competitive sector results have been

summed to provide a total competition shift, the first component of

our total net shift.


TABLE 14

TOTAL COMPETITION SHIFT (IN 100's)

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California

1870's + 92 + 8 + 51 + 297
1880's + 241 458 379 + 145
1890's + 287 + 279 + 879 615
1900's + 659 + 861 + 449 +2556
1910's + 472 6 490 +2500
1920's +1507 954 + 332 +6555
Summation +3258 250 + 842 +11436




Florida is again unique, among the states compared, in its

consistent above par competitive performance in each decade of the

period. Georgia and Alabama had above average performances in the











1870's, slumped in the 1880's, recovered very well in the 1890's and

1900's, and slumped again (with Alabama recovering in the 1920's).

California's performance was again characterized by a slump in the

1890's and by phenomenal competitive growth thereafter. Netting out

the period, Georgia had a small cumulative competitive loss, Alabama

registered a small gain, and Florida's substantial gain was about

28 per cent that of California's.

The other component of total net shift is total composition

shift. It can be derived independently but for the present purpose

it is more convenient to view it as the algebraic difference between

total net shift and total competition shift. Total composition shift

provides a measure of how the states compare with one another in terms

of their relative shares of rapid growth and slow growth industrial

sectors; or, as sometimes phrased, in terms of their industrial mix.

The relative success of the states in this component of relative growth

is thus linked to national supply and demand factors, which are implic-

itly summed up in the earlier table on national growth rates for the

several sectors. The following table presents the total composition

shift over the period, the other component of our total net shift.











TABLE 15

TOTAL COMPOSITION SHIFT (IN 100's)


Years) Florida Georgia Alabama California

1870's 21 215 203 +149
1880's 70 690 647 +575
1890's 21 185 175 +100
1900's 85 608 495 + 65
1910's -131 -1551 -1504 +551
1920's 59 674 726 +705
Surmation -567 -5721 -5546 +1941



Florida was again consistent in its total composition effect,

but this time consistently below the national average. As compared

with Georgia and Alabama, however, Florida composition losses were only

in the 10 per cent range, not only for the period average but amazingly

close to the 10 per cent approximation for each decade. The summation

of Florida's composition losses over the period amounts to only 56,700

jobs, as compared with 572,100 for Georgia and 554,600 for Alabama.

California had the opposite experience in maintaining composition gains

for the entire period, with the last two decades being the largest

gainers.

A cursory glance at the two foregoing tables indicates that

total competition shift tends to be the dominant component of total net

shift in the cases of Florida and California; and that total composi-

tion shift tends to be the dominant component for Georgia and Alabama.

The relative dominance of each component is stated in the following

two tables, which are complementary. The percentages are summed and










averaged to give a visual impression of the average dominance for the

over-all period. It is obvious however that these summations are not

comparable with the algebraic summations of the two prior tables.

Essentially, it appears, the competition effect tended to approach

75 per cent dominance in all states combined, 75 per cent dominance

in California, 84 per cent dominance in Florida, and only 57 and 41

per cent sub-dominance, respectively, in Georgia and Alabama. There

seem to be no strongly pronounced trends to change these percentages

over time, except perhaps for a decreasing competitive dominance for

all states and increasing competitive dominance for California.

Florida is characterized by a negligible 5 per cent composition

loss in the 1920's, meaning that the rapid growth and slow growth

sectors, as weighted by Florida's participation in each, were in ap-

proximate balance.


TABLE 16

TOTAL COMPETITION SHIFT AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL NET SHIFT

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California All States

1870's 81 5 20 67 84
1880's 78 59 57 28 95
1890's 95 60 84 86 84
1900ts 89 59 48 98 74
1910's 78 00 27 82 46
1920's 97 59 51 90 71

Summation 516 220 247 451 452

Average 86 57 41 75 75


dl










TABLE 17
TOTAL COMPOSITION SHIFT AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL NET SHIFT


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California All States

1870's 19 97 80 33 16
1880's 22 61 65 72 7
1890's 7 40 16 14 16
1900's 11 41 52 2 26
1910's 22 100 73 18 54
1920's 3 41 69 10 29
Summation 84 380 555 149 148

Average 14 63 59 25 25



Another way of viewing the relative proportions of competition
and composition shifts, in relation to the national norm, is in terms
of state percentages of total national competition and composition

shifts. The following two tables present this view. On the basis of

the national totals of + 100 per cent, Florida contributed from 1 to
8 per cent of national competitive gains; consistently increasing over
the period and approximately doubling in the 1880's and again in the

1920's.5 The experience of Georgia and Alabama was spotty and without

pronounced trend, ranging from 5 per cent losses to 4 per cent gains
for the former and from 4 per cent losses to 8 per cent gains for the

latter. California was characterized by a sub-par performance in the


5It seems advisable at this point to use the terminology of
gains and losses for ease of comprehension. It should be clear, how-
ever, that these are relative terms and are defined by the method of
their derivation.




A










1890's and a phenomenal performance thereafter; contributing over

35 per cent of total national competition gains in the 1920's.

In respect to composition shifts, Florida consistently made

deficit contributions to the national totals, but on a minor and

generally decreasing basis ranging from -1.2 per cent in the 1870's

to -0.5 per cent in the 1920's. Georgia and Alabama each averaged

about -9 or -10 per cent of the total national composition loss of

-100 per cent; without much apparent trend from decade to decade.

California consistently contributed to total national composition

gains, ranging from a high of 8 per cent in the 1870's to a low of

1 per cent in the 1900's and a high of 10 per cent in the 1920's.



TABLE 18

CCMPARATIVE STATE PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL U.S. COMPETITION SHIFT

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's +0.95 +0.07 +0.51 +2.99 +100
1880's +2.52 -4.22 -5.65 +1.59 +100
1890's +2.68 +2.61 +8.25 -5.76 +100
1900's +3.38 +4.41 +2.51 +15.11 +100
1910's +4.14 -0.05 -4.50 +21.91 +100
1920's +8.17 -5.17 +1.80 +55.54 +100

Summation +21.62 -2.55 +4.90 +69.18

Average +5.60 -0.39 +0.82 +11.52










TABLE 19

COMPARATIVE STATE PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL U.S. COMPOSITION SHIFT


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's -1.17 -11.67 -11.11 +8.15 +100
1880's -1.08 -10.75 -10.05 +5.83 +100
1890's -1.04 -9.56 -8.74 +5.04 +100
1900's -1.25 -8.87 -7.20 +0.92 +100
1910's -0.97 -10.04 -9.69 +4.10 +100
1920's -0.55 -9.17 -9.87 +9.57 +100

Summation -6.02 -59.84 -56.66 +55.61

Average -1.00 -9.97 -9.44 +5.60




Sector Net Shifts--State Shift as Percentage
of National Shift

Up to this point we have examined Florida's decennial changes

in labor force in gross terms of total net shift and its two components.

We have some perspective on Florida in relation to the nation, in rela-

tion to the two adjoining states as representatives of the Deep South,

and in relation to one of its principal rivals--California. We now go

beneath this level of aggregation and consider the sector net shifts

for the major industrial sectors. The sector net shifts are computed

in the same manner as total net shifts. Applicable results of this com-

putation are contained in the following sector tables. They are pre-

sented in terms of state shift as a percentage of national shift, with

the latter represented by + 100 per cent. Also presented in the last










TABLE 20

SECTOR NET SHIFTS--STATE SHIFT AS PERCENTAGE OF
U.S. SHIFT BY DECADE


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California 1 % in Terms
of Labor Force

Agriculture
1870's + 0.6 0.8 + 0.6 + 2.8
1880's 0.5 -14.0 -11.2 + 9.5 4508
1890's + 1.4 + 2.8 +10.6 1.9 6064
1900's + 2.4 +11.2 + 4.8 + 5.8 9512
1910's + 1.6 4.8 -18.8 +20.5 5865
1920's + 6.5 -21.5 + 0.9 +17.6 4320
Fishing
1870's + 0.8 0.9 + 0.4 +20.7
1880's + 5.0 + 1.4 0.5 -22.3 109
1890's + 7.6 + 2.5 + 1.8 2.9 89
1900's +14.7 0.2 0.2 +22.4 83
1910's +32.5 0.5 + 0.1 +10.0 58
1920's + 1.4 + 4.5 + 3.8 + 3.2 67
Forestry
1870's + 1.4 +16.5 5.9 + 5.6
1880's + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.5 -15.8 156
1890's + 8.2 + 7.0 + 2.8 4.6 178
1900's +10.4 -28.5 6.9 1.8 517
1910's -27.9 -12.4 4.2 6.0 362
1920's + 7.7 1.3 + 3.5 + 2.5 285
Mining
1870's + 0.1 + 0.5 + 1.4 -50.5
1880's + 0.4 + 0.8 + 7.9 -41.8 845
1890's + 1.5 0.8 +12.1 -15.5 470
1900's + 1.6 + 0.5 2.0 -15.7 924
1910's 0.7 1.1 + 2.1 7.6 1414
1920's 0.6 + 1.6 1.0 +22.6 775
Manufacturing
1870's + 1.4 1.5 1.2 + 9.2
1880's + 2.7 + 5.3 + 3.3 + 5.1 2751
1890's + 2.9 + 3.8 + 5.0 5.1 2142
1900's + 4.5 + 0.9 + 1.5 +12.4 5649
1910's + 2.2 + 1.9 + 3.7 +15.8 5659
1920's + 4.4 + 4.7 + 2.8 +22.9 7088







J











TABLE 20--Continued


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California 1 % in Terms
of Labor Force

Trade and
Transportation
1870's + 1.7 1.1 4.6 + 6.5
1880's + 1.4 + 3.8 + 2.3 2.1 2218
1890's + 1.2 5.5 0.5 2.8 1578
1900's + 2.6 + 3.0 + 1.9 +14.7 4855
1910's
Trade + 6.0 + 2.8 0.1 +19.8 1592
Transport + 4.2 + 1.0 + 2.4 + 5.1 1219
1920's
Trade + 9.4 4.4 + 0.6 +44.9 5041
Transport + 7.8 4.0 + 1.7 +50.2 1412
Services
1870's + 0.5 + 2.7 + 5.2 + 2.5
1880's + 4.5 + 0.3 2.7 + 2.8 5154
1890's
Profess. 0.3 + 1.7 1.9 + 4.1 512
Other + 4.0 + 3.6 + 5.7 -12.5 2354
1900's
Profess. + 0.9 1.9 + 0.9 +16.7 874
Other 0.4 5.2 2.7 +15.2 5756
1910's
Profess. + 6.0 + 0.4 1.4 +37.5 697
Public + 1.9 + 3.6 1.7 + 4.9 884
Other +12.3 + 3.3 + 1.7 +22.7 1247
Clerical + 1.6 0.1 1.2 + 8.9 1290
1920's
Profess. + 8.1 3.7 + 0.8 +42.5 1381
Public + 5.5 4.1 + 2.0 +14.7 689
Other + 9.5 2.8 0.5 +27.5 2508
Clerical + 5.8 1.5 + 1.5 +42.1 1959










column of the tables is a figure representing what one per cent means

in terms of actual labor force for the corresponding decade. This will

provide some idea of the relative magnitude of the shifts in the several

sectors.

The highlights of the foregoing sector tables may be briefly

summarized on a sector by sector basis as follows.

Agriculture.--Florida's growth experience, in terms of agri-

cultural labor force, was above the national norm in all decades ex-

cept that of the 1880's. It tended to relative improvement over the

period, characterized by a multiple jump in the 1920's. Georgia and

Alabama experienced major losses--or minor changes--in all except the

two middle decades, the 1890's and the 1900's. California slumped in

the 1890's but posted major shares of the national gains in the 1910's

and the 1920's.

Fishing.--Florida's growth in labor force in the fishing sector

was above the national average throughout the period and reached its

relative peak in the 1910's when Florida accounted for almost one-third

of the national gains. Georgia and Alabama varied slightly above or

below the national norm over the period but both exceeded Florida's

performance in the 1920's. California had a varied experience, provid-

ing 21 per cent of the national gains in the 1870's and 22 per cent

of the national losses in the 1880's. This was followed by a resurgence

to the 22 per cent level in the 1900's and a drop to smaller gains

thereafter.







j











Forestry.--Florida's share in the relative national gains in

forestry was especially substantial in the 1890's, 1900's and 1920's.

There was a sharp reversal in the 1910's, when Florida contributed

almost 28 per cent of the national losses. Georgia commanded a 17 per

cent share of national gains in the 1870's but slumped to a share of

28 per cent of the national losses in the 1900's; thereafter recover-

ing but not to the national level. Alabama's experience was more

stable, with swings of lesser magnitude. California started and ended

the over-all period with minor shares of the national gain but had

losses in the four intervening decades, notably 16 per cent of the

national loss in the 1880's.

Mining.--Florida had a small positive net shift in the mining

sector for the first four decades and a small negative shift there-

after. Georgia had shifts similar in magnitude though a bit different

in timing. Alabama enjoyed larger positive net shifts in the 1880's

and 1890's of about 8 and 12 per cent, respectively, but the shifts

in the other decades were small. California tended to dominate the

negative net shifts, especially in the earlier decades, with downward

shifts of 51 per cent in the 1870's, 42 per cent in the 1880's, 16 per

cent in the 1890's, and 14 per cent in the 1900's. However in the

last two decades, California changed from a downward shift of about

8 per cent to an upward shift of 25 per cent in the 1920's.

Manufacturing.--Florida maintained an upward net shift through-

out the period which averaged about 5 per cent per decade without

discernable trend. Georgia and Alabama, after a downward shift in the

1870's, had a pattern very similar to that of Florida for the remaining










decades, in respect both to a magnitude of about 3 per cent and as

to lack of a discernable trend. California set a somewhat different

pattern in both respects. During the first three decades, California

slumped from an upward net shift of 9 per cent to a downward net shift

of 5 per cent. During the last three decades, California had upward

net shifts of 12, 14, and 23 per cent, chronologically.

Trade and transportation.--During the first four decades,

Florida averaged almost 2 per cent in upward shift. During the last

two decades the trade sector commanded strong gains of 6 and 9 per cent

and the transport sector contributed upward shifts of 4 and 8 per cent.

Georgia had a rather mixed experience of upward and downward shifts,

closing on the latter note with losses of about 4 per cent in both

trade and transport in the 1920's. Alabama's experience was also

mixed and corresponded generally with that of Georgia, except for a

small gain in both trade and transport in the 1920's. California had

downward shifts in the 1880's and'1890's but closed with strong gains

in the 1910's and 1920's; especially in the trade sector with percent-

ages of 20 and 45 per cent of the national upward shift.

Services.--Florida had rather neutral or small upward shifts

in the first four decades; with the 1880's and 1890's being above the

1870's and the 1900's. In the 1910's and 1920's, professional ser-

vices contributed 6 and 8 per cent, respectively, to national gains;

public services about 2 and 6 per cent; and other services demonstrated

strength with about 12 and 10 per cent,respectively. The clerical sub-

sector has been placed under the heading of services as a matter of










convenience. Actually, clerical workers were employed in all indus-

trial sectors, particularly trade and transport, services, and manu-

facturing--in that order.6 Georgia and Alabama had scattered gains and

losses during the period, with the former closing the 1920's with a

5 per cent downward shift and the latter finishing with a small 1 per

cent gain. California had consistent upward shifts throughout the pe-

riod, except for services (6ther than professional services) in the

1890's. From the 1900's on, California's gains were in the magnitude

of some 15 to 30 per cent of national gains in the services sector.

Sector Contributions to State Shifts

In the preceding section we have viewed state sector changes as

a percentage of the national change in the respective sectors in order

to gain some understanding of the relative growth or decline of the

state in relation to national growth or decline in respect to these

sector shifts. In this section we shall view each state as an entity

and consider the proportion which each sector contributes to total state

shift. We seek to gain an understanding of the individual effect of

each sector in contributing to the relative growth or decline of the

state. The percentages used to state the sector contribution to state

changes are nonalgebraically additive to 100 per cent, representing the

total state change. Thus they are computed as a ratio of the change in

each sector to the total state change, also nnRalgebraically summed

from sector net shifts. Table 21 will provide the basis for further

discussion.

6See Chapter 12 for the estimated distribution of clerical
workers in Florida in 1910, 1920, and 1950; as computed to establish
a state labor force control series for substate disaggregation.










TABLE 21

SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE NET SHIFTS
BY DECADES


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California

Agriculture
1870's +38 -27 +18 +27
1880's 6 -77 -63 +40
1890's +30 +38 +70 -18
19001s +355 +64 +55 +13
1910's + 9 -38 -68 +28
1920's +18 -57 +11 +11
Summation +122 -97 +23 +101
Average +20 -16 + 4 +17

Fishing
1870's +0.7 -0.4 +0.2 +2.4
1880's +2.0 +0.2 -0.0 -2.5
1890's +2.3 +0.5 +0.2 -0.4
1900's +1.7 -0.0 -0.0 +0.7
1910's +2.9 -0.1 +0.0 +0.2
1920's +0.1 +0.1 +0.7 +0.0
Summation +9.7 +0.3 +1.1 +0.6
Average +1.6 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1

Forestry
1870's +2.0 +11.7 -3.7 +0.7
1880's +0.5 +0.2 +0.1 -2.7
1890's +5.0 +2.9 +0.5 -1.2
1900's +4.7 -5.4 -2.6 -0.2
1910's -14.5 -9.3 -1.4 -0.8
1920's +1.4 -0.2 +2.8 +0.1
Summation -0.9 -0.1 -4.3 -4.1
Average -0.2 -0.0 -0.7 -0.7

Mining
1870's +0.3 +0.9 +3.9 -27.2
1880's +1.1 +0.8 +8.4 -33.9
1890's +2.4 +0.9 +6.2 -11.0
1900's +2.1 +0.3 -2.1 -4.5
1910's -1.4 -3.1 +2.8 -3.9
1920's -0.3 +0.7 -2.1 +2.7
Summation +4.2 +0.5 +17.1 -77.8
Average +0.7 +0.1 +2.9 -13.0











TABLE 21--Continued

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California

Manufacturing
1870's +24 -13 9 +23
1880's +27 +11 +11 + 8
1890's +22 +19 +12 -16
1900's +56 + 5 +10 +25
1910's +17 +22 +20 +28
1920's +20 +20 +54 +25
Summation +146 +62 +98 +95
Average +24 +10 +16 +16

Trade and
Transportation
1870's +20 7 -25 +11
1880's +12 +10 + 6 4
1890's + 6 -17 1 6
1900's +18 + 9 +11 +25
1910's +21 +12 + 5 +12
Trade +14 + 9 0 +11
Transport + 7 + 5 + 5 + 1
1920's +26 +11 +12 +28
Trade +19 + 8 + 5 +21
Transport + 7 + 5 + 7 +7
Summation +103 +18 + 6 +66
Average +17 + +1 +11
Services
1870's +15 +40 +41 + 9
1880's +52 + 1 -11 + 8
1890's +31 +21 + 8 -41
Profess. 1 + 2 1 + 5
Other +52 +19 + 9 -44
1900's 2 -19 -18 +52
Profess. + 1 1 + 1 + 5
Other 5 -18 -19 +27
1910's +33 +16 1 +26
Profess. + 6 + 1 1 +10
Public + 2 +7 1 +2
Other +22 +8 +2 +10
Clerical + 5 0 1 + 4
1920's +52 -11 +15 +54
Profess. + 7 5 + 5 + 9
Public +2 + 4 +2
Other +16 4 2 +11
Clerical + 7 2 + 8 +12
Summation +161 +48 +32 +68
Average +27 + 8 + 5 +11











In examining Table 21 and in considering sector contributions

to state changes it is useful first to consider major changes, compar-

isons, and contrasts on a chronological basis by decades. It is also

helpful to examine the general character of the contribution of each

sector over the entire period. First then, we take up the chronological

treatment.

The 1870's.--All four states made moderate contributions to

total competitive gains in the 1870's. In Florida, all sectors con-

tributed to competitive gains, with agriculture and manufacturing pro-

viding about 58 and 24 per cent, respectively, of Florida's total gains.

In Georgia, these two 'sectors contributed only to losses and it took

a large competitive gain of some 40 per cent in the services sector to

provide a small net gain. In Alabama, the services sector was also

dominant with a gain of some 41 per cent which, together with a gain

of 18 per cent in agriculture, overbalanced large losses in trade and

transport and in manufacturing. California was similar to Florida in

that the major contributing sectors were agriculture with 27 per cent

and manufacturing with 25 per cent; but very different in suffering

a large competitive loss of about 27 per cent in the mining sector.7

The 1880's.--In this decade, Florida more than doubled its

share of competitive gains; while California halved its share and

Georgia and Alabama suffered heavy competitive losses. Florida made


7U.S. Census data for 1870 is usually treated with caution
because of probable under-enumeration in certain Southern States in
1870. According to Lee, this would not affect Florida appreciably
but there may be some understatement for Georgia and Alabama. P. 402.











gains in all sectors except agriculture (the largest gainer in the

preceding decade); with services and manufacturing contributing about

52 and 27 per cent respectively. Georgia actually made competitive

gains in all sectors except agriculture but a heavy loss of some 77

per cent in that sector resulted in a large net loss. Alabama's ex-

perience was similar, with the agricultural sector providing some

63 per cent of the total for a heavy net loss. In California, agri-

culture with a contribution of 40 per cent remained the dominant gain-

ing sector and mining with 54 per cent remained the dominant losing

sector for a small net gain of about 1.4 per cent. This was down

from the 5 per cent of the prior decade, and below Florida's 2.3 per

cent of the national competition gain.

The 1890's.--Florida modestly increased its share of competi-

tion gains to 2.7 per cent in the 1890's; with Georgia recovering

rapidly to almost match these gains; with Alabama making a tremendous

recovery to triple Florida's gain; and with California continuing its

competitive slump to a net loss of 5.8 per cent of the national losses.

Florida made gains in all sectors, except for a minor loss in profes-

sional services; with other services, agriculture, and manufacturing

making the dominant contributions of 52, 30, and 22 per cent, respec-

tively. Georgia's recovery was characterized by gains in agriculture,

other services, and manufacturing of 58, 19, and 19 per cent, respec-

tivelyj the only important losing sector being trade and transport with

17 per cent. Alabama's performance included gains in all sectors,

except for negligible losses in trade and transport and professional






74



services; with agriculture, manufacturing, and other services contrib-

uting 70, 12, and 9 per cent, respectively, to the gains. California's

competitive slump included losses in all sectors except professional

services; with other services, agriculture, manufacturing, and mining

contributing 44, 18, 16, and 11 per cent, respectively, to the over-

all loss.

The 1900's.--During this decade, Florida increased its share

of national competition gains to 5.4 per cent. Georgia increased its

position to 4.4 per cent while Alabama dropped down to 2.5 per cent

and California began its remarkable competitive growth sequence by

moving from its 5.8 share of the national deficit in the prior decade

to a 15.1 per cent share of national gains in the 1900's. Florida made

gains in all sectors, except for a negligible loss in other services.

The dominant sectors on the gain side were manufacturing, agriculture,

and trade and transport with gains of 56, 35, and 18 per cent, re-

spectively. Georgia's improved position was marked by a large com-

petitive gain of 64 per cent in the agricultural sector, with other

services being the only major losing sector to the extent of about

18 per cent. Alabama's experience was identical in pattern to that of

Georgia, with agricultural gains of 55 per cent and other service

losses of 19 per cent. California gains were general except for a

4.5 per cent loss in mining and a minor loss in forestry. The lead-

ing California gainers were other services, trade and transport, man-

ufacturing, and agriculture; with gains of 27, 25, 25, and 13 per cent,

respectively.




i-


75



The 1910's.--Florida again made an increase in its share of

national competitive gains from the 5.4 per cent of the prior decade

to 4.1 per cent in this decade. Georgia slumped to a neutral position

while Alabama declined sharply to a 4.5 per cent loss position.

California jumped sharply from the 13.1 per cent share of national

competitive gains in the prior decade to 21.9 per cent in the 1910's.

Florida gained in all sectors, except forestry and mining which had

losses of 14.5 and 1.4 per cent, respectively. The major gaining

sectors were other services, manufacturing, trade, and agriculture,

with percentages of 22, 17, 14, and 9 per cent, respectively. Georgia's

major gaining sectors were manufacturing, trade, and other services,

with percentages of 22, 9, and 8 per cent, respectively major losers

were agriculture with 58 per cent and forestry with 9 per cent. Ala-

bama's gaining sectors were manufacturing, 20 per cent; mining, 5 per

cent; and transportation, 5 per cent. The primary losing sector was

agriculture with 68 per cent. California repeated its performance of

the prior decade with only a 4 per cent loss in mining and a 1 per cent

loss in forestry; a duplicate of Florida as to losing sectors. The

leading California gainers were agriculture with 28 per cent, manu-

facturing with 28 per cent, trade with 11 per cent, other services

with 10 per cent, and professional services with 10 per cent; again

very similar to Florida's experience.

The 1920's.--In this period Florida almost doubled its share of

total national competitive gains to a level of 8.2 per cent. Georgia

continued its drop from a neutral position to a 5.2 per cent loss


-q 1'1






76



position; while Alabama made a good recovery from its deficit position

to a 1.8 per cent share of national gains. California dominated the

nation with 35.5 per cent of total national competitive gains; followed

by Texas with 13.4 per cent; Michigan with 10.4 per cent; North

Carolina with 8.3 per cent; and Florida with 8.2 per cent. Florida

made gains in all sectors except for a very small loss in mining.

The principal gaining sectors were manufacturing with 20 per cent,

trade with 19 per cent, agriculture with 18 per cent, and other services

with 16 per cent. Georgia made gains of 20 per cent in manufacturing

and less than 1 per cent in fishing and mining. All other sectors lost

competitively; agriculture with 57 per cent, trade with 8 per cent, and

other services with 4 per cent. Alabama suffered competitive losses

only in mining and other services, about 2 per cent for each. The

primary gaining sectors for Alabama were manufacturing with 55 per cent

and agriculture with 11 per cent. California enjoyed a perfect record

with gains in all sectors; dominated by manufacturing with 25 per cent,

trade with 21 per cent, agriculture with 12 per cent, and other serv-

ices with 11 per cent.

Next we consider the general influence of each individual

sector over the total period. For convenience in discussion, use

will be made of an average percentage which represents the algebraic

summation of the sector percentages for each decade, divided by the

number of decades. It must be recognized that a low average percent-

age does not mean that the respective sector has not made large con-

tributions to sector gains or losses in decennial periods) these may











have been netted out. It will thus be necessary to go behind these

average percentages in many cases, as has been done in the prior

chronological section. It should also be recognized that these net

percentages bear no numerical relation to labor force figures since

a large percentage in one decade may actually represent a lesser

labor force figure than a smaller percentage in another decade.

Thus the net percentages implicitly assume that the character of

sectoral growth in one decade is of equal importance to that in each

of the other decades. Table 22 is merely a summary of the averages of

the preceding tables.


TABLE 22

SUMMARY AVERAGE OF COMPARATIVE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS
TO STATE NET SHIFTS

Sector Florida Georgia Alabama California

Agriculture +20.6 -16.0 + 4.0 +17.0
Fishing + 1.6 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.1
Forestry 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.6
Mining + 0.7 + 0.1 + 2.9 -13.0
Manufacturing +24.0 +10.0 +16.0 +16.0
Trade-Transport +17.0 + 3.0 + 1.0 +11.0
Services +27.0 + 8.0 + 5.0 +11.0


The services sector has been the largest contributor to the

upward shift in Florida's labor force relative to that of the nation

over the six decade period. In net average percentage terms the

services sector has contributed about 27 per cent; as compared with

24 per cent for manufactures, 20 per cent for agriculture, 17 per cent


_










for trade and transport, 1.6 per cent for fishing, 0.7 per cent for

mining, and a downward shift of 0.2 per cent in forestry.

Georgia's strongest sector has been manufacturing with an

upward shift, in net average percentage terms, of 10 per cent; fol-

lowed by services with 8 per cent, and trade and transport with 5 per

cent. Fishing, forestry, and mining made negligible net contributions

and agriculture was the weak sector with a downward net shift of 16

per cent--almost nullifying the gains.

Alabama's strongest sector has also been manufactures with

an upward average net shift of 16 per cent; followed by services with

5 per cent, agriculture with 4 per cent, and mining with 5 per cent.

The remaining sectors were all 1 per cent or less, with fishing as

the only losing sector.

California's strongest sector over the total period has been

agriculture with a net average upward shift of 17 per cent; closely

followed by manufactures with 16 per cent, services with 11 per cent,

and trade and transport with 11 per cent. Forestry and fishing were

below 1 per cent, with the latter a losing sector. Mining was the

weak sector with an average downward net shift of 13 per cent.











Summary of Florida Labor Force Changes


The changing importance of the several industrial sectors to

Florida's economic development is revealed, in part, by Table 25.

This table shows the percentage of total labor force contributed by

each sector at each decennial measuring point. The phrase "in part"

is a necessary qualification since there is no single adequate meas-

ure of economic change. For example, a declining labor force in some

sectors may be more than offset by increasing productivity and the

effect of changes in the average work week must also be considered.


TABLE 23

SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FLORIDA TOTAL
LABOR FORCE BY DECADES

Sector 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1950


Agriculture 75.1 70.8 52.4 45.7 36.6 27.9 22.3
Fishing 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0
Forestry 0.8 1.1 1.5 5.2 5.9 5.2 1.1
Mining 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.4
Manufacturing 6.6 9.2 16.1 18.9 25.2 26.7 24.5
Trade-Transport 5.8 8.5 15.5 14.2 15.0 19.6 24.8
Services 11.4 10.1 15.8 14.4 17.5 20.8 26.0

Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 99.9


Source: Reference Table LS-5.











Florida's economic structure, in terms of labor force, was

vastly different in 1930 as compared to 1870 and the path of struc-

tural change varied from sector to sector. Agriculture, as the domi-

nant extractive industry, declined from about 75 to 22 per cent of the

total labor force over the period. The other extractive sectors

(fishing, forestry, and mining) increased their labor force shares over

the total period; in summation, from 1.1 to 2.5 per cent. Fishing

tended to gradually increase in importance over the period. Forestry

increased in importance to a peak of about 6 per cent in 1910 and then

retreated to its earlier share. Mining also reached a peak of about

1.1 per cent in 1910 and then declined by about two-thirds. Manufac-

turing made rather steady structural gains until 1920 and then de-

clined slightly, in labor force share. Trade and transport made

steady gains over the period; as did services, except for minor and

transient reversals in 1880 and 1900. In summary, the extractive

sectors dropped from 76.2 to 24.8 per cent over the period; manufac-

turing rose from 6.6 to 24.3 per cent; and the remaining sectors rose

from 17.2 to 50.8 per cent.

These structural changes do not necessarily mean that the

actual labor force in any sector declined over the period. In fact,

the extractive sectors increased from a labor force of 46,500 in 1870

to a labor force of 148,700 in 1950; making gains in every decade ex-

cept the 1910's. The only specific sectors which had absolute declines

in any decade were agriculture in the 1910's and forestry and mining

in the 1910's and 1920's. Mining and forestry had their labor force











peaks in 1910 but all other sectors reached their highest labor force

figure in 1950. Florida's period of slowest growth in labor force

was in the 1910's, when the increase in total labor force amounted

to about 20 per cent. In all other decades it varied between a low

of 47 per cent and a high of 60 per cent.

The foregoing paragraphs have dwelt with changes in the in-

ternal structure of Florida's labor force without external reference.

It is apparent that the national economy was also changing in struc-

ture during this period and it is instructive to view Florida's

chEnging structure in terms of its share of the national change.

Table 24 presents Florida's change as a percentage of national change

(as measured by the summation of the relative gains and losses of the

several states in relation to the national average).

Table 24 shows that agriculture generally tended to increase

its share of national gains. The negative contribution in the 1880's

is accounted for by a most radical change in Florida's economic struc-

ture. In 1880 agriculture employed 71 per cent of Florida's labor

force, as compared to only 52 per cent in 1890. While agricultural

employment did increase 11 per cent in this decade all other sectors

increased by 100 per cent or more. Thus the agricultural share went

down over 18 per cent, in absolute terms; while the manufacturing share

went up almost 7 per cent, trade and transport went up 5 per cent, and

services went up 6 per cent. The employment opportunities in these

latter sectors absorbed almost the entire increase in Florida's labor

force for that decade. The small dip in agriculture's share of the

gains in the 1910's is probably closely related to the pull of World













FLORIDA SHARE OF


TABLE 24

U.S. NET SHIFT BY SECTORS BY DECADES


Sector 1870's 1880's 1890's 1900's 1910's 1920's


Agriculture 0.6 -0.3 1.4 2.4 1.6 6.5
Fishing 0.8 5.0 7.6 14.7 52.3 1.4
Forestry 1.4 0.8 8.2 10.4 -27.9 7.7
Mining 0.1 0.4 1.5 1.6 -0.7 -0.6
Manufacturing 1.4 2.7 2.9 4.5 2.2 4.4
Trade 6.0 9.4
1.7 1.4 1.2 2.6
Transport 4.2 7.8
Services 0.5 4.5
Professional -0.5 0.9 6.0 8.1
Public 1.9 5.5
Other 4.0 -0.4 12.5 9.5
Clerical 1.6 5.8


Note: National shifts add up to + 100 per cent.

Source: Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited.




War I manufacturing employment on the agricultural labor force.

One of the subjects which brought about the extra session of the

state legislature in November of 1918 concerned the problem of getting

the labor force back from the factories and shipbuilding to the farms.

In 1919, Governor Catts pointed to several national problem areas,

notably the high-wage experience in war-time jobs which tended to

inhibit much desire to return to low-wage agricultural employment.

Furthermore, much low-wage employment had been eliminated by increasing

mechanization of farm operations.






85


Florida's fishing also tended to increase its share in national

gains, very dramatically so until a sharp drop in the 1920's. This

drop was only in relative terms, however, with the actual labor force

increasing by almost 42 per cent from 4,500 to 6,100 during the decade.

Concurrently the relative importance of fishing to Florida's economy

declined slightly from 1.1 to 1.0 per cent, in terms of labor force.

Florida's share of national gains in the forestry sector was fairly

stable except that in the 1910's the state made a heavy contribution

to national losses. The labor force in this sector declined 36 per

cent from 19,000 to 12,200 in this one decade. The actual decrease

in forestry cut (timber production) between 1909 and 1919, however,

was only 5.4 per cent; demonstrating a substantial productivity in-

crease in this sector. In terms of labor force, the relative direct

importance of the forestry sector in the state's economy decreased

from 5.9 per cent in 1910 to 3.2 per cent in 1920. However the for-

estry sector was also important as a major source of raw materials

for Florida manufactures and, perhaps somewhat passively, as trans-

portation tonnage which necessitated investment in transportation

facilities and related services. Concurrently with this decline in

forestry labor force, employment in the lumber industry in the Pacific

Northwest increased from 68,300 to 94,600 -in 1919.9


8United States Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census of
the United States taken in the year 1920. Vol. VIII, Manufactures,
1919. General Report and Analytical Tables, p. 252.

James Neville Tattersall, "The Economic Development of the
Pacific Northwest to 1920" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Washington, 1960), p. 179.











The Southern states were still dominant in lumber production but this

dominance was to shift to the Western states in the following decade.10

It is a bit awkward to have trade and transportation combined

in one sector. It may be helpful to point out that in the nation,

in 1880 and in 1900, the proportion of employment in trade was about

twice that in transportation; and that by 1940 the proportion had

increased to almost three-to-one. In Florida, the trade and transpor-

tation subsectors were roughly equal in 1880 and in 1900; but trade

had attained a more than three-to-one ratio by 1940.11 Rather unex-

pectedly, Florida's share of national gains in the trade and trans-

portation sector declined slightly from the 1870's to the 1880's.

Unexpectedly, because the 1880's was the decade of vast expansion in

railroad transportation. On the other hand, one might speculate that

it was precisely the introduction of this highly productive means of

transport which brought about a relatively larger reduction in employ-

ment in less productive means of transport. Then, too, there were

concurrent relative declines in agriculture and forestry, the sectors

providing the largest tonnage demand for the transportation of their

products. The small decline in the 1890's, and the subsequent doubling,

or near doubling, in national gains for the following decades, appear

consistent with expectations.


10Ibid., p. 184.

1lLee, pp. 625-4.











The services sector is a very complex and ever-changing aggre-

gate. Florida's share in national gains was particularly low in the

1870's and in the 1900's, for somewhat obscure reasons. In the decade

chapters the nature of these reasons may be partially isolated through

the occupational detail therein. Table 25 presents the sector contri-

butions to Florida's net shift by decades. This data has been pre-

sented and discussed earlier in contrasting Florida with selected

states. It is presented here in summary fashion for Florida alone to

emphasize the relative importance of each sector in each decade in

contributing to Florida's relative gains (or infrequent losses).


TABLE 25
SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FLORIDA. NET


SHIFT BY DECADES


Sector 1870's 1880's 1890's 1900's 1910's 1920's


Agriculture 38.2 -5.5 30.1 33.0 8.8 18.5
Fishing 0.7 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.9 0.1
Forestry 2.0 0.5 5.0 4.7 -14.5 1.5
Mining 0.3 1.1 2.4 2.1 -1.4 -0.3
Manufacturing 23.8 27.2 21.5 36.3 17.5 20.5
Trade 13.7 18.9
20.0 11.8 5.7 18.2
Transport 7.3 7.2
Services 15.0 52.0
Professional -0.5 1.1 6.3 7.3
Public 2.5 2.5
Other 32.4 -3.0 22.2 15.7
Clerical 2.9 7.4
Totals 100.0 100.1 99.9 100.1 100.0 99.9


Source: Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited.











Table 26 compares economic change in Florida with that in the

nation, for each of the six decades, in terms of the percentages of

the composition and competition shifts of the labor force of Florida

in relation to the summation of like shifts for all other states of

the nation.

TABLE 26

SUMMARY OF FLORIDA COMPETITION AND COMPOSITION
NET SHIFTS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S. SHIFTS
BY DECADES


DaComposition Competition
Fla. % of U.S. Change Fla. % of U.S. Change

1870-1880 -1.17 +0.95
+.09 +1.39
1880-1890 -1.08 +2.32
+.04 +0.36
1890-1900 -1.04 +2.68
-.19 +0.70
1900-1910 -1.23 +3.38
+.26 +0.76
1910-1920 -0.97 +4.14
+.44 +4.03
1920-1930 -0.53 +8.17

Total +.64 +7.24

Sources Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited.



It is apparent that Florida has continually gained over the

period in terms of percentage of both composition and competition

shifts, except for a drop in the former during the 1900-1910 decade.

Also apparent is the consistently increasing gain in competition per-

centage and the consistently decreasing loss in composition percent-

agej the brief reversal of the latter in the 1900's being fully










compensated in the 1910's. Another striking feature of these changing

percentages is that the 1920's contributed more to the total change

than the prior five decades combined; some 69 per cent of the compo-

sition change and 56 per cent of the competition change.

It must be recognized that there is an inter-relationship

between the composition and competition shifts. The competition shift

still contains substantial elements of composition shift in terms of

the relative specialization of Florida in the rapid or slow growth

subsectors of each of the major sectors considered in this study. In

terms of levels of disaggregation, the composition shifts herein iden-

tified are only first level shifts and the same process of separating

competition and composition effects could be repeated at successive

levels of disaggregation if data, time, and space permitted. Another

area of inter-relatedness exists in that differential competition

shifts tend to change the relative degree of specialization in rapid

and slow growth sectors over time.

Another measure which was computed for each decade is the

composition index. The index for each decade was derived in the

chapter on the respective decade; they are summarized in Table 27.

After the first decade, the composition index has increased in

Florida's favor in each of the following decades except for the 1900's,

and this lost ground was fully recovered in the succeeding decade.

This composition index, accordingly, corresponds to the pattern of the

composition shift presented in Table 26.










TABLE 27

COMPOSITION INDEX SUMMARY BY DECADE

Decade Index

1870-1880 .465
1880-1890 .442
1890-1900 .550
1900-1910 .512
1910-1920 .562
1920-1950 .992


Source: Table 34 for the 1870's.
Like tables from other
decade chapters.



Especially dramatic is the radical change in ratio in the

last decade after the rather gradual changes of the preceding five

decades. The total change in ratio for the first five decades netted

only .099; and suddenly there was a change of .430 in the 1920's.

To afford some basis for comparison, Dunn has computed that the ratio

which is here termed a composition index was 1.540 for Florida during

the period 1939-1958. For the same period he found that all other

southern states ranged from .182 for Arkansas to .701 for Virginia.12

For the nation as a whole the index would, of course, be 1.000, or

unity. This revolution in magnitude for Florida in the 1920's would

perhaps justify a tentative hypothesis that this decade, whatever the



12Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., "The Changing Economic Structure of the
South and Its Implications for Economic Development." Prepared for
The First Annual Conference of the Inter-University Committee for
Economic Research on the South. Mimeographed and unpaged. Figures
taken from Table II. Monograph publication contemplated by University
of Florida Press in 1962.










untoward effects of the boom, was the transforming decade in Florida's

economic makeup. To the extent measured by the composition index,

it was in this decade that Florida unmistakably departed the ranks of

the South.

Other Measures of Change


Wealth

One of the many ways to visualize the over-all economic devel-

opment of Florida over a major portion of this period is in terms of

wealth. Data are not available to present decennial comparisons but

Easterlin has developed national estimates which are helpful in reveal-

ing changes in Florida's wealth between 1880, 1900, and 1920 as compared

with national wealth. Table 28 is based on data contained in the

Easterlin estimates, with some manipulation.

This table indicates that total wealth in Florida as a percent-

age of total national wealth, by location, increased by 43 per cent

between 1880 and 1900, and by 95 per cent between 1900 and 1920. The

relatively greater increase between 1900-1920 as compared to 1880-1900

is almost entirely attributable to increase in agricultural rather

than nonagricultural wealth. Corresponding percentages in nonagricul-

tural wealth, as between these two twenty-year intervals, were only

55 and 65 per cent; but for agricultural wealth were 9 and 252 per cent.

Equivalent percentages for total wealth, by ownership, are 50 and 109

per cent; and for nonagricultural wealth, by ownership, the differen-

tial between the two twenty-year intervals is again small, that between

72 and 78 per cent.







90



TABLE 28

FLORIDA PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL WEALTH
BY SELECTED CATEGORIES


Florida Percentage of National Wealth
Category 1880 Per cent 1900 Per cent 1920
Change Change

Total Wealth
By location .28 43 .40 95 .78
By ownership .22 50 .33 109 .69

(Own/Loc Ratio .79 5 .85 6 .88)

Agricultural Wealth
By location .25 9 .25 252 .88

Nonagricultural Wealth
By location .30 55 .46 65 .75
By ownership .21 72 .56 78 .64

(Own/Loc Ratio .70 11 .78 9 .85)


Notes: No allowance for foreign ownership of domestic wealth.
U.S. 100 per cent.
1920 figures based on 1919-1921 average and partly on 1922.

Source: Lee, Table 4.6, pp. 729-35.



By computing the ratio between ownership and location percent-

ages, this table also reveals the net trend toward greater local con-

trol of total wealth and nonagricultural wealth. With unity represent-

ing a net equivalence of wealth measured by ownership and location,

Florida increased its ratio from .79 in 1880 to .83 in 1900 to .88

in 1920 for total wealth; and from .70 in 1880 to .78 in 1900 to .85

in 1920 for nonagricultural wealth. Agricultural wealth is assumed by

Easterlin to have a net ownership-location ratio of unity; an assump-

tion perhaps more doubtful for Florida than for many states.




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E2WGM7HDR_4NXHS6 INGEST_TIME 2011-11-21T18:24:35Z PACKAGE AA00004952_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF FLORIDA 1870-1930 By WALLACE MARTIN NELSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE G RADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSI1Y OF FLORIDA June, 1962

PAGE 2

PREFACE This dissertation is divided into two parts. Part I presents an historical and quantitative narrative of Florida's economic devel opnent from 1870 to 1930 in tenns of institutional background, economic factors, and economic sectors. Extensive use is made of a statistical device known as the shift technique to portray Florida's develoIJllent in relation to that of the nation and to that of certain other states. Part II presents the methodology employed in developing the quantitative materials in the reference tablesJ particularly in relation to the 8Ubstate areas of Florida. Much of this material is incorporated in summary fashion in Part I. The substance of the study is thus in Part IJ with Part II and the reference tables providing part of the quantitative framework and backup. Part of the research for this study was accomplished as a graduate assistant under a research grant from Resources for the Future, Inc. and part as a fellow of the Inter-University Committee for Economic Research on the South. Grateful acknowledgement is made for this aid. I am deeply indebted to my Supervisory ColllllitteeJ especially Professor Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., its Chairman, for his advice and patience in supervising this dissertation and for the computational aid which was rendered by his office. It should also be recorded that Dr. John N. Webb assumed an extra supervisory burden during a leave ii

PAGE 3

of absence of the Chairman and that the nature of this study was greatly--if indirectly--affected by Dr. Rembert W. Patrick. I am indebted also for the outstanding facilities for research on Florida made available by the very competent library staff of the P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, located at the University of Florida. iii

PAGE 4

PREFACE LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . PART I. DEVELOPMENT Chapter I. INTROWCTION II. III. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW IV. THE 18701s . . v. THE 18801s VI. THE 18901 s . . VII. THE 19001 s . . VIII. THE 19101 a IX. THE 19201 s . . . . . . . . Page ii V . . . ... viii . . . . . . ix 2 14 '57 95 X. POSTSCRIPT . . . . . . . . . . . . 1'52 162 187 220 258 '501 PART II. METHOIDLOGY Il. MEASURING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT XII. MEASURING FLORIDA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY iv 307 '532 . . . 373 419

PAGE 5

--------------~----------------Table 1. 2. LIST OF TABLES Total Population and Constituent Elements Net Migration Rates of Native Whites 3. Net Migration Rates of Negroes or Nonwhites Page 41 43 44 4. Comparison of Net Internal and Net External Migration 45 5. Comparison of Percentage Rates of Population Increase 47 6. Computation of Comparative Labor Force Participation Rates. 49 7. Summary of Comparative Labor Force Participation Rates 50 8. Florida Labor Force Participation Rates Differentiated by Age and Sex . . 50 9. Comparison of Urban Percentage Rates of Increase 10. Comparison of Urban Percentage of Total Population 11. U .s. Growth Rates by Sector by Decade 12. 13. Total Net Shift in Labor Force Total Net Shift in Labor Force as Percentage of Total U.S. Shift . 14. Total Competition Shift 15. Total Composition Shift 16. Total Competition Shift as Percentage of Total 17. 18. 19. Net Sllift . . . . . . . Total Composition Shilt as Percentage of Total Net Sllift . Comparative State Percentage of Total U.S. Competition Shift Comparative State Percentage of Total U.S. Composition Shift V 52 52 54 56 56 57 59 60 61 62 63

PAGE 6

Table 20. 21. 22. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Sector Net Shifts--State Snift as Percentage of U.S. Shift by Decade ..... Comparative Sector Contributions to State Net Snifts by Decades . . SWlI!llary Average of Comparative Sector Contributions to State Net Shifts .... 23. Sector Contributions to Florida Total Labor Force by Ilecades . . . . . . 24. Florida Share of U.S. Net Shift by Sectors by Decades Page 64 70 77 79 82 25. Sector Contributions to Florida Net Shift by Decades. 85 26. Summary of Florida Competition and Composition Net Shifts as Percentage of Total U.S. Net Shift by Decades . . 86 27. Composition Index Summary by Decades . 28. Florida Percentage of National Wealth by Selected Categories ............... 29. Wealth of Florida and the U.S. by Selected Categories in Current Dollars . . 30. Components of Personal Income in Florida for Selected Years . 31. Components of Personal Income in Florida and U.S. on Per Capita or Per Worker Basis .. 32. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 18701s 33. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 18701s. 88 90 91 92 93 122 124 34. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 18701s 124 35. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1880 r s 155 36. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1880's 156 37. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 18801s 157 vi

PAGE 7

Table 38. 39. 40. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Florida Banks, 1890 1898 .. . . . . . Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 18901s . Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 18901s Page 175 176 177 41. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1890's. 178 42. Statistics on Florida Corporations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1910 . . 45. Absolute Changes 1n Sector Labor Force 1n the 19001s. . 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 19001s Sector Contributions to Composition Effect 1n the 19001s Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 19101s Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 19101s Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 19101s . 49. Principal Industrie~Ranked by Value of Products, 1919 so. 51. 52. S&. 54. 55. 56. 57. Per Capita Debt of Selected Florida Counties Between 1922 and 19 52 Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force 1n the 19201s Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 19201s Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 19201s Biennial Change 1n Average Wage Earners in Manufacturing, 1919-29 . Distribution of "Laborers, Not Specified" (LNS) in norida, 1870-1900 . . . Distribution of Clerical Occupations in Florida, 1910-1930 . . . . State Labor Force Control Series . . . vii 206 207 208 209 241 242 243 249 ,_,,... 273 ,__ 280...281 282 291 338 339 MO

PAGE 8

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Key Role of Labor Force in Measurement of Economic Growth . . 2. Components of Productivity Page 38 330 3. Map of Florida . . . . . . . 345 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES Table G-1 County Group Designators . . . . . . Page 374 P-1 Florida Population, by Counties, by Decades, 1870-1930 575 P-2 Florida Population, by Comparable Substate Groupings, by Decennial Periods, 1870-1930 M-1 Florida Rates of Natural Increase, by Category, 1870-19 5() M-2 Florida Net Migration, by Counties by Decades, 1870-19 5C> M-5 Florida Net Migration, by Comparable Substate Groupings, 577 381 583 by Decades, 1870-1930 585 M-4 Summation of County Net Migration, by Category, 1870-19 5() 387 M-5 Net Migration as Percentage of End Population Both External and Internal, by Decades, 1870-1930 389 M-6 Net Migration as Percentage of End Population, by Com-parable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-19:30. 590 LS-1 Labor Force and Population, by Categories, by Decades, 1870-1930 592 LS-2 Labor Force Participation Rates, by Categories, by Decades, 1870-19:30 ..... LS-5 Florida Labor Force Control Series, by Industrial Sectors, by Decades, 1870-1930 .... LS-4 LS-5 LS-6 Sector Percentage Change, by Decades, 1870-19:30. Sector Percentage of Florida Labor Force, by Decades, 1870-19:30 Distribution Comparisons for Sector Labor Force in 19 :30 . . . ix 395 394 395 395 396

PAGE 10

LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES--Continued Table LC-1 Florida Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1950 ..... LC-2 Florida Labor Force Participation Rate Estimates, by Page ~8 Comparable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 187 0 -1950 405 LC-5 Agricultural Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1950 ... LC-4 Mining Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate 407 Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1950 . . . 411 LC-5 Manufacturing Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1950 . . . 415 LC-6 Sector Distribution of Florida's Labor Force, 1950 .. 417 X

PAGE 11

PART I DEVELOPMENT

PAGE 12

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Florida has a unique and fascinating history and the economic aspects of its history contribute to this uniqueness and fascination. With its background of Southern traditions, Western frontiers, and Eastern connections, it is a region which -blends some of our major national ingredients. To tell the story of Florida's economic development over six decades in full is not possible herein. But this study will attempt its portrayal on the basis of two hypotheses. The first is that the study of the economic development of a region must be based upon a quantitative structure which meshes the region with both the larger area and its component areas; specifically, meshes Florida with the nation and with Florida substate areas.1 This task is largely undertaken in Part II of the study and the detailed results are numerically presented in the reference tables. The second hypothesis is that this skeleton of quantitative structure must be fleshed by a 1 Abbey writes: "State history may be approached from two points of view. It may be conceived as a group of developing localities assembled under one political organization, or it may be regarded as a region which has shared in the unfoldment of larger areas, a section, a nation, or a colonial empire." Kathryn Trimmer Abbey, Florida, Land of Change (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1941), p. vii. Tnis study emphasizes the latter view but does contribute estimates which relate to the former view. 2

PAGE 13

qualitative picture of the times, including the institutional back ground. This task is undertaken in Part I of the study. Part I draws heavily on Part II for its quantitative framework. Qualitatively it draws heavily on the economic, political, and social content of the biennial messages of Florida governors for thematic continuity in reflecting the changing times and attitudes, and on the work of the many who have written about this period of Florida hietory. The purpose of this study is to portray the economic development of Florida from 1870 to 1950, relating Florida both to the nation and to its spatial components (counties or county groups). An integrated quantitative structure will be used, both to control the portrayal and to make it more explicit. The structure will deal with such primary areas as population redistribution, labor force changes, and inoane distribution. This structure will depend extensively on the monumental reference work Population Redistribution and Economic Growth to place Florida in the national economic scene in each of these primary areas.2 Thus oriented, Florida will be structurally dissected to provide a comprehensive and consistent series of substate economic data. 2 Everett S. Lee, and others, Po ulation Redistribution and Economic Growth, United States, 1870 1950, Vol. I: Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1957). The usefulness of this publication for the purpose is pointed up by the following quotation taken from a review by M. S. Gordon in the June, 1961, issue of The American Economic Review, 11 pp. 482-4: "The results are immensely valuable as a convenient source of statistical data, much of which is in a form not available elsewhere. The future investigator who is concerned, for example, with an analysis of a p articular state or region will find his task :immeasurably lightened as a result of the availabil-ity of reclassified census series and migration estimates for his state or region."

PAGE 14

Much of the man-hour effort involved in this study has necessarily been devoted to the mechanics of developing the quantitative structure. It is hoped that this structure will have enough generalized integrity to provide a base for research exploration going beyond the scope of the dissertation itself. If so, it will provide a frame work for further study of Florida's economic development. 4 If written a few years ago, a dissertation on this sub,iect would necessarily have assumed a different character. This paper depends very much in its methodology, perspective, and assumptions on such recent books as Methods of Regional Analysis;5 Regions, Resources, and Economic Growth;4 Population Redistribution and Economic Growth;5 and current additions to the National Bureau of Economic Research series. Methods is a current survey of the primary techniques available for the analysis of a regional economy. Regions is a current application of regional analysis methodology which has directly influenced this study. Regions also contributes to placing Florida in its regional and temporal setting within the United States. Population provides in its reference tables a quantitative reconstruction of key economic variables of the period of interest. This reconstruction, 3walter Isard, Methods of Re sis: an Introduction to Regional Science (Ne .. w""""'-or...,k:-1-..-0-,----..-------,.-,,..0-n-s-,--.~n-c-.-,-1"""_..--Hereafter referred to as Methods. 4Harvey s. Perloff, Edgar S. Richard F. Muth, Re ions Resources The Johns Hopkins 6 o as 6r.ee, Hereafter referred to as Population.

PAGE 15

disaggregated by states, thus provides a framework which relates Florida to every other state and to the nation. Acceptance of this framework, in its essential details, permits this study to concentrate on a further disaggregation of these variables at a substate level to provide the internal framework. The economic development of Florida 5 can then be viewed as the resultant of both external and internal forcesJ with both sets of forces quantified on a generally comparable basis. The external data serve to control the summation of the substate data. Population contains four main sets of estimates: first, estimates of inter-state migration; second, estimates of labor force changes by primary economic sectorsJ third, various series pertaining to the redistribution of manufacturing activityJ and fourth, estimates of the redistribution of income. Isard writes of the several possible theoretical approaches to "the basic spatial interrelations which underlie the location of economic activities and regional development." Relative to the historical approach he writes: Unquestionably, historical generalizations, more comprehensive and at the same time more incisive than those we now possess, can be achieved in the study of the past and current spatial and regional structure of the world economy and its various sectors.6 Of this essentially evolutionary approach he further writes: It not only furnishes a convenient and meaningful breakdown for studying historical sequences of locational structures and 6wa1ter Isard, Location and Space-Economy (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956). Hereafter referred to as Location. p. 15.

PAGE 16

for classifying historical facts but will also be very suggestive for pursuing dynamic anal;sis, once an improved general static theory has been achieved. 6 After a considerable review of the literature with respect to Florida's economy it seems an unrewarding task to assemble more material without a good quantitative foundation. Masses of unrelated and non-comparable statistics on the various aspects of the economy are available but they are of little utility in developing a balanced view of Florida's economy. So far as is possible data will not be introduced in this study unless they contribute directly to developing its quantitative framework or in fleshing out the structural bones. The principal source for data will be the several Censuses. Though generally providing the most reliable and significant data available this source does pose many problems of comparability and coverage. These problems are mitigated considerably by the lesser degrees of noncomparability between successive decades than between the exterior decades of 1870 and 1930. Leontieff brings this out very clearly in this composite passages Comparing the structure of an economic system in two stages of its historical development sufficiently removed fran each other, one might easily find them to be as unalike as a butterfly and a caterpillar . the commodities and services found in the two stages might turn out to be entirely dissimilar. A quantitative comparison, a measurement of the difference between the two stages, would in such a case be out of the question However different the goods and services observed at the opposite ends of a long chain of economic transfonnation, its successive links are necessarily intenneshed The operation of "splicing time series" turns out in this formulation to be logically identical with that 7Ibid., p. 30.

PAGE 17

Any treatment of history involves a choice between, usually a compromise between, the chronological and the topical. In the present compromise, the time period from 1870 to 1950 is disaggregated into decennial units which are treated in separate chapters, in turn topically subdivided. In addition to the methodological reasons, suggested in the foregoing quotation, this arrangement permits a more efficient exploitation of the vast amount of data available from the several censuses, both state and national. As an added compromise, since decennial segments are perforce arbitrary and impede the now of historic time, the six decennial chapters in Part I are preceded by two preliminary chapters which attempt to establish an overview of the period. The first of these preliminary chapters sketches the historical background of economic development in tenns of events and themes. The second preliminary chapter seeks to provide a general perspective of the period in tenns of a few key economic variables; a quantitative or dimensional picture of economic development. The decennial chapters then unite and add 8 Wassily Leontieff, and the American Economy (New York: pp. 20-22. others, Studies in the Structure of Oxford University Press, 1955), 7

PAGE 18

detail to the qualitative and quantitative structure of Florida's economic develonent. Essentially then, the decennial chapters will bring together 8 a quantitative economic framework and descriptive Florida history; with emphasis on the conditioning institutional background, specific econ omic factors, and economic sectors. Galbraith has written that "the marriage of economics and history produces a hybrid which regularly combines the the inadequacies of both." He then proceeds to consmn mate such a marriage by reconsidering the "contemporary myth" of the economic and financial history of the Civil War--and the post-war effects on the economy of the South. Galbraith's marriage of econ omics and history might be termed a trial marriage. He tried Keynesian economics out on Southern history and the hybrid should be no surprise.9 In broader terms, however, there is no economics without history; economics without history is wholly inadequate. But this paper does not attempt to marry economics and history. Its aim is much more modest; it is an attempt to bring out some relationships of patterned economic data against a background of descriptive and interpretive Florida history. To this end a rough and ready pattern will be employed in structuring the treatment of each decennial period. Each decade will be treated under three ma,jor headings. The first heading will be titled "Institutional Background." It will draw 9 John Kenneth Galbraith, The Liberal Hour (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960), p. 3.

PAGE 19

9 largely on secondary sources which relate to the political, social and economic history of Florida, either directly or through pertinent history of the South. The second major heading will be titled "Economic Factors." Under this heading will normally be subheads of population, including migration and labor; of land, including public lands and reclamation; and of capital, including banking and property valuation. The area covered by the subhead of population will receive relatively detailed treatment, including some analytical manipulation, and some data will be presented in the other areas. The third major heading will be titled "Economic Sectors" and this will normally include a breakdown of the labor force into sane seven or more industrial sectors, based on the estimates of Part II. An attempt will be made to portray Florida's economic developnent within this quantitative framework by integrating the institutional background and economic factors with additional material on the substantive makeup of the several industrial sectors.10 In outlining the institutional background of Florida's development, and in discussing some of the economic factors in this development, considerable emphasis will be given to the content of the messages of the Florida governors to their respective legislatures. lOThis all seems rather formidable. But, to paraphrase the author of a recent book review, we need to convey a sense of the uniqueness of Florida, the smell of it. Walter C. Neale, The Journal of Economic History, XIl, (March, 1961), 107. And the smell of it is a compound of the manifold and transient aromas of a specific time period, So, for each decade, we compound some of the varied and diverse ingredients which seem to have shaped the economic development of Florida.

PAGE 20

10 They provide a useful summary of the development of many Florida institutions. Their format is rather stable and helps mirror the changing outlook of the several governors to the changing problems of the state (in some instances, the unchanged outlook to the unchanged problems). It is recognized that there is bias in these executive messages, both executive and personal bias; and other sources, such as the general histories of Florida will be depended upon to reduce this bias. Discounting executive bias and the tendency to self-justification, a study of this series of messages impresses one with the permanency of certain aspects of Florida's growth and the recurrent themes 11 which pervade it. It appears pertinent to consider briefly why and how the governors' messages reflect the economic and political history of Florida. Perhaps an underlying hypothesis can be adapted from Richard Hofstadter. In American Political Tradition, he employs a series of twelve biographical essays to analyze the political development of 11In order to retain the flavor of the times, many quotations (frequently brief phrases) are taken from the messages of the several governors. Each such quotation is identified in the text by the name of the governor and the year of the message. Since each of these messages is short, is topically arranged, and is published in several sources--it seems pointless to employ footnotes to cite page numbers and sources. The House and Senate Journals for the corresponding years were the sources usually employed and quotations can readily be verified therein. The division of the Governors' messages into groups by decennial periods presents a minor problem. Since a gubernatorial message delivered, for example, in 1891 reflects conditions in the state during the two preceding years, 1889 and 1890, it is somewhat arbitrarily determined that generally the message of 1891, and comparably placed years in other decades, will be included in the chapter on the prior decade, in this case the 18801s.

PAGE 21

11 the nation in te:nns of the men who made notable contributions to it.12 He dealt with these men in their capacity as leaders of popular thought. In effect, he concluded that these leaders generally confo:nned to guidance of popular thought and he stressed the need for emphasizing the common climate of American opinion. In this study the sixteen Florida governors of the period covered will be accepted as the most generally authentic contemporary voice of popular thought. As a byproduct, with more advantage than disadvantage, each of these period spokesmen is voicing the common opinion in the same frame of reference; to the extent that a pervasive mood develops--through the continuity of the executive-to-legislative tone and perspective. The governors of Florida have, without exception, placed considerable stress on the economic development of Florida; in words if not always in action. Generally, during the period covered, each governor served one term of four years and delivered two messages to the legislature; the first usually in the April following his November election and the second two years later, about mid-term. After 1885 they were not eligible for immediate re-election and their messages generally appear to reflect their desires to establish a statesman-like stance on the stage of Florida history. Commonly, they advocated economic, political, and social reforms somewhat in advance of their acceptability to the state legislature. Normally, in view of their brief tenure, they were limited in effective advocacy to issues compatible with the current climate of public opinion. In general, the 12(New York: Vintage Books, 1948).

PAGE 22

governors appear to have been more responsive to the democratic will of the people than were the legislatures; but this must be qualified to the extent that the governors are largely judged by their words and the legislatures by their actions. 12 In using this series of some thirty-five gubernatorial messages (including extra sessions) to reflect the institutional background to Florida's economic development, it is thus my hypothesis (descriptive not explanatory) that they are a rather accurate reflection of the contemporary attitudes of Floridians to economic develonent. Not only did the campaign promises of the successful candidate have to be generally acceptable to the electorate; afterwards the governor could translate these political promises into statesman-like transmissions to the legislature which largely removed the dross of the campaign to give specific proposals for legislative action. In support of this hypothesis, Doyle, in his thorough work on Florida government, wrote that governors' messages "reflect, as does no other source, the economic and political history of Florida.1115 It may be argued that excessive attention has been paid to the role of the state government in respect to the economic developnent of Florida; and that not enough attention has been devoted to the .underlying economic factors operating in the private economy. This criticism is accepted, in part.14 More attention could well be devoted to the 1 Wilson K. Doyle, and others, The Government and Administration of Florida (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, l954J, p. 66. 14 Although economic activity in the private sector vastly exceeds that in the public sector, one might counter that it is only

PAGE 23

15 latter area. It is considered, however, that the priorities dictated first, a reasonably detailed presentation of the institutional background and second, the development of some consistent quantitative measures of Florida's economic development. From this base further progress is possible; without it further progress is difficult. And essentially, the scope of this study is concentrated on the development of this base. Further to buttress this emphasis on institutional background one might cite Joseph A. Schumpeter who bases his preference for the study of economic history on three grounds: First, the subject matter of economics is essentially a unique process in historic time. Nobody can hope to understand the economic phenomena of any, including the present, epoch who has not an adequate command of historical facts and an adequate amount of historical sense or of what may be described as historical experience. Second, the historical report can not be purely economic but must inevitably reflect also "institutional" facts that are not purely economic: therefore it affords the best method for understanding how economic and non-economic fact are related to one another and how the various social sciences should be related to one another. Third, it is, I believe, the fact that most of the fundamental errors currently committed in economic analysis are due to lack of historical experience more often than to any other shortcoming of the economist's equipment.15 through the public sector and its related institutions that society as a whole can affect the course of economic development. 15As quoted in a brochure of theColumbia University Graduate School. The source in Schumpeter's writings is not identified.

PAGE 24

CHAPTER II HISTORICAL OVERVIEW General The purpose of this chapter is to present, in summary fashion, the historical background--and some of the foreground--of Florida's economic development from 1870 to 1930. It will provide an essential backdrop for the following chapter which presents an overview of Florida's economic development in terms of quantitative change in key economic variables. rne chapter draws on the institutional content of the series of chapters which deal with each decennial period as a structural unit of the over-all period. The second section of this chapter will briefly consider the major events of the period and their influence on Florida's economic development. The third section will attempt a summarization of the major themes of the period as they impinged on economic development. First, however a note on the pre-history of the period may be useful. Since there is no end in tracing historical antecedents, discussion of pre-1870 developments is arbitrarily kept to a minimum. Ante-bellum Florida is generally described as a plantation economy based upon the institution of slavery. After the War military rule prevailed until 1868 and the subsequent Reconstruction under civil control continued to 1877, based on the 1868 Constitution. Reconstruction was 14

PAGE 25

15 a trying period for Florida, as for the other Southern states. Florida was what would now be termed an underdeveloped area, was faced with extensive post-war adjustments, and was in the midst of a major social upheaval. Some comment as to the effect of the Civil War on the economic develo!Jllent of the South generally is probably indicated. Perhaps the extreme "liberal" view is thats After a hundred years, the South has not entirely got over the habit of attributing its economic misfortunes to the Civil War and the afterrnath--an attribution for 'Which there is no supporting evidence.l This allegation seems somewhat less pertinent to Florida than to the South generally but nevertheless Florida was a more active participant in the war than is sometimes realized: engagements were fought on its territory; its major ports were occupied; and it was a most important source of supplies, notably salt and cattle.2 Galbraith argues that Civil War financing through borrowing did not have serious post-war consequences since: The confederate bonds of those 'Who had supplied of later public revenues. the revenue remained with that became worthless were the claims savings to repayment with interest out They weren't repaid, 'Which meant that other persons for other use.3 1 John Kenneth Galbraith, The Liberal Hour (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1960), p. 3. 2'1'hough few would subscribe to Dacy's statement relative to keeping the supply lines open: "It is common knowledge that the Civil War might have ended several years earlier than it did except for the stirring and brilliant victory .. at the Battle of Oluetee" in Florida. George H. Dacy~ Four Centuries of Florida Ranching (St. Louis: Britt Printing Co., 1940;, p. 56. 3Galbraith, p. 90.

PAGE 26

16 As to real capital, Galbraith argues that: "The physical capital of the South suffered, but the impression of enduring harm must be squared with the rapid rebuilding. 11 He cites recent West German recovery as an example of the ambiguous impact of war on an economy--even to the loser. An obvious rebuttal to the pertinence of this example would question its relevance in comparing situations so far removed in time and space--and culture. Moreover the United States appears to have been more magnanimous in aiding in the economic reconstruction of a defeated Germany than a defeated South. Of the post-war period Woodward writes1 "No sooner had the Southerners returned to Washington and presented their internal improvement bills, however, than they were informed that the Great Barbecue was over and that they were too late.114 To continue Galbraith's argument, he refers to the "mystical destruction of the capital of the South" represented by some four billion dollars worth of wealth in the form of slaves.5 He states: 4c. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877 1913 (Louisiana State University Preas, 1951), p. 50. 5 The 1870 U.S. Census notes: "The great reduction in the assessed values of personal property in the Southern States since 1860 is, in the main, due to the emancipation of the human chattels which, at the Eighth Census, formed so large a portion of the wealth of those States. 11 (Vol. 5, p. 7) The assessed value of Florida real estate went down from some $21.7 to $20.2 million from 1860 to 1870 but the assessed value of personal property went down from $47.2 to .$12.5 million in that period. Total assessed valuation went down from $68.9 to $32.5 million but "true valuation111 according to the Census estimates, only decreased from $75.1 to ~44.2 million. (Ibid., p. 21)

PAGE 27

17 None of this makes sense by any modern view. The capital in the slaves was not destroyed. It was transferred from plantation owner to freedmen, and there was social loss only so far as the labor produced by the latter was less efficient.6 Summarizing, Galbraith writes: It would seem possible that the South was in a bad way before the war--that it had, in fact, an obsolescent agrarian economy in which poverty was disguised by slavery and the power, prestige and income of a considerable ruling class on which all attention centered. We may go on to speculate as to why industry came later to this part of the country. Perhaps it was a late start in which slavery played a part. Perhaps it was an accident of commerce routes and geography and the course of immigration. There are many possible reasons, and among them the war would seem to be among the least.7 Foregoing is the economic argument of Galbraith. He is attacking the "folklore" explanation of the supposedly deleterious effects of the Civil War on the economic develonent of the South. But preceding this attack he presents an hypothesis as to how this historical misunderstanding came about. In summary he defines a "great historical event" as one which "changes people or, more precisely, the way they think, so that they are never the same again"; and as one giving "deep sorrow, fear, or pain to a large majority of the people." Ha postulates the Civil War as the greatest historical event influ encing the United States in the last century, not excluding both world wars and the depression of the 19501s. He writes that in the Confederacy "the trauma of war and its aftermath was profound" and that such events change people and thus the course of hietory.8 6Galbraith, p. 90. 7 ~-, p. 92. 8 Ibid., pp. 79-82.

PAGE 28

18 Galbraith's economic argument minimizes the direct effects of the Civil War on the subsequent economic development of the South. But Galbraith himself, in the preceding paragraph, advances a hypothesis which emphasizes the direct effects of the Civil War in changing the way people think "so that they are never the same again." If one subscribes to the theory that the way people think has a vital bearing on the nature of the development of their economy it appears that Galbraith, in minimizing the direct economic effects of the Civil War, may have tended to ignore the indirect economic effects--conceivably more important. Naturally an economist prefers to isolate the econ omic factors and demonstrate their operation. Untangling indirect effects is difficult and in large part impossible. Yet they cannot be ignored. Thia is not to say that Galbraith's attack on the conviction "that the war put a permanent blight on the fortunes of the entire region" was not justified. In fact, one might argue that the economic consequences of the Civil War were, in the long run, quite the con traryJ that the Civil War acted to eliminate blighting institutions and blighting ways of thoughtJ that the economic consequences of the war were, in the net, beneficial to the economic development of the South.

PAGE 29

Major Events The major event of the 18701s was the transition from the Reconstruction period to the Redemption period; from Republican 19 control to Democratic controlJ from an effort to base political control on control of the masses to political control based on economic power. The Reconstruction period from the Constitution of 1868 to 1876 was not as radical in Florida as in many southern atates and the reaction under the Redemptionists was not as severe. The moderate nature of this transition is brought out in detail in Chapter IV. As continues to be the case, the successors to political power found they could not eradicate all the changes brought about by their predecessors. They were forced to build in large part on the inherited foundation. But on this foundation they made major changes in the relationship of state government to the controlling economic classes. The major event of the 18801s was the vast expansion in railroad transportation. At this time in Florida's economic developnent, transportation was the key. The land existed and potential migrants existed; only transportation could bring them together. But transportation was not a free costless good. The people, through the state government, spent millions of acres of public land--more than half the land area of Florida--to buy this transportation network. And they bought more than transportationJ they bought access to markets and access to raw materials and they bought expansion in every industrial sector. They bought the migration wave which quadrupled the net migration of the preceding decade in absolute terms; and almost tripled

PAGE 30

it in tenns of percentage of end population. The major event of the 18901s is more difficult to specify. Perhaps three should be named, In the political area the populist movement, in all of its ramifications, did not attain political supremacy but it did attack the linkage between economic power and political power and pave the way for progressive ascendancy in the following decade. In the physical world the great freezes of the 18901s drove the locus of citrus production a hundred miles to the south; a disaster at the time but one which had major implications for economic develop ment. In the international area the Spanish-American War gave great impetus to F1.orida1s economic develonent. Immediately, it doubled the capacity--not the mileage--of Florida's transportation network and stimulated a valuable cash flow for agricultural products, again with a shift of locus to the south. As the mounting out and staging area for Cuba, the War brought troops and fame to Florida; probably the major causal factor behind the migration wave of the following decade. The major event of the 19001s in the political area was the ascendancy of the Progressive wing of the Democratic party; a liberal izing and liberating influence. Initiated in many respects by Governor Jennings, but centering on Governor Broward and his immediate successors, the progressive era and spirit may be assigned a major causal role in Florida's economic expansion. As detailed in Chapter VII, Broward1s ideas in some respects were ahead of Florida's absorptive capacity at the time but served to break new mental ground at least. And in the field of reclamation, for example, he broke new physical

PAGE 31

21 ground, as later detailed. In the econanic area we have already ascribed to the Spanish-American War a major causal role for the migration wave of the 19001s. But the progressive spirit and the phyaical fact that large reclamation projects were being undertaken can also claim a contributing role in almost tripling the absolute net migration of the prior decade; and almost doubling net migration in terms of percentage of end population. The major event of the 19101s, in influencing Florida's economic growth, was World War I; both directly and through ite ramifications. During the early part of the decade Florida was, by some measures, experiencing a retrogression. Forestry which had made a relatively small contribution to Florida's develonent of itself, became a declining industry in the 19101s. But raw materials from the forestry sector constituted about half of the raw materials going into Florida's manufactured products, including some principal export products. The war stimulated manufactures in these products and changed net losses for the first half of the decade to large gains for the entire decade. A major new industry, steel ship and boat building, was a transient war-time phenomenon but produced secondary beneficial effects. Analagous to the effect of the Spanish-American War in the production of a migration wave in the 19001s, it is considered that World War I played a major role in producing a migration wave in the 19201s. The magnitudes of increase were almost identical as between the 18901s and 19001s as contrasted with the relationship of the 19101s and the 19201s. Net migration in the 19201s almost tripled that of

PAGE 32

the preceding decade, in absolute terms; and almost doubled the preceding decade in terms of percentage of end population. 22 Among the main event3 of the 192013, we may perhaps identify the boom and bust of mid-decade and the advent of the great depression of the 19301s at the end of the decade. Florida experienced a net migration during this decade which, in absolute tenns, approximated the net migration of all five prior decades; some 337,700 net in-migrants in the 19201s as compared with some 350,700 in the five preceding decades. It seems probable that this large influx of the 19201s, which totaled 25 per cent of Florida's 1950 population, was a major factor in bringing about the boom of mid-decade through press~ ure on usable land and available facilities. Heretofore, substantial migration waves in the 18801s and 19001s had largely been absorbed in moving the frontier southward. In the 19201s, however, we find that the cantering urbanization of prior decades was now at full gallop with an urban rate of increase of 115 per cent from 353,500 in 1920 to 759,880 in 1950. One of the concomitants of urbanization in Florida was diversification. Florida was doubly fortunate in also experiencing increasing diversification in the agricultural sector. Among the major sectors in Florida in 1930, about one-fourth of the labor force was engaged 1n agriculture, about one-fourth in manufacturing, about one-fourth in trade and transportation, and about one-fourth 1n services. The diversification of Florida's economy in the 19201s, following the pattern of earlier decades, aided Florida greatly in reducing to some degree the rigors of the ensuing depres sion.

PAGE 33

In the foregoing section, some of the ma,ior events of the period have been briefly discussed in reference to their impact on Florida's economic development. The rather heroic generalizations involved are given some detail, depth, and qualification in the chapters related to each decade. This will also be true for the following section in which we briefly consider some of the major themes relating to Florida's growth; primarily as distilled from gubernatorial messages. Major Themes General Abbey concisely writes that "the entire economic struggle of Florida from Ponce de Leon to the present has been the conquest of 23 . poor communications, sparse population, and undrained lands.119 Communications was largely a problem of entrepreneurship, capital, and technology; population was a problem of indur.ing immigration; and the undrained lands posed financial and technical problems, complicated by the problem of public land utilization o r disposal. To a considerable degree, F1.orida used one problem to help solve the others. Public lands were used to entice the capital to build the communications to bring in the migrants. Thus a major theme running through this period concerns the attitude of the state toward these various factors of production. 9 Abbey, p 345.

PAGE 34

24 Another major theme of this period relates to the availability and use of state resources, other than land, to promote economic developnent. This mainly concerned state finance and state regulatory power, with frequent relationships between them. State finance in Florida was primarily concerned with the nature, magnitude, and fairness of taJCes; with the economical use of state revenues for state objectives, and with the subject of state and local government debt. The state objectives, other than those inherent in the preceding themes, could be taken as a separate major theme. The developnent of the cornmon schools and the state institutions of higher learning constituted a very large investment in the human capital of Florida. Common schools were primarily funded at the local level but the state exercised the ultimate control over both funding and operations. Among the ameliorative type institutions, the penal system was a recurrent theme which pervaded the gubernatorial messages for the entire period. The last of the major themes, which could be given some attention here, is related to control of the state. Of interest here would be the relationship of economic power to political power. This of course brings in questions of suffrage, election procedures, apportionment, and lobbying. Florida's governors devoted much attention to these questions in their several messages. They constitute a theme of very considerable import in relation to the economic developnent of Florida. The remainder of this section summarizes some of the highlights of the first of these major themes, based on more detailed

PAGE 35

25 treatment in the series of chapters on each decade.10 Detailed treatment of some of the more peripheral areas has had to be curtailed or omitted to reduce the bulk of this study. Among these areas are those dealing with public education, the ameliorative institutions, and the issue of political control of the state as a function of economic power and as a measure of democracy. State Attitudes Population.--There seems to be correlation of sorts between the state attitude to population increase, as expressed in gubernatorial messages, and the magnitude of immigration. The Reconstruction governors pressed heavily for immigration measures and spoke optimistically about the success of their efforts, despite laggard legislatures and some lack of public interest. Governor Harrison Reed claimed an influx of 40,000 migrants between 1868 and 1871 and, in 1875, Governor Marcellus L. Stearns noted a general increase and looked hopefully forward to a population of one million by 1900; a goal only half met by that date and not achieved until 19 20. It seems likely that the transition from Reconstruction to Redemption in 1877 tended to slow down the influx of migrants into Florida until after 1880. The Redemption governors still pressed to promote immigration but the legislators responded sluggishly--if at all. In the 18801s, Governor William D. Bloxham and Governor Edward A. Perry continued to move for action to increase immigration. The Depa rtment of Immigration of 1870 had died and had been succeeded by a Bureau of lOThus the sources for statements in this section are to be found in these later chapters, unless otherwise cited.

PAGE 36

26 Immigration in 1879; followed in turn by a voluntary "Florida Immigration Association" in 1887 and then by another Bureau of Immigration-headed by the governor and directly financed by a one-eighth mill property tax. The Bloxham sale to Hamilton Disston in 1881 had multiple objectives, not the least of which was to remove major road-blocks to immigration. As a result of many and complex causal factors, immigration in the 18801s greatly exceeded that in the 18701s. The 1890vs, however, brought a large decline in immigration. T"nis may have been due in part to the yellow fever epidemics in the late 18801s, which forced an extra session of the legislature, and which undoubtedly were well publicized in the nation. The gubernatorial messages of the 18901s also demonstrated an unusual disinterest in specific action to promote immigration. Cyclical migration waves, which were thus given the pattern of a low in the 18701 s, a high in the 18801 s, and a low in the 18901s, continued in this pattern for the rest of the period. '!he in fluence of the Spanish-American War and World War I on migration are credited in the preceding section on major events. The fortuitous timing of these wars, however and moreover, may have greatly reinforced the hypothesized cyclical effect, at least in amplitude.11 111n a study of the California experience between 1900 and 1950, Gordon discusses the timing of migration waves in relation to population growth. Wnile not necessarily concluding that these waves are cyclical (in the sense of being self-generating), Gordon does point to the possibility that unusually high migration in one period will be followed by a period of absorption "before economic conditions are favorable for a new influx of migrants. 11 In Florida, these periods seem to have assumed the character of decennial periods in timing and

PAGE 37

State attitudes toward inducing irmnigration were generally favorable in the decade of the 19001s; Governors Napoleon B. Broward and Albert W. Gilchrist advocating advertizing campaigns and Gilchrist advocating free transportation for intending settlers. 27 Tne advent of the Progressive era also brought with it more concern for the welfare of the population. Such areas as child labor, arbitration of labor disputes, employee safety provisions, and employer's liability became the subject of frequent gubernatorial proposals. This concern continued on into the 19101s and in 1919 Governor Sidney J. Catts suggested that union labor had asserted sufficient power, in bringing the eight-hour day to the railroads, to warrant treatment of union labor as part of the great body poll tic. Not much action was taken in respect to inducing migration during the 19101 s. Governor Park Trammell proposed a rather trifling Settler's Act and Catts, at the end of the decade, proposed that a special train loaded with Florida products tour the nation to advertize Florida. This decade, generally, appears to have been a period of absorption. There was, however, a violent change in the racial composition of immigration. This is detailed in the decade chapter but, essentially, white immigration increased substantially while colored inunigration virtually stopped. Within the state, there was a very moderate shifting about of the white popula-tion among the counties in the net but a violent internal movement duration but it is suspected that their character would have been greatly modified if the wars had been otherwise timed. See Margaret S. Gordon, layment ansion and Po ulation Growth (Berkeley: University o

PAGE 38

of the colored population. T"ne explanation for this departure from prior migration patterns is largely to be found in the increasing racial tensions which, both logically and paradoxically, accompanied the Progressive era. Some details are provided in the racial aspects section of the chapter on the 19001 s. T"ne tensions had reached the point where Broward, in 1907, was seriously proposing colonization of the Negro; an idea which Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln had entertained in their times. The state attitude toward population increase in the 19201s was more concerned with how to provide facilities, governmental and otherwise, for the vast in-migration than with trying to induce more. 28 Not that more people were not desired but natural forces appeared to have taken control of that problem. T"ne temper of the times is well illustrated in the following quotations from a book by Stockbridge and Perry, published in 1926 but completed in 1925. Governor John W. Martin wrote the foreword which congratulated the authors on their "monumental work," noting that they had gone below the surf ace of events. Starting with the premise that Florida land had sold for 25 cents per acre in 1880 when the population of Florida was only one-quarter of a million, the authors pointed out that the population in 1925 was five times as great and the same land was selling for 700 dollars per acre. They then asked this rhetorical question: "Wnat will it be worth when the population of Florida is again multiplied by five?1112 It is perhaps 1 ~Frank Parker Stockbridge and John Holliday Perry, Florida in the Making (New York: The de Bower Publishing Co., 1926), p. xvi.

PAGE 39

technically unfair to the authors to extrapolate the implications of this question in mathematical terms but, if the same proportions held, Florida land would sell for a tidy 1,960,000 dollars per acre. The authors quote fonner Governor Cary A. Hardee to the effect that nowhere else can land be found "that will produce, with careful, industrious and intelligent cultivation, crops of a net value of from $200 to $1000 per acre, that can still be bought at from $SO to $200 per acre.1113 In a concluding vision the authors write that Florida's boom has only begun and that: Long before the middle of the twentieth century Florida is destined to be one of the three or four most densely populated states in the Union, with at least ten million pennanent inhabitants and a winter population of as many more.14 Actually, the population of Florida in 1950 was about 2,771,500. Land.--The land problems of Florida antedated the Reconstructionists. Public lands had been used to provide a reserve to guarantee the payment of railroad bonds before the Civil War. Tne Reconstruction governors inherited the land problem and then they aggravated it. Wnen the Redeemers took power there was no essential change in the policy to use land to subsidize railroads and canals on the basis of public necessity. Bloxham cleared the title on state lands in 1881, in the manner described on page 133, and the state then really entered the subsidization business. A minor hitch developed in 1887 when Perry found that the national government was not patenting lands to the 13:rbid p 48 14rbid., p. 298.

PAGE 40

state as fast as the legislature was granting them to the railroads. Less than 2 million acres of state public lands had been disposed of prior to 1881; but by 1888 the figure had reached about 16 million acres This was from a total state land area of about 35 million acres. By 1891, the state had claimed an additional 6 million acres in addition to the 16 million already patented by the federal government; which had been largely disposed of to the railroads. Of the more than 22 million acres claimed by the state it has been estimated by Dau, as cited later, that about 10 million acres were falsely claimed in that the land did not meet the technical qualifications in the basic federal law. Land reclamation efforts were launched by Bloxham in the 18801s but large scale operations awaited the planning of Governor William S. Jennings and implementation by Broward and his successors. The key role of Broward in the drainage of the Everglades is well detailed, as cited later, in Proctor's biography of Broward. The vicissitudes of Everglades drainage are too complex to summarize readily. In 1927, Governor Martin was proposing a $20 million bond issue to complete the project but by 19:31 Dovernor Doyle E. Carlton had tapped the federal till for a $7 million contribution to be matched by $2 million from the Drainage District. Taking a broad view, it appears that the acres of land reclaimed by Everglades drainage were less important in the long run than the impetus all this activity and publicity gave to the development of South F1.orida in general. Capital.--State attitudes to capital growth in F1.orida were analagous to those relative to population growth, and the two were

PAGE 41

31 frequently coupled. A specified purpose of immigration pamphlets was to "attract the capitalists of the North"; as well as immigrants. Tne public lands, themselves, were a prime capital resource to be spent for social overhead capital and, conceptually only, for human capital. The close linkage between population and capital formation is emphasized by Kuznets.15 The story of how the public lands were spent is told elsewhere. However wastefully, they did bring about capital formation in Florida-and the conditions for more capital formation. The decade chapters give scattered statistics which indicate the general growth of banking in Florida. During this period, banks were the primary financial intermediary in bringing about capital formation. In 1874, there was only one national bank in Florida; in 1884, there were three; and in 1889, there were thirteen, with deposits of $2,352,000. In 1885, there was only one state bank in Florida and there was no state banking law until 1889. In 1881, Bloxham proposed a constitutional admendment to~~ capital by exempting new manufacturing operations from taxation for a period of five or ten years. In 1893, Governor Henry L. Mitchell warned against unfriendly legislation which would repel "foreign" (out of state) capital. A glance at the bank deposits for that year, in comparison with the immediately preceding years, provided some cause for Mitchell's alarm. 15simon Kuznets, Ca ital in the American Economy: Its Formation and Financing (Princeton: Princeton niversity ress, 9 1, p. 327.

PAGE 42

52 In 1905, Jennings noted that Florida had enjoyed the largest capital increment in the South in the lumber industry during the prior five year period, but he gave no source for this data. Jennings also noted that in tenns of physical railroad capital, Florida had more mileage per capita than any other state; this, of course, not without problems relating to railroad solvency. In 1905, Broward was quite concerned about the drain on money capital by out-of-state life insurance companies, a drain he est1Jnated as a net loss equivalent to a ten mill tax on the assessed value of all Florida property. He proposed that the state go into the life insurance business, and he reiterated this proposal in 1907. By 1910, Florida's 154 state banks had deposits exceeding $17 million and the 45 national banks in Florida had deposits of about $26 million. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, there were about 1,500 corporations in Florida with a combined capital stock of $158 million and indebtedness of $91 million. The net income of these corporations for the fiscal year approached $9 million. The 19201s were characterized by heavy public investment by Florida's counties and municip -alities. It is somewhat incongruous to see the governors of Florida congratulating the state upon its splendid financial condition, lack of bonded indebtedness, and the immunity of the state to loss of funds through bank failures, at the very same time they were bemoaning the opposite attributes of those mere creatures of the state--the political subdivisions of the state. Not that the governors were not concerned and did not propose safeguards.

PAGE 43

Hardee suggested as a minimum criteria that improvements funded by bonds be as long-lived as the bonds, surely not an unreasonable minimum. Martin, from the vantage point of 1927, called for a stop to the wholesale issuing of bonds by counties and municipalities. Though state finances "were never on a sounder basis" he noted that Florida local governments had in 1925 issued some 35 per cent of all bonds issued in the nation. 33 In 1925, Martin had declared that "Florida needs capital and must have it"--along with the requisite labor force. Thus he urged that "no statute should be enacted inimical to either," In 1927, he was not dismayed by the current interruption and consequent necessary readjustments. After all, he reported, millions of dollars of capital had come into the state and large acreages of Florida land had been sold for "splendid prices." In 1929, Carlton acknowledged progress in the boom period, citing an advance of 1000 per cent in public improvement in ten years, but sternly warned of the cost yet to be paid. Carlton also declared for the encouragement of industrial development; and resurrected Bloxham's 1881 proposal for tax remission for new industries, subject to a proviso that the new industries not be canpetitive with existing state industries, Any discussion of capital formation in Florida, however limited, would be remiss if it did not mention the introduction of large amounts of money capital by wealthy individuals who made Florida their new home-or a second home. One must presume that nonnal investment considerations

PAGE 44

largely governed the application of these funds to projects within the state. However the motivations for coming to the state, while largely unknown and probably complex, appear to have been baaed in part on such considerations as personal health and climatic appea1. 16 It is also probable that there was an agglomerative effect based on the herd instincts of society and wealth. To mention a few of these individuals, Martin credits F1.agler with having spent about $50 million in Florida, primarily derived from a multi-million dollar fortune accumulated prior to his arrival in 1885 at the age of 55. 17 Abbey states that "F1.agler spent money in F1.orida, while Plant made money.1118 It is noted, however, that Pl.ant had extensive holdings before his F1.orida operations and his biographer cites a periodical of the late 1890's which states that he employed more men in the operation of the Southern and Texas Express Companies than he did in his twelve railway corporations19 1 6For example, Abbey quotes Flagler as stating1 "I made a careful survey of the situation, calculated upon the prospects and concluded to take advantage of the opportunity, and we who made early investments have proved the faith in our own .iudgment." See Abbey, p. 557. But Martin, Flagler's biographer, writes (possibly in a different context)s "The entire scheme seemed to be essentially a hobby. Sustaining this hobby, too, was another motive He regarded furnishing large numbers of persona with employment as the highest fonn of charity." Sidney Walter Martin, Florida's Flagler (Athenss The University of Georgia Press, 1949), p. 115. The motivation suggested by Abbey would appear more appropriate in a properly functioning democratic capitalistic society. 17Ibid., p. 202. 18 Abbey, p. 357. 190. Hutchinson Smyth, The Life of Henry Bradley Pl.ant (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), p. 134.

PAGE 45

35 There are many others who could be named. On the West Coast, the Ringling family took up residence in the early 19101s and by 1925 John Ringling was reportedly worth $100 million--on paper; some portions of which remained permanently invested in Florida.20 In the Miami area Carl Graham Fisher poured a fortune into the development of Miami Beach, according to the biography by his wife which probably tends to exaggerate his achievements somewhat.21 A relative newcomer to the Florida scene was Alfred I. duPont who had a block of duPont stock with a market value of about $120 million prior to the stock market crash in late 1929.22 Operating from Jacksonville, he was a stabilizing influence in Florida finance, especially during the critical period between 1926 and 1930. His investments in real estate only amounted to about $1 million in urban property and $1 million in land but hie major role was in creating the largest banking system in the state, and one with ample reserves. Total deposits in the duPont chain of banks at the end of 1930 were over $27 million.23 This was during a period when over 80 Florida banks closed.24 Patrick has writ ten that the depression was not as severe in Florida as in other states 20Henry Ringling North and Alden Hatch, The Circus Kings (Garden Citys Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1960), p. l87. 21Jane Fisher, Fabulous Hoosier: A Sto,t of American Achieve (New York: Robert M. McBride and Co., 194 2 2Marquis James, Alfred I. duPonts The Family Rebel (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1941), p. 422. 25rbid., p. 448. 24:rbid., p. 430.

PAGE 46

36 and one might conjecture that this preliminary stabilizing operation may well have been a major contributing factor to reducing the severity of the depression.25 Many other names could be mentioned, perhaps ranging doPlll from the sublimely wealthy to their bamboozlers, the legendary Mizners.26 But this chapter must now give way to one which presents a quantitative summary of the period. 25 Rembert W. Patrick, Florida Under Five Flags (rev. ed., Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 19 55), p. 95. 2 6.rhe title of a book by Alva Johnson, The Legendary Mizners (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953); a colorful account of Palm Beach in the 1920's

PAGE 47

CHAPTER III QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW General In the later chapters of Part I, each decade will be treated as a structural unit of the total period, In these later chapters, economic sectors and economic factors will be presented against the institutional background of the times. Inevitably, there must be compromise between a topical and a chronological arrangement. In these later chapters the topical is subordinated to the chronological, This overview chapter attempts some treatment of the whole period to outline the quantitative framework of the following chapters. It may thus help to provide a general perspective of the period in terms of a few economic variables; both in absolute terms and in terms relative to the nation and selected states. The key economic variable in this study is labor force, for reasons presented in the chapter on methodology. For our immediate purposes, the key role of labor force as a measure of economic growth is illustrated in the following diagram. On the supply side, labor force and average workweek changes determine labor input changes. Labor input and productivity changes provide a measure of economic growth in tenns of total output. On the demand side, labor force and average wage changes detennine labor income changes, Labor income '37

PAGE 48

and property income changes provide a measure of economic growth in tenns of total income. The common ingredient is thus labor force change which can be considered as determined by population and by labor force participation rate changes. Population changes are then resolvable into natural increase and migration. ECONOMIC GROwrH SUPPLY SIDE as increase in total output DEMAND SIDE as increase in total income 38 I I LABOR .INCOME I I PROPERTY INCOME I ,___ ___.___ -~~-.~.1 ---~ l I PRODUC TIVITY I LABOR INPUT I AVERAGE WORKWEEK -~-__._I _LA_B_O_R-'I_ f AVE~GE--FORCE I WAGE ~----,.----~ I POFULATION GROWI'H --~---NATURAL INCREASE .-----'''-----LABOR FORCE PARTIC IPATION RATE MIGRATI~ Fig. 1.--Key Role of Labor Force in Measurement of Economic Growth. Florida's economic growth in absolute terms is simply presented. To effectively present its growth relative to that of other states and the nation, however, a statistical method lmown as the shift technique is employed. The relative measures of economic change thus developed are readily understandable and do not require specific lmowl edge of the shift technique itself (which is formally discussed in the methodology chapter).

PAGE 49

59 The choice of the other states or regions with which to compare and contrast Florida's economic growth is a problem. One logical approach is to consider Florida in relation to the nation and to such intennediate regions as are commonly considered to include Florida, Even this poses questions; such as the specific states composing a region--the outlines are always blurred. Even within a brief period the choice is not always obvious, Over a span of six decades, the problem increases because regional boundaries are not static. In view of these considerations, and others, the choice of comparable regions for the purposes of this study narrowed itself down to three states and the nation. Georgia and Alabama were selected both as neighboring states and as general representatives of the Deep South, California was selected as another example of a rapid growth state with somewhat comparable climatic conditions and a similar peripheral coastal position relative to the nation's economic core, The next section will deal with the population changes which underlie labor force changes, especially the related aspects of migration, labor force participation rates, and urbanization. The third section will consider labor force changes in several variations. These two sections will emphasize economic change in Florida in relation to that in the nation and in the selected states. The fourth section will then concentrate on the patterns of change in Florida itself, both in respect to Florida's share of national change in the several industrial sectors and in respect to what contribution these individual sectors make to Florida's economic development and changing

PAGE 50

40 economic structure. A final section will summarize some of the labor force changes and will also introduce some wealth and personal income comparisons. It should also be noted that somewhat more detailed presentations of Florida's labor force changes are contained in the series of chapters on the individual decades which follow this chapter. Labor force estimates at the substate level are presented only in the reference tables, as described in Part II. Population Changes This study focuses on labor force changes as a measure of economic growth to a very considerable degree, for reasons stated elsewhere. Underlying these labor force changes are changes in population and changes in labor force participation rates, the percentage of the population in the labor force. Underlaying changes in population are the factors of natural increase and migration. The relative importance of these latter factors are set forth in Table 1 which shows the population for each decade, the respective numerical contributions of natural increase and net migration, a measure of the decennial changes in rate of natural increase, and a measure of the net migration for each decade as a percentage of the end population of that decade. In summary, natural increase dominated in the first three decades, net migration in the last three decades, and net migration for the total period. The rate of natural increase suffered a general decline over the period while the relative measure of net migration increased in a wave-like or cyclical fashion; with

PAGE 51

41 alternations each decade and with each successive decade higher than the second preceding decade.1 TABLE 1 Tal'AL POPULATION AND CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS Year( s) Population Net Natural Increase Net Migration 1001s Migration No. Rate jof end Pop. 1001s 1001s % 1870 1877 18701s 144 674 29.5 5.3 1880 2695 18801s 579 640 19.4 14.9 1890 3914 18901s 429 942 20.5 8.1 1900 5285 1900's 1204 1037 16.2 15.9 1910 7526 19101s 1151 1008 11.7 11.9 1920 9685 19201s 3577 1620 15. 5 25.0 1930 14682 Total 6884 5921 Source: Reference Tables, P-1 and M-1. 1 compare with the pattern of urbanization as described in a later section. Factors relating to this cycli~al pattern were discussed in Chapter II.

PAGE 52

42 It is instructive to present the net migration rates for Florida in contrast with those of the adjoining deep South states of Georgia and Alabama, and in comparison with those of California. Tables 2 and 5 do this in tenns of the native white population and the negro or nonwhite population. In summary, both Florida and California had substantial in-migration rates; averaging about 160 and 245, respectively, per thousand of native whites. Both states demonetrated an increasing trend in rates over the period, with a temporary drop in the 1890's. Georgia and Alabama, by contrast, had consistent outmigration rates; averaging about 50 and 48, respectively, per thousand of native whites over the period. There was no pronounced trend for these two latter states over the period and, dropping one extreme value, the out-migration rates varied between 24 and 64 for the eleven measurements for the two states. Nonwhite net migration figures for California are not available but the contrast between Florida and ite two neighbors for nonwhite are rather similar to those for white population. Florida's average in-migration of 112 per thousand would have approximated the white average of about 160 except for low rates in the 18701s and 1910'speriods when racial issues were boiling. The out-migration rates for Georgia and .Alabama averaged about 68 and 55 respectivelyJ a bit higher than for whites but not very dissimilar if the high rates in the 1920's are discounted. In examining these comparative net migration rates, as between Florida and its two neighboring states, the inter-relationship between

PAGE 53

45 them should be noted. It is a common generalization that (with notable exceptions) migration interchange varies inversely with distance. To a large extent Florida's in-migrants were the out-migrants of Georgia and Alabama. Out of some 277,100 native whites resident in Florida in 1900, for example, some 185,500 were born in Florida. Of the remaining 91,600, about 29,000 were born in Georgia and about 15,700 were born in Alabama; these two states providing about one-half of the total in-migrants. Similar figures for 1950 are 492,000 born out of Florida; 123,700 from Georgia and 57,300 from Alabama, about 57 per cent of the total in-migrants. It may be suspected that the decreased percentages from 50 to 57 per cent (it was 59 per cent in 1870) repre sents to a large degree the influence of developments in transportation and communication. 2 Years 18701s 18801s 18901s 19001s 19101s 19201s Summation Average TABLE 2 NET MIGRATION RATES OF NATIVE WHITES ( PER 1000 A VERA.GE POFULATION) Florida Georgia Alabama 79 -59 -61 166 -56 -26 49 -42 -64 156 -51 -58 189 -24 -45 319 -106 -55 -958 -298 -289 160 -50 -48 California 162 185 117 529 276 400 1467 246 Sources Lee, p. 78. The census survival method was used in deriving these .r igure s 2 These figures come from tables in Lee, p. 257.

PAGE 54

TABLE 5 NET MIGRATION RATES OF NEGROES OR NONWHITES t ( PER 1000 A VERA.GE POFULATION) Years Florida Georgia Alabama California 1870'sf 20 -40 -82 1880'e+ 150 +18 -12 1890'sf 141 -33 -4 1900's 191 -18 -50 1910's 19 -73 -90 19201s 168 -260 -102 Summation 669 -406 -520 Average 112 -68 -55 Source: Lee, p. 78. The census survival method was used in deriving these figures. 44 Although not a factor which directly affects the total population of Florida, it may be useful to have a measure of internal migration within Florida to compare with Florida's net migration rates. Assuming the correctness of our net migration figures for the state, and assuming that state rates of natural increase are applicable to the counties, it is a simple matter to compute the net migration for each county. The algebraic sum of county net migration must necessarily correspond with state net migration. However the nonalgebraic swmiation provides some indication of the net internal flow of migration among the counties of Florida. This in turn provides some per spective in space, not only as to the county destination of net inmigrants to the state, but also as to the ebb and flow within the state, a significant consideration. County net migration totals,

PAGE 55

45 as computed, are contained in reference table M-2. For our immediate purpose we are concerned only with the sunnnation of county net inmigration and out-migration. These figures are presented in Table 4 and are discussed more fully in Part II. For comparative purposes, the percentages of net internal migration and net external migration, in terms of end population, are set forth in the table. Net internal migration among counties consistently exceeds net migration into the state, averaging about 22.4 per cent for the former and 15.2 per cent for the latter over the period. This is a suggestive comparison only, subject to the validity of the stated assumptions which have not been tested. So much for this discussion on internal migration, which is perhaps a digression but does serve to emphasize that population mobility has complexities that can not be measured at state borders. TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF NET INTERNAL AND NET EXTERNAL MIGRATION (As Percentage of End Population for Each Decade) Net Internal Net External Year Migration 1i Migration 1870-80 15.0 5.5 1880-90 25.5 14.9 1890-00 17.0 8.1 1900-10 21. 7 15.9 1910-20 26.6 11.9 1920-50 28.7 25.0 Summation 134.5 79.1 Average 22.4 13. 2 Note: Migration and population figures in 1001s. Source: Reference Tables P-1 and M-5.

PAGE 56

46 Now that we have some idea of the constituents of population growth in Florida, and some conception of the relative influence of net migration on population growth as between Florida and certain other states, it is informative to contrast the percentage rates of increase of total population for these states. As we see in Table S, Florida and California maintained percentage rate~ of population increase above the national average in each decade of the period. Overall, the average rate for Florida was almost twice that of the nation and California's rate was double the nation's. Florida and California manifested no particular trends over the period and California's drop in the 18901s, to about the national rate, was the most notable departure from these consistently high rates of population growth. On the other hand, the national rate drops quite steadily over the period to about half the starting rate--as does the rate for Alabama also. Georgia's experience closely corresponds to that of Alabama, except for a sharp drop in the 19201s to a negligible increase of only 1 per cent in Georgia's population for that decade.

PAGE 57

Years 18701s 1880's 18901s 1900's 19101s 1920's TABLE 5 1rJ COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE RATES OF POroLA.TION BECREASE Florida Georgia Alabama California 43 BO 27 54 45 19 20 40 BS 20 21 22 42 18 17 60 29 11 10 44 52 1 13 65 Summation 246 99 108 285 Average 41 17 18 48 47 U.S. BO 26 21 21 15 16 129 22 Source: Based on U.S. Censuses. Actual population figures, in round numbers, are used in Table 6. Returning now to our focus on labor force we know by definition that the labor force participation rate and the population determine the labor force. Having considered the two ma,jor determinants of population, and the nature of the resulting population changes, we next examine the behavior of labor force participation rates over the period. Tabla 6 sets forth the population and labor force figures for the selected states and the nation for each decade of the period, and the resultant computed labor force participation rates. Table 7 summarizes Table 6 for ease of reference. Florida's experience was with in 1 per cent of that of the nation for each decade, except in 1920 when Florida jumped 2 per cent as the nation declined 3 per cent. Georgia and Alabama started and ended with about the same participation rates but Alabama enjoyed abnormally-high rates in 1900 and 1910,

PAGE 58

48 rates approaching those of California. Both Georgia and Alabama started well above the national rate but ended at about the national rate. California started even higher above the national rate and closed at about the same level. Net change over the period for Georgia, Alabama, and California was only in the 1 or 2 per cent range while Florida and the nation, starting from much lower initial rates, made rate gains of 9 and 8 per cent, respectively. Kuznets reports that roughly half of the national rise in labor force participation rates from 32 to 40 per cent between 1870 and 1950 is attributable to a relative decline in the population under 10 years of age. other demographic factors, as well as non-demographic factors, accounted for the remainder. Chapter II of the Kuznets book is devoted to a discussion of the age and sex composition of the labor force and the related changes in participation rates. Part II of this study contains a section on labor force participation rates in Florida counties and utilizes the age-sex-race compositional differences among Florida counties to develop an independent series of substate labor force estimates for each decade of the period. 3 Kuznets, Vol. II, p. 9.

PAGE 59

49 TABLE 6 COMPUTATION OF COMPARll.TIVE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES Year Factor Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S. 1870 Pop. 188 1184 997 560 586. Labor F 61 445 565 259 125 LFPR 52 58 57 43 32 1880 Pop. 270 1542 1263 865 502 Labor F 92 598 493 377 174 LFPR 34 59 59 44 55 1890 Pop. 591 1857 1513 1213 629 Labor 157 669 542 544 227 LFPR 35 36 56 45 36 1900 Pop. 529 2216 1829 1485 760 Labor F 202 864 763 644 291 LFPR 58 39 42 43 58 1910 Pop. 753 2609 2138 2378 920 Labor F 322 1160 998 1108 382 LFPR 43 59 47 47 42 1920 Pop. 969 2896 2:348 3427 1057 Labor F 585 1129 908 1513 416 LFPR 45 59 59 44 39 1950 Pop. 1486 2909 2646 5678 1228 Labor F 499 1162 1026 2501 488 LFPR 41 40 59 44 40 Notes: State Population and Labor Force figures in thousands. u.s. Population and Labor Force figures in l00,0001s. Labor Force Participation Rates in per cent. Sources U.S. Census for Decennial Periods.

PAGE 60

50 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES Year Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S. 1870 52 58 37 43 32 1880 34 59 39 44 55 1890 55 56 36 45 56 1900 38 59 42 45 58 1910 45 59 47 47 42 1920 45 59 59 44 59 1950 41 40 59 44 40 Net Change for Period +9 +2 +2 +l +8 Source: Table 6. Table 8 indicates the strong influence on participation rates of the proportion of the population ten years old and older and of the sax composition of the population, in specific relation to Florida. TABLE 8 FLORIDA LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES DIFFERENTIATED BY AGE AND SEX Year Total Population Ali Ages Over 9 Male Population All Agee Over 9 Female Population .All Ages Over 9 1870 52.5 46.5 55.8 77.5 10.5 15.0 1880 54.0 49.6 54.1 78.9 15.4 19.5 1890 56.8 50.9 57.5 78.8 15.0 20.8 1900 58.1 52.5 59.6 80.7 14.8 20.6 1910 42.8 57.0 65.2 85.2 20.4 27.5 1920 59 .8 51.5 60.6 77.7 18.0 25.5 1950 40.8 51.0 60.9 76.l 20.s 25.7 Source: Adapted from Table 1 of Occupation Statistics, U.S. Census, 1950, p. 557.

PAGE 61

51 In Table 8, note the relatively reduced range of difference in the participation rates for the populationlO and over as compared with all ages. Also note the relative stability in male rates and the increasing trend in female rates. Another aspect of population change has to do with the changing proportion of the population in urban and rural environments. In 1870, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama were less than 9 per cent urbanized, in contrast to a national level of 26 per cent and California's level of 57 per cent. By 1950, Florida with 52 per cent of its population urbanized was approaching the national level of 56 per cent. Georgia and Alabama had dropped well behind with levels of 51 and 28 per cent, respectively, while California had jumped up to 75 per cent. Table 9 states the percentage rates of increase in urbanization for each decade for these states and the nation to give some conception of the varying rates and magnitudes of change over the entire period. As a generalization which applied to Florida and Alabama exactly, and to Georgie, California, and the nation, with exceptions, we find that urbanization tended to come in waves, roughly corresponding to the waves of net migration. Relatively, the 18701s, 18901s, and 1910's v were decades with low percentage rates of urban increase. The alternate decades of the 18801s, 19001s, and 19201s were generally decades of high rates of increase. Florida's average decennial rate of increase was almost double that of Georgia and Alabama, and much higher than that of CaliforniaJ but the latter, starting with a high urbanization percentage, continued to maintain its commanding lead in percentage of urbanization throughout the period, as shown in Table 10.

PAGE 62

TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF URBAN PERCENTAGE RATES OF INCREASE Year( s) Florida Georgia Alabama California 18701s 76 45 9 77 18801s 188 77 122 59 18901s 38 55 42 32 19001s 105 55 71 89 19101s 61 35 37 59 19201s 115 23 46 78 Summation 585 270 527 594 Average Year( s) 1870 1950 97 45 55 66 Source: Computed from reference tables in Lee p 555. TABLE 10 CC!1PARISON OF URBAN PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION Florida 8 52 Georgia 8 31 Alabama 6 28 Source: Computed from Tables 6 and 9. California 57 73 52 U.S. 43 56 36 39 29 27 230 58 U.S. 26 56

PAGE 63

55 It may be pertinent at this point to note that there are many inter-relationships between the degree of urbanization and the other aspects of population and labor force change considered in this study. The age-sex-race composition of the population has an obvious bearing on urbanization; natural increase and migration are its determinants; and we shall later consider the influence of the varying proportions of labor force in the several industrial sectors. Labor Force Changes General In the foregoing sections we have dealt with absolute changes in such factors as natural increase, net migration, labor force participation rates, and urbanization. In the following sections we shall employ the shift technique to dissect and analyze relative changes in the labor force, particularly at the industrial sector level. The shift technique is formally described under the methodological chapter in Part II, but can be readily followed on a step by step basis as developed in the following sections. We shall first be concerned with the total net shift of labor force in Florida and comparative states; second, with the components of this total net shift; third, with sector net shifts; and fourth, with sector contributions to state labor force changes. During the sixty-year period under consideration, the labor force of the nation grew--or declined--differentially in each industrial sector in each decade. With unity representing no change in the

PAGE 64

54 labor force from one decennial period to the next, the national growth rates for each sector for each decade are set forth in Table 11. Sectors Total Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufactures Trade Transport Services Professional Public Other Clerical TABLE 11 U.S. GROWfH RATES BY SECTOR BY DEC.ADE 18701s 1.591 1.294 1.526 1.578 1.505 1.409 1.520 1.518 18801s 1.507 1.104 1.455 2.050 1.555 1.456 1.857 1.502 18901s l.279 1.2U5 1.146 1.086 1.455 1.267 1.433 1.555 1.280 19001s l.313 1.209 0.990 1.514 1.712 1.652 1.512 1.522 1.070 Note: combined for the 19201s only. 19101s 1.090 0.861 o. 774 1.166 1.150 1.205 1.174 1.161 1.289 1.677 0.905 1.800 Sources Unpublished computations based on U.S. Censuses. 19201 s 1.175 0.985 0.871. 0.871 0.905 l.099 1.455 1.254 1.518 l.lll 1.455 1.287

PAGE 65

Total Net Shift It is obvious that the several states had growth rates wich varied from the national growth rates. One convenient way to measure these state variations is termed the shift technique. By applying the national growth rate for the 18701s to the Florida labor force 55 in 1870 we can derive a hypothetical Florida labor force for 1880 on the assumption that the national growth rate and Florida's growth rate were identical. However we normally find that the Florida labor force figure derived under this assumption does not correspond to the actual Florida labor force as enumerated in the 1880 census. The degree of this nonoorrespondence is a useful measure and is termed the total net shift. The total net shifts for Florida, and the three states used for comparative purposes, are set forth for each decade; both in labor force figures, in Table 12, and in percentages of a national total of! 100 per cent, 1n Table 13.4 Florida's performance is unique in that its growth experience, in tenns of total labor force, was above the national nonn in each decade of the period. Georgia and Alabama, after subpar growth in the first two decades, spurted ahead rapidly in the 1890's and 1900's and then again fell below par in the last two decades. California's 4 These tables, and all others in this study which are related to the shift technique, are based on unpublished shift computations which are much too voluminous to reproduce herein. The cost of pre paring the basic shift data was funded under a project of Resources for the Future, Inc., and the data are in the custody of Dr. Edgar S. Dunn, Jr. of the University of Florida. Consequently, related tables used 1n this study will not be further identified as to source. Perhaps it should also be noted that data from the several U.S. Censuses underlie the shift computations.

PAGE 66

56 growth was of course phenomenal, except for a brief slump below national levels in the 18901s. Quantitatively, Florida's gains over the period were about equivalent to Alabama's losses and about 22 per cent of California's competitive gains. TABLE 12 TOTAL NET SHIFT IN LABOR FORCE (IN 1001 s) Year( s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S. 18701s + 71 206 152 + 446 18801 s + 172 -1128 -1026 + 520 18901s + 266 + 94 + 706 516 19001s + 575 + 252 -44 +2619 19101s + 541 -1557 -1794 +5051 19201s +1468 -1628 594 +7256 Summation +2895 -5975 -2704 +15576 TABLE 15 TarAL NET SHIFT IN LABOR FORCE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S. SHIF'l' Year( s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S. 18701s + 0,7 2.1 -1.6 + 4.6 +100 18801s + 1.5 -10.1 9.2 + 4.7 +100 18901 s + 2.8 + 1.0 + 7.5 -5.5 +100 1900's + 5.4 + 1.5 0.5 +15.5 +100 19101s + 2.2 -8.6 -11.4 +19.4 +100 19201 B + 7.5 8.5 2.0 +57.2 +100 Summation +18.1 -26.6 -17.0 +75.9 Average + 5.0 -4.4 2.8 +12.6

PAGE 67

57 Components of total net shift.--Total net shifts are a useful measure of relative growth but it is revealing to go beneath this measure to examine the two components of total net shift. First, we can consider the labor force of each industrial sector individually, in the same manner as we did the total labor force. Thus we compute the net shift for each state for each decade for each sector. This provides a measure of how the states fare competitively with one another in respect to sector labor forceJ with their relative success based largely on their relative access to inputs and markets--variable over time. In the following table the competitive sector results have been summed to provide a total competition shift, the first component of our total net shift. TABLE 14 TOTAL COMPETITION SHIFT (IN 1001s) Year( s) Florida Georgia Alabama California 1870's + 92 + 8 + 51 + 297 1880's + 241 458 579 + 145 1890's + 287 + 279 + 879 -615 19001s + 659 + 861 + 449 +2556 1910's + 472 6 490 +2500 19201 s +1507 954 + 552 +6553 Summation +5258 250 + 842 +11456 Florida is again unique, among the states compared, in its consistent above par competitive performance in each decade of the period. Georgia and Alabama had above average perfonnances in the

PAGE 68

18701a, slumped in the 18801a, recovered very well in the 18901s and 1900's, and slumped again (with Alabama recovering in the 19201s). California's performance was again characterized by a slump in the 1890's and by phenomenal competitive growth thereafter. Netting out the period, Georgia had a small cumulative competitive lose, Alabama registered a small gain, and Florida's substantial gain was about 28 per cent that of California's. The other component of total net shift is total composition shift. It can be derived independently but for the present purpose 58 it is more convenient to view it as the algebraic difference between total net shift and total competition shift. Total composition shift provides a measure of how the states compare with one another in terms of their relative shares of rapid growth and slow growth industrial sectors; or, as somet:1Jnes phrased, in terms of their industrial mix. The relative success of the states in this component of relative growth is thus linked to national supply and demand factors, which are implicitly summed up in the earlier table on national growth rates for the several sectors. The following table presents the total composition shift over the period, the other component of our total net shift.

PAGE 69

59 TABLE 15 TOTAL COMPOSITION SHIFT (IN lOO's) Year( a) Florida Georgia Alabama California 1870's 21 213 203 +149 1880's -70 690 647 +375 1890's 21 185 173 +100 19001s -85 -608 493 + 63 1910's -131 -1351 -1504 +551 19201s 39 -674 726 +703 Summation -367 -3721 -3546 +1941 Florida was again consistent in its total composition effect, but this time consistently below the national average. As compared with Georgia and Alabama, however, Florida composition losees were only in the 10 per cent range, not only for the period average but amazingly close to the 10 per cent approximation for each decade. The summation of Florida's composition losses over the period amounts to only 36,700 jobs, as compared with 372,100 for Georgia and 354,600 for Alabama. California had the opposite experience in maintaining composition gains for the entire period, with the last two decades being the largest gainers. A cursory glance at the two foregoing tables indicates that total competition shift tends to be the dominant component of total net shift in the cases of Florida and California; and that total composition shift tends to be the dominant component for Georgia and Alabama, The relative dominance of each component is stated in the following two tables, which are complementary, The percentages are summed and

PAGE 70

60 averaged to give a visual impression of the average dominance for the over-all period. It is obvious however that these summations are not comparable with the algebraic summations of the two prior tables. Essentially, it appears, the competition effect tended to approach 75 per cent dominance in all states combined, 75 per cent dominance in California, 84 per cent dominance in Florida, and only '57 and 41 per cent sub-dominance, respectively, in Georgia and Alabama. There seem to be no strongly pronounced trends to change these percentages over time, except perhaps for a decreasing competitive dominance for all states and increasing competitive dominance for California. Florida is characterized by a negligible 5 per cent composition lose in the 19201s, meaning that the rapid growth and slow growth sectors, as weighted by Florida's participation in each, were in approximate balance. Year( s) 18701s 18801s 18901s 1900's 19101s 1920'a Summation Average TABLE 16 TOTAL COMPETITION SHIFT AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NET SHIFT Florida Georgia Alabama California 81 5 20 67 78 59 '67 28 95 60 84 86 89 59 48 98 78 00 27 82 97 59 51 90 516 220 247 451 86 57 41 75 All States 84 93 84 74 46 71 452 75

PAGE 71

61 T.ABLE 17 TOT.AL COMPOSITION SHIFT AS PERCENT.A.GE OF TOTAL NET SHIFT Year( s) F1.orida Georgia Alabama California All States 18701s 19 97 80 55 16 1880's 22 61 63 72 7 1890's 7 40 16 14 16 1900's 11 41 52 2 26 19101s 22 100 73 18 54 19201s 5 41 69 10 29 S\.D'll11l8.tion 84 380 353 149 148 Average 14 63 59 25 26 Another way of viewing the relative proportions of competition and composition shifts, in relation to the national norm, is in terms of state percentages of total national competition and composition shifts. The following two tables present this view. On the basis of the national totals of! 100 per cent, F1.orida contributed from 1 to 8 per cent of national competitive gains; consistently increasing over the period and approximately doubling in the 1880's and again 1n the 1920's.5 '!be experience of Georgia and Alabama was spotty and without pronounced trend, ranging from 5 per cent losses to 4 per cent gains for the former and from 4 per cent losses to 8 per cent gains for the latter. California was characterized by a sub-par performance in the 5It seems advisable at this point to use the terminology of gains and losses for ease of comprehension. It should be clear, however, that these are relative terms and are defined by the method of their derivation.

PAGE 72

18901s and a phenomenal performance thereafter; contributing over 35 per cent of total national competition gains in the 19201s. In respect to composition shifts, Florida consistently made deficit contributions to the national totals, but on a minor and generally decreasing basis ranging from -1.2 per cent in the 18701s to -0.5 per cent in the 19201s. Georgia and Alabama each averaged about -9 or -10 per cent of the total national composition loss of -100 per centJ without much apparent trend from decade to decade. California consistently contributed to total national composition gains, ranging from a high of 8 per cent in the 18701s to a low of 1 per cent in the 19001s and a high of 10 per cent in the 19201s. TABLE 18 C(}otPARATIVE STATE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S. COMPETITION SHIFT Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California 18701a +0.93 +0.07 +0.51 +2.99 18801a +2.52 -4.22 -3.65 +1.59 18901s +2.68 +2.61 +8.23 -5.76 19001s +3.38 +4.41 +2.31 +13.11 19101s +4.14 -0.05 -4.30 +21.91 19201s +8.17 -5.17 +1.80 +35.54 Summation +21.62 -2.35 +4.90 +69.18 Average +3.60 -0.39 +0.82 +11.52 62 u.s. +100 +100 +100 +100 +100 +100

PAGE 73

TABLE 19 CCJ1PARATIVE STATE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S. COMPOSITION SHIFT Year( s) Florida Georgia Alabama 1870's -1.17 -11.67 -11.11 18801a -1.08 -10.73 -10.05 18901s -1.04 -9.36 -8.74 1900's -1.23 -8.87 -7.20 1910's -0.97 -10.04 -9 .69 1920's -0.53 -9.17 -9.87 Summation -6.02 -59.84 -56.66 Average -1.00 -9 .97 -9.44 Sector Net Shifts--State Shift as Percentage of National Shift 63 California u.s. +8.15 +100 +5,83 +100 +5.04 +100 +0.92 +100 +4.10 +100 +9.57 +100 +:5B.61 +5.60 Up to this point we have examined Florida's decennial changea in labor force in gross tenns of total net shift and its two components. We have some perspective on Florida in relation to the nation, in relation to the two adjoining atates as representatives of the Deep South, and in relation to one of its principal rivals--California. We now go beneath this level of aggregation and consider the sector net shifts for the major industrial sectors. The sector net shifts are computed in the same manner as total net shifts. Applicable results of this computation are contained in the following sector tables. They are presented in tenns of state shift as a percentage of national shift, with the latter represented by.! 100 per cent. Also presented in the last

PAGE 74

64 T.ABLE 20 SECTOR NET SHIFTS--STATE SHIFT AS PERCENTAGE OF U.S. SHIFT BY DECADE Year(s) Florida Georgia .Alabama California 1 in Tenns of Labor Force A~riculture 18701s + 0.6 -0.8 + 0.6 + 2.8 18801 s 0.5 -14.0 -11.2 + 9. 5 4508 18901s + 1.4 + 2.8 +10.6 -1.9 6064 19001s + 2.4 +11.2 + 4.8 + 5.8 9512 19101s + 1.6 -4.8 -18.8 +20.5 3865 19201s + 6.5 -21.5 + 0.9 +17.6 4320 FishinS 18701s + 0.8 -0.9 + 0.4 +20.7 18801s + 5.0 + 1.4 0.5 -22.5 109 18901s + 7.6 + 2.5 + 1.8 2.9 89 19001s +14.7 0.2 0.2 +22.4 85 1910's +52.5 -0.5 + 0.1 +10.0 58 19201s + 1.4 + 4.5 + 5.8 + 5.2 67 Forest2: 18701s + 1.4 +16.5 -5.9 + 5.6 18801 s + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.5 -15.8 156 18901s + 8.2 + 7.0 + 2.8 -4.6 178 19007s +10.4 -28.5 -6. 9 -1.8 517 19101s -27.9 -12.4 4.2 -6.0 562 19201 s + 7.7 1.5 + 5.5 + 2.5 285 M:ining 18701s + 0.1 + 0.5 + 1.4 -50.5 18801s + 0.4 + 0.8 + 7.9 -41.8 845 18901s + 1.5 -0.8 +12.1 -15.5 470 1900's + 1.6 + 0.5 -2.0 -15. 7 924 1910's -0.7 -1.1 + 2.1 -7.6 1414 19201s -0.6 + 1.6 -1.0 +22.6 775 Manuf'actur:ins 1870's + 1.4 -1.5 1.2 + 9.2 18801s + 2.7 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.1 2751 18901s + 2.9 + 5.8 + 5.0 -5.1 2142 19001s + 4.5 + 0.9 + 1.5 +12.4 5649 1910's + 2.2 + 1.9 + 5.7 +15.8 5659 19201s + 4.4 + 4.7 + 2.8 +22.9 7088

PAGE 75

65 TABLE 20--Continued Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California 1 j in Tenns of Labor Force Trade and TransEortation 18701s + 1.7 -1.1 -4.6 + 6.5 18801s + 1.4 + 3.8 + 2.3 -2.1 2218 18901 s + 1.2 -5.5 -0.5 -2.8 1378 19001s + 2.6 + 3.0 + 1.9 +14.7 4855 19101s Trade + 6.0 + 2.8 -0.1 +19 .8 1592 Transport + 4.2 + 1.0 + 2.4 + 5.1 1219 19201s Trade + 9.4 -4.4 + 0.6 +44.9 5041 Transport + 7.8 -4.0 + 1.7 +30.2 1412 Services 18701s + 0.5 + 2.7 + 5.2 + 2.5 18801s + 4.5 + 0.3 -2.7 + 2.8 3134 18901s Profess. 0.3 + 1.7 -1.9 + 4.1 512 Other + 4.0 + 3.6 + 3.7 -12.5 2534 1900 ,1 s Profess. + 0.9 -1.9 + 0.9 +16.7 874 other -0.4 -5.2 -2.7 +15.2 5756 19101s Profess. + 6.0 + 0.4 -1.4 +57.3 697 Public + 1.9 + 5.6 -1.7 + 4.9 884 other +12.5 + 5.3 + 1.7 +22.7 1247 Clerical + 1.6 -0.1 1.2 + 8.9 1290 19201s Profess. + 8.1 3.7 + 0.8 +42.5 1381 Public + 5.5 -4.1 + 2.0 +14.7 689 other + 9.5 -2.8 0.5 +27.5 2508 Clerical + 5.8 1.3 + 1.5 +42.1 1959

PAGE 76

66 column of the tables is a figure representing what one per cent means in tems of actual labor force for the corresponding decade. This will provide some idea of the relative magnitude of the shifts in the several sectors. The highlights of the foregoing sector tables may be briefly summarized on a sector by sector basis as follows. Agriculture.--Florida's growth experience, in tems of agricultural labor force, was above the national norm in all decades except that of the 18801s. It tended to relative improvement over the period, characterized by a multiple jump in the 19201s. Georgia and Alabama experienced major losses--or minor changes--in all except the two middle decades, the 18901s and the 1900's. California slumped in the 18901s but posted major shares of the national gains in the 19101s and the 19201s. Fishing.--Florida1s growth in labor force in the fishing sector was above the national average throughout the period and reached its relative peak in the 19101a when Florida accounted for almost one-third of the national gains. Georgia and Alabama varied slightly above or below the national norm over the period but both exceeded Florida's performance in the 19201s. California had a varied experience, providing 21 per cent of the national gains in the 18701a and 22 per cent of the national losses in the 18801s. This was followed by a resurgence to the 22 per cent level in the 19001s and a drop to smaller gains thereafter.

PAGE 77

67 Forestry.--Florida1s share in the relative national gains in forestry was especially substantial in the 18901s, 19001s and 19201s. There was a sharp reversal in the 19101s, when Florida contributed almost 28 per cent of the national losses. Georgia commanded a 17 per cent share of national gains in the 18701s but slumped to a share of 28 per cent of the national losses in the 19001s; thereafter recover ing but not to the national level. Alabama's experience was more stable, with swings of lesser magnitude. California started and ended the over-all period with minor shares of the national gain but had losses in the four intervening decades, notably 16 per cent of the national loss in the 18801s. Mining.--Florida had a small positive net shift in the mining sector for the first four decades and a small negative shift thereafter. Georgia had shifts similar in magnitude though a bit different in timing. Alabama enjoyed larger positive net shifts in the 18801s and 18901s of about 8 and 12 per cent, respectively, but the shifts in the other decades were small. California tended to dominate the negative net shifts, especially in the earlier decades, with downward shifts of 51 per cent in the 18701s, 42 per cent in the 18801s, 16 per cent in the 1890's, and 14 per cent in the 19001s. However in the last two decades, California changed from a downward shift of about 8 per cent to an upward shift of 25 per cent in the 19201s. Manufacturing.--Florida maintained an upward net shift through out the period which averaged about 5 per cent per decade without discernable trend. Georgia and Alabama, after a downward shift in the 18701s, had a pattern very similar to that of Florida for the remaining

PAGE 78

68 decades, in respect both to a magnitude of about 3 per cent and as to lack of a discernable trend. California set a somewhat different pattern in both respects. During the first three decades, California slumped from an upward net shift of 9 per cent to a downward net shift of 5 per cent. During the last three decades, California had upward net shifts of 12, 14, and 23 per cent, chronologically. Trade and transportation.--During the first four decades, Florida averaged almost 2 per cent in upward shift. During the last two decades the trade sector commanded strong gains of 6 and 9 per cent and the transport sector contributed upward shifts of 4 and 8 per cent. Georgia had a rather mixed experience of upward and downward shifts, closing on the latter note with losses of about 4 per cent in both trade and transport in the 1920's. Alabama's experience was also mixed and corresponded generally with that of Georgia, except for a small gain in both trade and transport in the 1920's. California had downward shifts in the 1880's and ~l8901s but closed with strong gains 1n the 19101s and 1920's; especially in the trade sector with percentages of 20 and 45 per cent of the national upward shift. Services.--Florida had rather neutral or small upward shifts 1n the first four decades; with the 18801s and 18901s being above the 1870's and the 19001s. In the 1910's and 19201s, professional services contributed 6 and 8 per cent, respectively, to national gains; public services about 2 and 6 per cent; and other services demonstrated strength with about 12 and 10 per cent,respectively. The clerical subsector has been placed under the heading of services as a matter of

PAGE 79

69 convenience. Actually, clerical workers were employed in all industrial sectors, particularly trade and transport, services, and manufacturing--in that order.6 Georgia and Alabama had scattered gains and losses during the period, with the fonner closing the 19201s with a 5 per cant downward shift and the latter finishing with a small 1 per cent gain. California had consistent upward shifts throughout the p9 rlo~,exoept for services (other than professional services) in the 18901s. From the 19001s on, California's gains were in the magnitude of some 15 to :30 per cent of national gains in the services sector. Sector Contributions to State Shifts In the preceding section we have viewed state sector changes as a percentage of the national change in the respective sectors in order to gain some understanding .of the relative growth or decline of the state in relation to national growth or decline in respect to these sector shifts. In this section we shall view each state as an entity and consider the proportion which each sector contributes to total state shift. We seek to gain an understanding of the individual effect of each sector in contributing to the relative growth or decline of the state. The percentages used to state the sector contribution to state changes are nonalgebraically additive to 100 per cent, representing the total state ohange. Thus they are computed as a ratio of the change in each sector to the total state change, also .nnRalgebraically summed from sector net shifts. Table 21 will provide the basis for further discussion. 6see Chapter 12 for the estimated distribution of clerical workers in Florida in 1910, 1920, and 19:30; as computed to establish a state labor forc e control series for substate disaggregation.

PAGE 80

70 T.ABLE 21 SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE NET SHIFTS BY DEC.ADES Year(s) Florida Georgia .Alabama California Agriculture 18701s +38 -27 +18 +27 18801s -6 -77 -6:3 +40 18901s +50 +:38 +70 -18 19001s +:35 +64 +55 +13 19101s + 9 -:38 -68 +28 19201 s +18 -57 +11 +11 -Summation +122 -97 +2:3 +101 Average +20 -16 + 4 +17 Fishing 18701s +0.7 -0.4 +0.2 +2.4 18801s +2.0 +0.2 -0.0 -2.:3 18901s +2.3 +0.5 + 0.2 -0.4 19001s +1.7 -0.0 -0.0 +0.7 19101s +2.9 -0.1 + 0.0 + 0.2 19201 s +0.1 +0.1 + 0.7 + O.O -Summation +9.7 +0.3 +1.1 + 0.6 Average +1.6 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 Forest!:l 18701s +2.0 +11.7 -3.7 +0.7 18801s +0.5 +0.2 +0.1 -2.7 18901 s +5.0 +2.9 + 0.5 -1.2 19001s +4. 7 -5.4 -2.6 -0.2 19101s -14.5 -9. 3. -1.4 -0.8 19201s +1. 4 -0.2 +2.8 +0.1 S ummation -0.9 -0.1 4.3 -4.1 Average -0.2 -0.0 -0.7 -0.7 Mining 18701s +0.3 +0.9 +3.9 27.2 18801s +1.1 +0. 8 + 8.4 -35.9 18901s +2.4 + 0.9 + 6.2 -11.0 19001s +2.1 +0. 3 -2.1 -4.5 19101 s -1.4 -3.1 +2.8 -3.9 19201s -0. 3 +0.7 2.1 +2.7 SUllll'llation +4.2 +0.5 +17.1 -77.8 Avera ge + 0.7 + 0,1 + 2.9 -15.0

PAGE 81

71 TABLE 21--Continued Year( s) Florida Georgia Alabama California Manufacturing 1870'e +24 -15 9 +25 18801s +27 +11 +11 + 8 18901s +22 +19 +12 -16 1900's +56 + 5 +10 +25 19101 B +17 +22 +20 +28 1920' s +20 +20 +54 +25 -Summation +146 +62 +98 +93 Average +24 +10 +16 +16 Trade and ~ransEortation 18701s +20 7 -25 +11 18801 B +12 +10 + 6 4 18901s + 6 -17 -1 -6 19001s +18 + 9 +11 +25 19101s +21 +12 + 3 +12 Trade +14 + 9 -0 +11 Transport + 7 + 5 + 3 + 1 19201s +26 +11 +12 +28 Trade +19 + 8 + 5 +21 Transport + 7 + 5 + 7 + 7 SUI!lllation +103 +18 + 6 +66 Average +17 + 5 + 1 +11 Services 1870's +15 +40 +41 + 9 18801s +52 + 1 -11 + 8 1890's +51 +21 + 8 -41 Profess. 1 + 2 -1 + 5 other +52 +19 + g -44 1900's 2 -19 -18 +32 Profess. + 1 -1 + 1 + 5 other 5 -18 -19 +27 19101s +53 +16 -1 +26 Profess. + 6 + 1 1 +10 Public + 2 + 7 -1 + 2 other +22 + 8 + 2 +10 Clerical + 3 -0 1 + 4 1920'e +32 -11 +13 +54 Profess. + 7 3 + 5 + 9 Public + 2 2 + 4 + 2 other +16 -4 2 +11 Clerical + 7 2 + 8 +12 -Summation +161 +48 +32 +68 Average +27 + 8 + 5 +11

PAGE 82

72 In examining Table 21 and in considering sector contributions to state changes it is useful first to consider major changes, comparisons, and contrasts on a chronological basis by decades. It is also helpful to examine the general character of the contribution of each sector over the entire period. First then, we take up the chronological treatment. The 18701s.--All four states made moderate contributions to total competitive gains in the 18701s. In Florida, all sectors contributed to competitive gains, with agriculture and manufacturing providing about 58 and 24 per cent, respectively, of Florida's total gains. In Georgia, these two sectors contributed only to losses and it took a large competitive gain of some 40 per cent in the services sector to provide a small net gain. In Alabama, the services sector was also dominant with a gain of some 41 per cent which, together with a gain of 18 per cent in agriculture, overbalanced large losses in trade and transport and in manufacturing. California was similar to F1.orida in that the major contributing sectors were agriculture with 27 per cent and manufacturing with 25 per cent; but very different in suffering a large competitive loss of about 27 per cent in the mining sector.7 The 18801s.--In this decade, Florida more than doubled its share of competitive gains; while California halved its share and Georgia and Alabama suffered heavy competitive losses. F1.orida made 7u.s. Census data for 1870 is usually treated with caution because of probable under-enumeration in certain Southern States in 1870. According to Lee, this would not affect Florida appreciably but there may be some understatement for Georgia and Alabama. P. 402.

PAGE 83

gains in all sectors except agriculture (the largest gainer in the preceding decade); with services and manufacturing contributing about 52 and 27 per cent respectively. Georgia actually made competitive gains in all sectors except agriculture but a heavy loss of some 77 per cent in that sector resulted in a large net loss. Alabama's experience was similar, with the agricultural sector providing some 73 63 per cent of the total for a heavy net loss. In California, agriculture with a contribution of 40 per cent remained the dominant gaining sector and mining with 34 per cent remained the dominant losing sector; for a small net gain of about 1.4 per cent. This was down from the 3 per cent of the prior decade, and below Florida's 2.5 per cent of the national competition gain. The 1890's.--Florida modestly increased its share of competition gains to 2.7 per cent in the 18901s; with Georgia recovering rapidly to almost match these gains; with Alabama making a tremendous recovery to triple Florida's gain; and with California continuing its competitive slump to a net loss of 5.8 per cent of the national losses. Florida made gains in all sectors, except for a minor loss in professional services; with other services, agriculture, and manufacturing making the dominant contributions of 52, 30, and 22 per cent, respectively. Georgia's recovery was characterized by gains in agriculture, other services, and manufacturing of 38, 19, and 19 per cent, respectively; the only important losing sector being trade and transport with 17 per cent. Alabama's performance included gains in all sectors, except for negligible losses in trade and transport and professional

PAGE 84

74 services; with agriculture, manufacturing, and other services contributing 70, 12, and 9 per cent, respectively, to the gains. California1s competitive slump included losses in all sectors except professional services; with other services, agriculture, manufacturing, and mining contributing 44, 18, 16, and 11 per cent, respectively, to the overall loss. The 19001s.--During this decade, Florida increased its share of national competition gains to 3.4 per cent. Georgia increased its position to 4.4 per cent while Alabama dropped down to 2.5 per cent and California began its remarkable competitive growth sequence by moving from its 5.8 share of the national deficit in the prior decade to a 13.1 per cent share of national gains in the 19001s. Florida made gains in all sectors, except for a negligible loss in other services. The dominant sectors on the gain side were manufacturing, agriculture, and trade and transport with gains of 36, 33, and 18 per cent, re spectively. Georgia's improved position was marked by a large competitive gain of 64 per cent in the agricultural sector, with other services being the only major losing sector to the extent of about 18 per cent .Alabama's experience was identical in pattern to that of Georgia, with agricultural gains of 55 per cent and other service losses of 19 per cent. California gains were general except for a 4.5 per cent loss in mining and a minor loss in forestry. The leading California gainers were other services, trade and transport, manufacturing, and agriculture; with gains of 27, 25, 25, and 15 per cent, respectively.

PAGE 85

75 The 1910's.--Florida again made an increase in its share of national competitive gains from the 3.4 per cent of the prior decade to 4.1 per cent in this decade. Georgia slumped to a neutral position while Alabama declined sharply to a 4.5 per cent loss position. California jumped sharply from the 13.1 per cent share of national competitive gains in the prior decade to 21.9 per cent in the 1910's. Florida gained in all sectors, except forestry and mining which had losses of 14.5 and 1.4 per cent, respectively. The major gaining sectors were other services, manufacturing, trade, and agriculture, with percentages of 22, 17, 14, and 9 per cent, respectively. Georgia's major gaining sectors were manufacturing, trade, and other services, with percentages of 22, 9, and 8 per cent, respectivelyJ major losers were agriculture with 38 per cent and forestry with 9 per cent. Alabama's gaining sectors were manufacturing, 20 per centJ mining, 3 per cent; and transportation, 5 per cent. The primary losing sector was agriculture with 68 per cent. California repeated its performance of the prior decade with only a 4 per cent loss in mining and a 1 per cent loss in forestry; a duplicate of Florida as to losing sectors. The leading California gainers ware agriculture with 28 per cent, manufacturing with 28 per cent, trade with 11 per cent, other services with 10 per cent, and professional services with 10 per centJ again very similar to Florida's experience. The 1920's.--In this period Florida almost doubled its share of total national competitive gains to a level of 8.2 per cent. Georgia continued its drop from a neutral position to a 5.2 per cent loss

PAGE 86

76 position; while Alabama made a good recovery from its deficit position to a 1.8 per cent share of national gains. California dominated the nation with 56.5 per cent of total national competitive gains; followed by Texas with 15.4 per cent; Michigan with 10.4 per cent; North Carolina with 8.5 per cent; and Florida with 8.2 per cent. Florida made gains in all sectors except for a very small loss in mining. The principal gaining sectors were manufacturing with 20 per cent, trade with 19 per cent, agriculture with 18 per cent, and other services with 16 per cent. Georgia made gains of 20 per cent in manufacturing and less than 1 per cent in fishing and mining. All other sectors lost competitively; agriculture with 57 per cent, trade with 8 per cent, and other services with 4 per cent. Alabama suffered competitive losses only in mining and other services, about 2 per cent for each. The primary gaining sectors for Alabama were manufacturing with 55 per cent and agriculture with 11 per cent. California enjoyed a perfect record with gains in all sectors; dominated by manufacturing with 25 per cent, trade with 21 per cent, agriculture with 12 per cent, and other serv ices with 11 per cent. Next we consider the general influence of each individual sector over the total period. For convenience in discussion, use will be made of an average percentage which represents the algebraic summation of the sector percentages for each decade, divided by the number of decades. It must be recognized that a low average percentage does not mean that the respective sector has not made large contributions to sector gains or losses in decennial periodsJ these may

PAGE 87

have been netted out. It will thus be necessary to go behind these average percentages in many cases, as has been done in the prior chronological section. It should also be recognized that these net percentages bear no numerical relation to labor force figures since a large percentage in one decade may actually represent a lesser labor force figure than a smaller percentage in another decade. 77 Thus the net percentages implicitly assume that the character of sectoral growth in one decade is of equal importance to that in each of the other decades. Table 22 is merely a summary of the averages of the preceding tables. TABLE 22 SUMMARY AVERAGE OF COMPARATIVE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ST.A.TE NET SHIFTS Sector Florida Georgia Alabama California Agriculture +20.6 -16.0 + 4.0 +17.0 Fishing + 1.6 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.1 Forestry 0.2 -o.o -0.7 -0,6 Mining + 0.7 + 0.1 + 2.9 -15.0 Manufacturing +24.0 +10.0 +16.0 +16.0 Trade-Transport +17.0 + 5.0 + 1.0 +11.0 Services +27.0 + 8.0 + 5.0 +11.0 The services sector has been the largest contributor to the upward l!lhift in Florida's labor force relative to that of the nation over the six decade period. In net average percentage terms the services sector has contributed about 27 per cent; as compared with 24 per cent for manufactures, 20 per cent for agriculture, 17 per cent

PAGE 88

for trade and transport, 1.6 per cent for fishing, 0.7 per cent for mining, and a downward shift of 0.2 per cent in forestry. 78 Georgia's strongest sector has been manufacturing with an upward shift, in net average percentage terms, of 10 per cent; fol lowed by services with 8 per cent, and trade and transport with 5 per cent. Fishing, forestry, and mining made negligible net contributions and agriculture was the weak sector with a downward net shift of 16 per cent--almost nullifying the gains. Alabama's strongest sector has also been manufactures with an upward average net shift of 16 per centJ followed by services with 5 per cent, agriculture with 4 per cent, and mining with 5 per cent. The remaining sectors were all 1 per cent or less, with fishing as the only losing sector. California's strongest sector over the total period has been agriculture with a net average upward shift of 17 per cent; closely followed by manufactures with 16 per cent, services with 11 per cent, and trade and transport with 11 per cent. Forestry and fishing were below 1 per cent, with the latter a losing sector. Mining was the weak sector with an average downward net shift of 15 per cent,

PAGE 89

Summary of Florida Labor Force Changes The changing importance of the several industrial eectors to Florida's economic development is revealed, in part, by Table 23. This table shows the percentage of total labor force contributed by each sector at each decennial measuring point. The phrase "in part" is a necessary qualification since there is no single adequate measure of economic change. For example, a declining labor force in some sectors may be more than offset by increasing productivity and the effect of changes in the average work week must also be considered. TABLE 23 SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FLORIDA TOT.AL LABOR FORCE BY DEC.ADES Sector 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1950 i % % % i % Agriculture 75.1 70.8 52.4 45.7 56.6 27.9 22.3 Fishing 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 Forestry o.s 1.1 1.5 5.2 5.9 5.2 1.1 Mining o.o o.o 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.4 Manufacturing 6.6 9.2 16.1 18.9 23.2 26.7 24.3 Trade-Transport 5.8 8.5 13.5 14.2 15.0 19 .6 24.8 Services 11.4 10.1 15.8 14.4 17.5 20.8 26.0 Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 99.9 Sources Reference Table LS-5. 79

PAGE 90

80 Florida's economic structure, in terms of labor force, was vastly different in 1950 as compared to 1870 and the path of structural change varied from sector to sector. Agriculture, as the domi~ nant extractive industry, declined from about 75 to 22 per cent of the total labor force over the period. The other extractive sectors (fishing, forestry, and mining) increased their labor force shares over the total period; in summation, from 1.1 to 2.5 per cent. Fishing tended to gradually increase in importance over the period. Forestry increased in importance to a peak of about 6 per cent in 1910 and then retreated to its earlier share. Mining also reached a peak of about 1.1 per cent in 1910 and then declined by about two-thirds. Manufacturing made rather steady structural gains until 1920 and then declined slightly, in labor force share. Trade and transport made steady gains over the period; as did services, except for minor and transient reversals in 1880 and 1900. In sunnnery, the extractive sectors dropped from 76.2 to 24.8 per cent over the period; manufacturing rose from 6.6 to 24.5 per cent; and the remaining sectors rose from 17.2 to 50,8 per cent. These structural changes do not necessarily mean that the actual labor force in any sector declined over the period. In fact, the extractive sectors increased from a labor force of 46,500 in 1870 to a labor force of 148,700 in 1950; making gains in every decade except the 19101s. The only specific sectors 'Which had absolute declines in any decade were agriculture in the 19101s and forestry and mining in the 19101s and 19201s. Mining and forestry had their labor force

PAGE 91

peaks in 1910 but all other sectors reached their highest labor force figure in 1930. Florida's period of slowest growth in labor force was in the 19101s, when the increase in total labor force amounted to about 20 per cent. In all other decades it varied between a low of 47 per cent and a high of 60 per cent. The foregoing paragraphs have dwelt with changes in the internal structure of Florida's labor force without external reference. It is apparent that the national economy was also changing in structure during this period and it is instructive to view Florida's chsnging structure in terms of its share of the national change. Table 24 presents F1.orida1s change as a percentage of national change (as measured by the summation of the relative gains and losses of the several states in relation to the national average). 81 Table 24 shows that agriculture generally tended to increase its share of national gains. The negative contribution in the 1880's is accounted for by a most radical change in Florida's economic structure. In 1880 agriculture employed 71 per cent of Florida's labor force, as compared to only 52 per cent in 1890. While agricultural employment did increase 11 per cent in this decade all other sectors increased by 100 per cent or more. Thus the agricultural share went down over 18 per cent, in absolute terms; while the manufacturing share went up almost 7 per cent, trade and transport went up 5 per cent, and services went up 6 per cent. The employment opportunities in these latter sectors absorbed almost the entire increase in Florida' s labor force for that decade. The small dip in agriculture' s share of the gains in the 1910's is probably closely related to the pull of World

PAGE 92

T.ABLE 24 FLORIDA SHARE OF U.S. NET SHIFT BY SECTORS BY DECADES Sector 18701 s 18801s 18901s 19001 s 19101s 19201s % % % A.gricul ture 0.6 -0.3 1.4 2.4 1.6 6.5 Fishing 0.8 5.0 7.6 14.7 32.5 1.4 Forestry 1.4 0.8 8.2 10.4 -27.9 7.7 Mining 0.1 0.4 1.5 1.6 -0.7 -0.6 Manufacturing 1.4 2.7 2.9 4.5 2.2 4.4 Trade 6.0 9.4 1.7 1.4 1.2 2.6 Transport 4.2 7.8 Services 0,5 4.5 Professional -0.5 0.9 6.0 8.1 Public 1.9 5.5 Other 4.0 -0.4 12.5 9.5 Clerical 1.6 5.8 Note: National shifts add up to~ 100 per cent. Source: Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited. War I manufacturing employment on the agricultural labor force, One of the subjects which brought about the extra session of the 82 state legislature in November of 1918 concerned the problem of getting the labor force back from the factories and shipbuilding to the farms. In 1919, Governor Catts pointed to several national problem areas, notably the high-wage experience in war-time jobs which tended to inhibit much desire to return to low-wage agricultural employment. Furthennore, much low-wage employment had been eliminated by increasing mechanization of farm operations.

PAGE 93

83 Florida's fishing also tended to increase its share in national gains, very dramatically so until a sharp drop in the 19201e. This drop was only in relative terms, however, with the actual labor force increasing by almost 42 per cent from 4,300 to 6,100 during the decade. Concurrently the relative importance of fishing to Florida's economy declined slightly from 1.1 to 1.0 per cent, in tenns of labor force. Florida's share of national gains in the forestry sector was fairly stable except that in the 19101s the state made a heavy contribution to national losses. The labor force in this sector declined 36 per cent from 19,000 to 12,200 in this one decade. The actual decrease in forestry cut (timber production) between 1909 and 1919, however, was only 5.4 per cent; demonstrating a substantial productivity increase in this sector. In tenns of labor force, the relative direct importance of the forestry sector in the state's economy decreased from 5.9 per cent in 1910 to 5.2 per cent in 1920. However the forestry sector was also important as a major source of raw materials for Florida manufactures and, perhaps somewhat passively, as transportation tonnage which necessitated investment in transportation facilities and related services.8 Concurrently with this decline in forestry labor force, employment in the lumber industry in the Pacific 0 Northwest increased from 68,300 to 94,600 in 1919.~ 8 United States Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census of the United States taken in the year 1920. Vol. VIII, Manufactures, 1919. General Report and Analytical Tables, p. 252. 9 James Neville Tattersall, "The Economic Develo}'.Jllent of the Pacific Northwest to 1920" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1960), p. 179.

PAGE 94

84 The Southern states were still dominant in lumber production but this dominance was to shift to the Western states in the following decade.10 It is a bit awkward to have trade and transportation combined in one sector. It may be helpful to point out that in the nation, in 1880 and in 1900, the proportion of employment in trade was about twice that in transportation; and that by 1940 the proportion had increased to almost three-to-one. In Florida, the trade and transportation subsectors were roughly equal in 1880 and in 1900; but trade had attained a more than three-to-one ratio by 1940.11 Rather unexpectedly, Florida's share of national gains in the trade and transportation sector declined slightly from the 18701s to the 18801s. Unexpectedly, because the 18801s was the decade of vast expansion in railroad transportation. On the other hand, one might speculate that it was precisely the introduction of this highly productive means of transport which brought about a relatively larger reduction in employ ment in less productive means of transport. Then, too, there were concurrent relative declines in agriculture and forestry, the sectors providing the largest tonnage demand for the transportation of their products. The small decline in the 18901s, and the subsequent doubling, or near doubling, in national gains for the following decades, appear consistent with expectations. 10 ~-, p. 184. 11 Lee, pp. 625-4.

PAGE 95

85 The services sector is a very complex and ever-changing aggregate. Florida's share in national gains was particularly low in the 18701s and in the 19001s, for somewhat obscure reasons. In the decade chapters the nature of th~se reasons may be partially isolated through the occupational detail therein. Table 25 presents the sector contributions to Florida's net shift by decades. This data has been presented and discussed earlier in contrasting Florida with selected states. It is presented here in summary fashion for Florida alone to emphasize the relative importance of each sector in each decade in contributing to Florida1s relative gains (or infrequent losses). TABLE 25 SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FLORIDA NET SHIFT BY DECADES Sector 18701s 18801s 18901s 19001s 19101s 19201s % % Agriculture 58.2 -5.5 50.1 55.0 8.8 18.5 Fishing 0.7 2.0 2.5 1.7 2.9 0.1 Forestry 2.0 0.5 5.0 4.7 -14.5 1.5 Mining 0.5 1.1 2.4 2.1 -1.4 -0.5 Manufacturing 25.8 27.2 21.5 56.5 17.5 20.5 Trade 15.7 18.9 20.0 11.8 5.7 18.2 Transport 7.5 7.2 Services 15.0 52.0 Professional -0.5 1.1 6.5 7.5 Public 2.5 2.5 Other 52.4 -5.0 22.2 15.7 Clerical 2.9 7.4 Totals 100.0 100.1 99.9 100.1 100.0 99.9 Source: Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited.

PAGE 96

Table 26 compares economic change in Florida with that in the nation, for each of the six decades, in terms of the percentages of the composition and competition shifts of the labor force of Florida in relation to the summation of like shifts for all other states of the nation. TABLE 26 SUMMARY OF FLORIDA COMPETITION AND COMPOSITION NET SHIFTS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S. SHIFTS BY DECADES Composition Com~tition 86 Decade Fla. of U.S. Change Fla. j of U.S. Change 1870-1880 -1.17 +0.9B +.09 +1.39 1880-1890 -1.08 +2.:32 +.04 +0.36 1890-1900 -1.04 +2.68 -.19 +0.70 1900-1910 -1.2:3 +3.58 +.26 +0.76 1910-1920 -0.97 +4.14 +.44 +4.03 1920-1930 -0.55 +8.17 Total +.64 +7.24 Source: Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited. It is apparent that Florida has continually gained over the period in terms of percentage of both composition and competition shifte, except for a drop in the former during the 1900-1910 decade. Also apparent is the consistently increasing gain in competition percentage and the coneietently decreasing loss in composition percent ageJ the brief reversal of the latter in the 1900's being fully

PAGE 97

87 compensated in the 19101s. Another striking feature of these changing percentages is that the 19201s contributed more to the total change than the prior five decades combined; some 69 per cent of the composition change and 56 per cent of the competition change. It must be recognized that there is an inter-relationehip between the compQsition and competition shifts. The competition ehift still contains substantial elements of composition shift in tenns of the relative specialization of Florida in the rapid or slow growth subeectors of each of the major sectors considered in this study. In tenns of levels of disaggregation, the composition shifts herein identified are only first level shifts and the same process of separating competition and composition effects could be repeated at successive levels of disaggregation if data, time, and space permitted. Another area of inter-relatedness exists in that differential competition shifts tend to change the relative degree of specialization in rapid and slow growth sectors over time. Another measure which was computed for each decade is the composition index. The index for each decade was derived in the chapter on the respective decade; they are summarized in Table 27. After the first decade, the composition index has increased in Florida's favor in each of the following decades except for the 19001s, and this lost ground was fully recovered in the succeeding decade. This composition index, accordingly, corresponds to the pattern of the composition shift presented in Table 26.

PAGE 98

TABLE 27 COMPOSITION INDEX SUMMARY BY DECADE Decade Index 1870-1880 .465 1880-1890 .442 1890-1900 ,550 1900-1910 .512 1910-1920 .562 1920-1950 .992 Source: Table 34 for the 18701s. Like tables from other decade chapters. Especially dramatic is the radical change in ratio in the last decade after the rather gradual changes of the preceding five decades, The total change in ratio for the first five decades netted only ,099; and suddenly there was a change of ,450 in the 19201s. To afford some basis for comparison, Dunn has computed that the ratio which is here tanned a composition index was 1.540 for Florida during the period 1959-1958. For the same period he found that all other southern states ranged from .182 for Arkansas to .701 for Virginia.12 For the nation as a whole the index would, of course, be 1.000, or unity. This revolution in magnitude for Florida in the 19201s would perhaps justify a tentative hypothesis that this decade, whatever the 88 12 Edgar S, Dunn, Jr., "The Changing Economic Structure of the South and Its Implications for Economic Development." Prepared for The First Annual Conference of the Inter-University Committee for Economic Research on the South. Mimeographed and unpaged. Figures taken from Table II. Monograph publication contemplated by University of Florida Press in 1962.

PAGE 99

89 untoward effects of the boom, was the transforming decade in Florida's economic makeup. To the extent measured by the composition index, it was in this decade that Florida unmistakably departed the ranks of the South. Other Measures of Change Wealth One of the many ways to visualize the over-all economic devel opnent of Florida over a major portion of this period is in tenns of wealth. Data are not available to present decennial comparisons but Easterlin has developed national estimates which are helpful in revealing changes in Florida's wealth between 1880, 1900, and 1920 as compared with national wealth. Table 28 is based on data contained in the Easterlin estimates, with some manipulation. This table indicates that total wealth in Florida as a percentage of total national wealth, by location, increased by 45 per cent between 1880 and 1900, and by 95 per cent between 1900 and 1920. The relatively greater increase between 1900-1920 as compared to 1880-1900 is almost entirely attributable to increase in agricultural rather than nonagricultural wealth. Corresponding percentages in nonagricultural wealth, as between these two twenty-year intervals, were only 55 and 65 per cent; but for agricultural wealth were 9 and 252 per cent. Equivalent percentages for total wealth, by ownership, are 50 and 109 per cent; and for nonagricultural wealth, by ownership, the differential between the two twenty-year intervals is again small, that between 72 and 78 per cent.

PAGE 100

TABLE 28 FLORIDA. PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL WEALTH BY SELECTED CATEGORIES Florida Percenta~e of National Wealth 90 Category 1880 Per cent 1900 Per cent 1920 Change Change Total Wealth By location .28 45 .40 95 .78 By ownership .22 50 .55 109 .69 ( Own/Loe Ratio .79 5 .85 6 .88) Agricultural Wealth By location .25 9 .25 252 .88 Nonagricultural Wealth By location 50 55 .46 65 .75 By ownership .21 72 .56 78 .64 (Own/Loe Ratio .70 11 .78 9 .85) Notess No allowance for foreign ownership of domestic wealth. U.S 100 per cent. 1920 figures based on 1919-1921 average and partly on 1922. Sources Lee, Table 4.6, pp. 729-55. By computing the ratio between ownership and location percent ages, this table also reveals the net trend toward greater local control of total wealth and nonagricultural wealth. With unity representing a net equivalence of wealth measured by ownership and location, Florida increased its ratio from .79 in 1880 to .85 in 1900 to .88 in 1920 for total wealth; and from .70 in 1880 to .78 in 1900 to .85 in 1920 for nonagricultural wealth. Agricultural wealth is assumed by Easterlin to have a net ownership-location ratio of unity; an assump tion perhaps more doubtful for Florida than for many states.

PAGE 101

91 Table 29, computed by applying the Easterlin Florida percentages to national wealth figures in current dollars, provides the current dollar value for each type of wealth for each period. Totals do not balance exactly but the figures are adequate for descriptive purposes. TABLE 29 WEALTH OF FLORIDA .AND U.S. BY SELECTED CATEGORIES IN CURRENT OOLLARS 1880 1900 1920 Category u.~. r!a. u.~. Fla. tJ.~. Total Wealth By location 43.4 121.5 87.6 350 513 By ownership 43.4 95.6 87.5 289 312 Agricultural Wealth By location 13.8 31.8 22.1 55 63 Nonagricultural Wealth By location 29 .6 89.5 66.5 310 250 By ownership 29 .6 62.2 65.5 255 249 Notes: No allowance for foreign ownership of domestic wealth. U.S. figures in billions of dollars. Florida figures in millions of dollars. 1920 figures based on 1919-1921 average and partly on 1922 figures. Source: Computed from data in Lee, Table 4.6, pp. 729-53. Personal Income ria. 2440 2150 556 1870 1590 .Another of the many ways to visualize the over-all economic development of Florida over a major portion of this period is in tems of personal income and its components. Data are not available to present decennial comparisons but Easterlin has developed national

PAGE 102

92 estimates which are helpful in revealing changes in Florida personal income and in personal income per capita, as between 1880, 1900, and 1920 and as compared with national income changes. The following tables are based on data contained in Easterlin estimates, with some manipulation. The components of personal income for this purpose are property income and service income. Service income, in turn, is subdivided by Easterlin into agricultural and nonagricultural Table 50 presents the changes in the contribution of these components to Florida personal income over the period. TABLE 30 COMPONENTS OF PERSONAL INCOME IN FLORIDA FOR SELECTED YEARS 1880 1900 Component $ $ Agricultural Service Income 7 59 14 27 Nonagricultural Service Income 11 61 57 75 m m5 Service Income 19 86 51 86 Property Income 3 14 8 14 m ffi5 Personal Income 21 59 Note: Dollar figures are in millions of current dollars. Sources Lee, Tables Y-1 through Y-5, pp. 755-57. 1920 $ 68 20 276 80 Tim 543 81 80 19 ffiJ 423 Table 30 shows the expected decline in proportion of agricultural service income to nonagricultural service income, about equally distributed between the two twenty-year periods; with the share of

PAGE 103

93 agricultural service income dropping from about 59 to 20 per cent. It also shows that the proportion of property income to service income, after dipping very slightly in the middle period, rose from some 14 per cent to 19 per cent over the forty-year period. Table 51 presents the relationship of Florida to the United States, in terms of personal income and its components, on a per capita or per worker basis. TABLE 51 CCMPONENTS OF PERSONAL INCOME IN FLORIDA AND U.S. ON PER CAPITA OR PER WORKER BASIS 1880 1900 1920 Component $ $ $ Agricultural Service Income Per Worker For U.S. 228 229 883 Florida 112 156 663 Florida as j of U.S. 49 59 72 Nonagricultural Service Income Per Worker For U.S. 622 584 1520 Florida 435 578 990 Florida as % of U.S. 70 65 65 Service Income Per Worker For U.S. 426 444 1556 Florida 204 254 890 Florida as% of U.S. 48 57 66 Property Income Per Capita For U.S. 27 53 125 Florida 10 16 83 Florida as jof U.S. 37 49 66 Personal Income Per Capita For U.S. 175 203 658 Florida 79 112 437 Florida as % of U.S. 45 55 67 Notes Figures in current dollars. Sources Lee, Tables Y-1 through Y-5, pp. 753-57.

PAGE 104

Table 31 shows that over the period the agricultural worker has fared better than the nonagricultural worker in tems of change in per worker income relative to the national average. The agricultural worker moved up from 49 to 72 per cent of the national average over the period while the nonagricultural worker was moving down from 70 to 65 per cent. The joint effect was to move total service income per worker up from 48 to 66 per cent over the period in tams of national average. Property income per capita moved up from 37 to 66 94 per cent over the same period. The joint effect of these changes was to move personal income per capita up from 45 per cent in 1880 to 55 per cent in 1900 to 67 per cent in 1920; representing an almost equal aggregate improvement in Florida's position relative to the nation for each of the two twenty-year periods. It is apparent of course that althrugi the relative position of the. agricultural worker changed more favorably than did that of the nonagricultural worker for the entire period, it was still the latter group which had the more favorable relative position in 1880 and 1900. It is further apparent that the agricultural worker remained well below the nonagricultural worker throughout the period in the absolute tenns of current dollars earned per capita. Proportionately, the agricultural worker averaged only 26 per cent of the dollar earnings of the nonagricultural worker in 1880; but improved this relative position to 36 per cent by 1900 and to 64 per cent by 1920.

PAGE 105

CHAPTER IV THE 1870's Institutional Background General The 1870 to 1880 period, as most decennial periods, is a measurement period related to the census; not necessarily a logical choice of period on which to base discussion of institutional background and economic development. Politically, this decennial period is divided, and overlapped, by two periods, one from 1868 to 1876 and the other from 1877 to 1885. The restoration of civil rule under the 1868 Constitution marked the start of the first period. The 1877 change of political pow.er in Florida from the Republicans to the Democrats, the Reconstructionists to the Redeemers, marked the end of the first period and the start of the second. The 1885 Constitution, in some respects, marks the end of the second period. Price writes that the 1868 Constitutj r n was framed to facilitate Republican supremacy in counties with Negro majorities. The governor was given pervasive appointive power and county powers stopped at about the constable level. I n the first legislature after military rule 19 of 76 legislators were Negroes. 1 Noteworthy events 1H. D._Price, The Negro and Southern Politics (New Yorks New York University Press, l957), pp. 10-ll. 95

PAGE 106

96 of the period included the introduction of homestead exemption, the use of state lands to guarantee railroad bonds, a fence-cutting act, registration laws, and the enfranchisement of first paper aliens and negroes. The use of state lands as a reserve to guarantee the payment of railroad bonds was not new. Patrick writes that this had been done by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund before the Civil War and that even though the bankrupt railroads were sold after the war the claims of the unsatisfied bondholders clouded the title of all state lands.2 The Reconstruction Period was undoubtedly a difficult and trying period. Some writers emotionally portray it as a nightmare during which an "army of carpet-baggers and camp-followers came from everywhere like buzzards collecting.113 The "revisionist" history of 19001910 also painted a dark picture of the period and downgraded Reconstruction reforms.4 Modern historians have generally sought a more objective presentation. Woodward, writing of the South as a whole, states that: "Radical Reconstruction, like the Confederacy, was an ephemeral experiment" and that it was the Redeemers who laid the lasting foundations in matter~ of race, politics, economics, and law for the modern South. He emphasizes that Radical rule lasted less than a decade in the Southern states, only three and a half years on the 2 Patrick, p. 67. 311Notes on Reconstruction in Tallahassee and Leon County, 1866-1876," Florida Historical Quarterly, X (January, 1927), 15:5. 4Price, p. xiii.

PAGE 107

97 average; but notes Florida as one of the longest under Radical rule, almost a full decade. 5 Patrick, while writing of Reconstruction as a sad experience for Florida, points out that it was "neither completely good nor completely bad." Although the record of Republican administration was tinged with fraud and corruption, the Reconstruction period was an era of worth-while political advancement The Reconstruction years also brought noteworthy material gains Those who engineered the political revolution of 1876 condemned Reconstruction and, in their desire to erase the bad, destroyed much that was good In years to come, however, a more liberal generation was to rediscover the valid political philosophy of Reconstruction.6 Woodward's dismissal of the significance of Reconstruction in the South and Patrick's recognition of its significance in Florida are not necessarily inconsistent. As mentioned above, Florida lived under Reconstruction almost three times as long as did the South generally. Furthermore, the South generally (eight states) adopted new constitutions shortly after their "redemptions" (between 1870 and 1879) whereas the Redeemers of Florida found the Radical Constitution of 1868 so much to their liking as an instrument of executive control that they kept it until 1885, when the Reformers forced a change.7 The changeover from Reconstruction to Redemption was accomplished in 1877 when Governor George F. Drew was inaugurated. 5c. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South1 1877-1913 (A History of the South, Vol. IX;Louisiana State Univereity Press, l95l), p. 22. 6Patrick, pp. 60-62. 7 woodward, p. 53.

PAGE 108

98 Calling him "Millionaire Drew," Price quoted hie philosophy as followes "that government will be most highly esteemed that gives the greatest protection to the taxpayer.118 Woodward usas the identical quotation, citing Abbey, 1941, as the source, and identifying it with Drew's Message to the Legislature in 1877. 9 This quotation is incanplete and what Drew actually stated in his 1877 message is substantially diff'erents That government will be the most highly esteemed that gives the greatest protection to individual and industrial entenrises at the least possible expense to the taxpayers.Io [Under ining supplied.] The underlined words are those left out by Woodward and Price. The use of the quotation by Woodward, however, was to point up the attitude of retrenchment which was general throughout the South after the Redeemers took control. Woodward writes that the neglect of social responsibilities by the Redeemers was grave and that in Florida "reaction crippled the schools." He does point out that backgrounding the attitude of retrenchment were the factors of' general poverty, prior Carpetbag extravagance, and the Panic of 1873.ll According to Woodwards "The year 1877 marked the end of a period of' social, economic, and political revolution in the South." After pointing out that per capita wealth in the South in 1880 was only $576 dollars, as compared to $1,086 for all other states, he notes that the South was discouraged; but continues: 8 Price, p. 12. 9 woodward, p. 58. l0Florida Senate Journal, 1877, p. 37. llwoodward, p. 68.

PAGE 109

Yet it was toward the end of this decade of despair that there occurred that sudden quickening of life in commerce and investment in certain areas of the South that has sometimes been taken to mark the opening of a completely new era in the region's history.12 Woodward cites Broadus Mitchell as asserting that 1880 "ushered in industrialism" and notes his dualistic explanation of a revolution 99 "by Southern willpower" and of an economic "response to a moral stimulus." However Woodward adds the more impersonal and amoral forces. The end of the great depression in 1879 released Northern and English capital for Southern investment. And the South looked temptings "land, labor, fuel, waterpower, and building facilities are cheap. The way to clear and large profits is open." 13 The timing of this resurgence in Florida closely corresponds with that of the South. The Florida Census Report of 1915 states1 "However, with the election of Governor Drew in that year (1876) the development of Florida, as it now exists began." 14 Of course history cannot be sharply divided and compartmented. Much of the foundation for economic development after Reconstruction was laid during that period. After noting the population growth and material gains during Reconstruction, Patrick writes1 Northern capital aided in the restoration of the railroads, backed the lumber industry, and financed orange grovel!. The total valuation of all property declined during the period, but 12Ibid., p. 111. 15Ibid., p. 114. 14Florida, Census Report of 1915, p. 8.

PAGE 110

the economic basis was laid for a future increase that would surpass the most optimistic predictions.15 Actually, it was the assessed valuation of taxable property that declined during the Reconstruction and, as will be evident in later discussion, there is every reason to believe that the value of property in Florida increased in real terms. This economic resurgence in the late 18701s, though based on the Reconstruction Period, took on a new political coloring after 1876. Doyle writesa The reins of govement generally passed to representatives of business, including railroads, trading establishments, and lumber and naval stores, and to general farmers and cattlemen. Agriculture, with crops of corn, cotton, tobacco, and other staples, and products of the forest and the sea furnished the basis for Florida's economy until after the beginning of the present century.16 With the foregoing sketchy general background of the 18701e it is possible to better interpret the developnent of Florida as expressed in the several messages of the governors of the periodJ 100 the period being defined to extend from 1868 through 1880 as presented in the several messages from 1869 through 1881. Some of the changing attitudes and recurrent institutional problems will be treated in some detail but much has been omitted, including the areas of public education, convict labor, and suffrage. State Condition Soon after the transition from military to civil rule in 1868, under the Constitution of 1868, Governor Harrison a eed struck an 15Patrick, p. 61. 16noyle, p. 11.

PAGE 111

optimistic note in his 1869 message to the legislatures The newly enfranchised citizen of color sits aide by aide with his white fellow, without antagonism, in the Cabinet, the halls of legislation, the jury box, and on the Boards of Commissioners--occupies the magistratds chair, and executes the decrees of the courts, without exciting violence or occasioning asperity. (5)17 101 But his tone had changed considerably in his 1871 message. He stated that he had proposed plans to meet the vital interests of F1.orida "but irreconcilable personal, factional, political, and sectional differences have defeated them, while providing no sufficient alternative." He further noted the efforts of "unprincipled men and a licentious and seditious press to array the people against the constituted authorities of the State." A year later, in 1872, the situation appeared somewhat less bleak to the Governor. He mentioned progress in civil and political development and stated that general peace and obedience to law had prevailed, except in the border sections. However he touched on the obstructive--or destructuve--attitude of his opposition by a quotation from the August 1, 1871 Floridian, in part as followss No greater calamity could befall the State of Florida, while under the rule of its present carpet-bag, scalawag officials, than to be placed in good financial condition. (17) The next Reconstruction Governor, Ossian B. Hart, adopted a rather business-like approach in his 1875 message, which was devoted largely to pressing for refonn in the financial condition of the state. 17The parenthetical number after each single-spaced quotation from the governors' messages will be the page number in the Senate Journal, except for 1885 when the Assembly Journal was used and for 1885, 1887, 1891, and 1905 when the House Journal was used. The messages will not be further footnoted for reasons stated in Chapter I, footnote 11.

PAGE 112

A year later, in 1874, he reported that the legislature had made a good start in financial reform through the Funding Bill and that: 102 the spirit of political hatred and bitterness, which was the fruit of the great rebellion, is wellnigh extinguished . Indeed, an era of good feeling and political toleration seems to have dawned throughout the State. (12) Governor Hart's view may have been colored somewhat by an illness .m.ich had taken him out of the state for a period and which resulted in his death in office in March of 1874. But it is also possible that the adverse events of the previous year had tended to unify the people of Florida. As Governor Hart expressed it: T"ne year that has just passed and quietly glided into history has been one of extraordinary hardship and disaster to the people of F1.orida. To the annual ravages of the caterpillar have been added terrific storms ... and to these have been superadded a great financial crisis, originating at the North, but extending its influence through the entire country. (12) Governor Marcellus L. Stearns succeeded Hart, by constitutional provision, and in 1875 he reported to the legislature that peace had prevailed; that laws were generally well executed; that crime had diminished; and that the prior November elections had passed "with unprecedented order and quiet." He stated, in fact: I have yet to learn of a single collision or disturbance at the polls between races or opposing parties, growing out of that exciting contest. (25) Governor Stearns reviewed the improvement in attitudes since the Civil War and struck a very optimistic note despite the "monetary convulsion of last year." He spoke of "favorable circumstances, 11 of an "abundant harvest," and of a "return of confidence." Under the heading of "Militia," he noted:

PAGE 113

105 The accompanying report of the Adjutant-General will show the present condition of the militia of the State. It will be seen that only twenty-one dollars have been spent under this head during the past year which speaks well for the peaceful condition of the State. (41) He concluded his message by urging the legislature to retrench and economize, to restore the credit of the state, and to lighten the burdens of the people. After 1876, the legislature shifted from annual to biennial meetings and George F. Drew delivered the governor's message in 1877. The period of Reconstruction wae over and the Redeemers were in charge. Drew began his message by congratulating the legislatures upon the peace and good order that prevails throughout the limits of our State. The change in our State government was so complete and radical in its character that many persons were apprehensive of a civil commotion as a necessary consequence. (57) He concluded his message by advising that the passions of the past be buried and that retrenchment be made the order of the dayr The people look to you to lighten their burthens at the earliest possible moment, and thus invigorate the general pros J.)9rity by giving confidence and allowing labor its ~ust reward. {48) Two years later, in his 1179 message, Drew summarized the current situation in Florida, after the turbulent Reconstruction and change over, by noting that Florida had been spared yellow feverr And for this, for our abundant harvest, decreasing taxation, improved educational advantages, exemption from civil strife, and other evidences of public and private welfare, we have much cause for gratitude and thanks to a merciful Providence. (15)

PAGE 114

104 State Finance In 1869, Reed touched a keynote of the 1870's (which extended through the over-all period and still continues) by stating: "I earnestly recommend the organization of a Board of Equalization." He noted that the bonded debt of the state amounted to about $578,000 of which about $271,000 was in private hands. In 1871, Reed stated that the public debt of Florida amounted to about $1,290,000, most of it held internally or by the Indian Trust Fund in Washington. Obviously he was not including the $4,000,000 in state bonds which had been exchanged for railroad securities, as described in a following section under the heading of Capital. Reed also referred to the county railroad debts of Leon, Jefferson, Madison, Suwannee, Baker, Bradford, Columbia, and Duval Counties. He intimated, with policy and constitutional reservations, that these counties should have state aid.18 Reed estimated the taxable property of the state to amount to about $60,000,000. He was unhappy, however, about the state Comptroller and his report: It proves apparently to the great satisfaction of the officer himself, at least, that the government cannot find means of subsistence. (5) Reed recommended taxes on railroad companies and telegraph companies and a tax on conveyed lands. He also recommended that foreign 18The U.S. Census of 1870 places the total county bonded debt at $366,000J Bhared largely by Columbia, Jefferson, Leon, and Madison counties. All other county debt was only $78,000J not more than $8,000 in any one county. In addition, Duval County had $77,000 in bonded city debt and Escambia County had $248,000 in bonded city debt and $120,000 in other city debt. Vol. III, p. 21.

PAGE 115

corporations doing business in the state be required to have a corporate bond deposit of $50,000 in state bonds. In 1872, Governor Reed referred to the tangled history of Florida finance and taxation since 1848. He reported total bonded and floating debt of about $1,512,000; of which the total bonded 105 debt was about $748,000, all but $205,000 "chargeable to the old government." He specified certain recommended sources of revenue; five mills on $so,ooo,ooo taxable property to yield $250,000; liquor licensing to yield $30,000; gross receipts tax on railroad, insurance, etc., companies to yield $so,ooo; and leasing fishery districts to the highest bidder for five years to yield from $50,000 to $150,000. He also reverted to his suggestion for corporate bond deposits, especially for insurance companies. His feud with the Comptroller was again noted in vigorous terms. In 1875, Governor Hart's message wae almost completely devoted to state finance. He reported that the credit of the state was completely destroyed "until the Constitution of 1868 opened the way for its revival." He statedt "The greatest necessity of the hour is reform in the financial condition of the State." It was not a problem of economy alone, but of great efforts to collect back and current taxes, develop state resources, and get on a cash basis. A related problem was implied in Hart's recommendation for legislation to ascertain the indebtedness, liabilities, and obligations of the state. He reporteda

PAGE 116

106 The whole amount of the State debt, exclusive of aid to railroads, bonded, interest, and floating, as far as I can learn, after some search, does not exceed $1,500,000; but that is large for us, and should be paid without any delay. (25) But the immediate situation hardly permitted repayment. So little money reached the treasury, Hart complained, "that the interest on their public debt goes unpaid; which fact alone is ruinous to the character and good name of the State." The state had no money for current supplies and "nothing whatever with which to pay the expenses of the present session of the Legislature." The treasury was empty and Comptrollers' warrants were generally almost fifty per cent below par. Hart estimated that the state had about $180,000 due in 1871 taxes collected but not paid over to the treasury; about $160,000 due for earlier back taxes; and about $219,000 due for collection in the current year; making almost $600,000 "now due and that should be brought into the Treasury without delay." The immediate problem was one of compelling payment by tax collectors and their sureties. Hart stated that tax collectors withheld a large proportion of the revenues from the treasury and conunentedt "This long-exieting practice should be stopped by appropriate action of the Legislature now." The Governor further alleged that some collectors received cash in payment of taxes; bought Comptrollers' warrants at half price; turned them in to the treasury for full value on their tax collection obligations; and pocketed the difference--about half of the cash tax collected. Governor Hart again produced figures to show that the state could collect about $450,000 in annual revenues given just valuation and honest collection.

PAGE 117

107 In 1874, Hart reported eome improvement in the financial condition of the etate. He told the legislatures "Your wiee financial policy for reaching a condition of cash payments established at your last session by the new law for the collection of the revenue and the act known as the Funding Bill started well and is progressing hopefully." He also noted that the situation would be better except for problems within the adminiatrationJ that there was less script afloat; and that state indebtedness had decreased in the past year, but only through the aid of back tax payments. Hart recommended that the legislature reduce its expenses and that revenue be increased by li censing and taxing measures. He noted: "The poll tax is but a dollar. It is property that pays the taxes." In 1875, Governor Stearns reported that finances, though better, were not good. Total bonded and floating debt was down slightly from the prior year to about $1.6 million but current expenees exceeded current revenues. He pointed out that "during the last two years we have not only paid all our interest promptly, but have made an annual reduction of the principal." On the other hand he noted that Comptroller warrants were at such a discount as to be "equivalent to the payment by the state of an interest of two and a half per cent. per month on its floating debt." Although Hart had used $so million as an estimate for taxable property in the state, Stearns noted that the current assessed valuation was only about $52 million. Stearns recommended elimination of warrants and shift to a cash basis.

PAGE 118

108 In 1877, Governor Drew agreed with his Reconstruction predecessors that the state's most important question related to finance and taxation. His philosophy has been expressed in an earlier section. He told the legislature to examine expenditures closely and to reduce them where possible because of "the great increase in debt and extravagant expenditures created by those who had possession of the govern ment for the last eight years." He noted that the cost of the govern ment in 1876, when no legislative expenses were incurred, was about $190,000. As to the :immediate situation he reported that there would be no revenue to pay the expenses of 1877 "until the tax to be levied in 1877 be collected, which cannot be before the end of the year." About $65,000 was available but that sum would be largely used up by current legislative expenses. As did his Reconstruction predecessors he advocated full cash value assessment and tax equalization, remark ing that if the assessors could not accomplish this other means would be necessary. By 1879, Governor Drew was able to report decreasing taxation, a large reduction in floating indebtedness, and a small reduction of bonded debt in private hands. Taxes were reduced 2.5 mills in 1877 and 3.5 mills in 1878; representing tax reductions of about $77,000 and $1.os,ooo, respectively. The 1877 floating indebtedness of $,000 was reduced by $184,000. Drew noted that the state was also obligated to the Indian Trust Fund for $152,000 in 1857 bonds, plus interest charges, but that the state had counterclaims "now in the process of settlement"--a refrain to be repeated for many more years.

PAGE 119

109 The big problem again was uniformity of taxation: "This, in my opinion, is one of the most important questions you have to deal with." Drew suggested the "Kentucky Plan" of detailed property schedules, supported by oath, which had raised Kentucky valuations twenty per cent in the first year. Or any other method. The state valuation figure for 1878 was down to about $29.3 million. Economic Factors Population In 1869, Governor Reed reported that the publication of an immigration pamphlet had been commissioned in order to seek "large accessions from the intelligent yeomanry as well as the capitalists of the North." In 1871, Reed stated, The indefatigable labors of ths head of the Department of Immigration have resulted in turning attention to this State from all parts of the world, and a large accession to population will speedily result. (9) Under the wise policy of protection to home industry--the "American System," advocated by Jefferson, Madison, Webster, and Clay--we are inviting to our shores the toiling millions of foreign countries. (14) In 1871, Reed noted that during the last year "the State has passed a season of severe trial by flood and storm, yet, on the whole, it has kept a steady pace onward in population." He provided an estimate that over 40,000 immigrants had come to Florida during the last three years; and in this, his last message said: I again commend to your attention the subject of immigration, as one of the highest importance to the present and future prospects of the State. (27)

PAGE 120

no Governor Ossian B. Hart's messages were primarily concerned with the financial condition of the state. In his 1874 message, however, he recommended state participation in the 1876 International Exhibition in Philadelphia, in order to publicize the state and promote :iJmnigration. His successor, Governor Stearns, produced a prophecy in his 1875 message, in a section titled "Immigration." I refer with much satisfaction to the general increase in population and prosperity which has marked our State during the past year. The future of Florida is full of hope. It is not improbable that the dawn of the twentieth century will find the population of our State one million, and its aggregate wealth five hwidred million dollars. (42) But, he pointed out, "nearly all of our sister States have surpassed us in the volume of immigration" because Florida had not advertized its advantages to the world in adequate fashion. He noted, however, that the Commissioner of Lands and Immigration had done well with his small means. And he strongly reiterated Governor Hart's suggestion as to Florida participation in the 1876 Exposition. Noting that the last legislature had not acted on this suggestion he expressed surprise and regret at the indifference of the people of Florida to such opportunities to attract immigrants. 19 Governor Stearns also mentioned that as a consequence of the Cuban Revolution starting in 18681 "Thousands of their outlawed and outcast people have sought refuge upon our shores." 19Perhaps somewhat inconsistently, Stearns recommended abol ishing the office of Commissioner of Lands and Immigration and making the Attorney-General responsible for immigration.

PAGE 121

lll In 1877, Drew told the legislature that "the subject of immigration is one of the highest importance" and that action should be taken to promote it. Under Redemption, as under Reconstruction, the executive branch pressed action to pranote immigration and the legislative branch responded sluggishly, if at all. In 1879, Drew noted that immigration was gradually increasing and stated that improvement in transportation facilities "is the surest means of promoting immi gration." Migration eatimates.--Despite the active interest in immigra tion which is evident in the foregoing the net results were not very impressive according to Lee's net migration estimates for Florida for the 18701s. Detailed estimates are contained in the reference tables, including the county estimates based on the procedures described in Part II. Briefly summarized for this section, Lee estimates the total net migration into Florida in the 18701s to be about 14,000J about 12,000 white and the rest colored. Based on the assumptions stated in Part II, my estimates indicate that the internal net migration among the counties of Florida was about 40,000; about half white and the rest colored. The net amount of internal ~ifting exceeded the net external input by some 180 per cent; the highest ratio for any of the six decades from 1870 to 1950. The net migration into Florida, represented as a percentage of Florida's ending population for the period, was only about 5 per cent. Thii, was the lowest for the six decades, the six-decade average being about 15 per cent. The internal net migration among the counties of Florida, expressed as a

PAGE 122

112 percentage of the end population for the period, waa about 15 per centJ as compared with a six-decade average of about 22 per cent. In spatial terms, East Florida and Penninaular Florida enjoyed net migration gains above the state average, and West Florida had net migration leases (defining West Florida as all 1880 counties northwest of Levy, Alachua, Bradford, and Baker counties). Notable exceptions in West Florida were above average gains by Escambia County; the Jackson, Washington, and Calhoun County group; and Suwanee County. Notable exceptions in the remainder of the etate included Clay County with no net migration change and Alachua County with a sharp migration loss, almost entirely in the colored category. Labor.--The position of the manufacturing worker in the 1870's is described in the Census under the heading Statistics of Wages--Saw-and Planing-Mills. 20 The sawed l'Wllber industry dominated manu.;._ facturing both in 1870 and 1880. It accounted for about 25 per cent of the total manufacturing labor force and was much more dominant (roughly about the 50 per cent level) in respect to such measures as capital employed, wages paid, materials used, and product value. The only major runner-up among wage industries was cigar manufacturing and this will be treated in the discussion of a later decade. Consequently, the emphasis in this section will be on the saw-mill worker. 20united States Census Office, Statistics of the Population of the United States at the Tenth Census, 1880, Vol. XX, p. 463.

PAGE 123

115 The wage rate was relatively stable during this decade, except for a temporary dip in 1878 and 1879. Daily rates varied from $5.85 for the general engineer to $1.25 for the general laborer. The average in the sawing department was about $2.50; with sawyer's pay declining to that level and filer's pay moving up to that level during the course of the 18701s. As a general comparison with pay scales in other econ omic sectors, boss carpenters received about $4.00; carpenters about $2.50J blacksmiths about $5.00; and iron-molders about $5.00. Monthly payacales varied from $12.00 for farmhands, to $40.00 for assistant teachers, to $so.oo for clerks, to $75.00 for principal teachers and bookkeepers. Wage rates in dollars mean little without some consideration of prices and of the conditions of work. The 1880 Ceneus provides a list of 1880 prices for various commodities in Jacksonville, Florida.21 The prices of a few representative items were1 sirup at $.75 per gallonJ superfine wheat fiour at $7.00 per barrelJ corn meal at $3.60 per bar rel; smoked hams at $.15 per poundJ dry codfish at $.10 per pound; retail coal at $7.50 per ton; and retail wood at $5.25 per cord. The conditions of work are summarized in the following selected quotations: The saw-mill hands receive, in addition to the wages named in the table, free house and garden with firewood, and the earnings of the log-drivers are increased by free board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Payments are half in cash and half in merchandise, the latter being obtainable on application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Ibid., pp. 26, 51, 94, 98, 102.

PAGE 124

114 The hours of labor for all classes were 12 a day fran 1870 to 1875J 11 from 1875 to 1880J and 10 in 1880. When the mills were operated at night two sets of hands are sometimes employed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overtime is sometimes made at night. The men are paid one-quarter day's wages extra tor working until 9 o'clock.22 The foregoing quotations and wage scales are representative of conditions ruling in the vicinity of Mi.lton in Santa Rosa County. The Census source is also quoted to the effect that there had been no change in the et'ficiency of labor during the decade. However, under the heading "Efficiency of labor and labor-saving machinery" it was reported thats Much of the skill required in the operations about saw-mills has been done away with by the improvements in machinery noted below The result of all these improvements has been a greatly increased production, reduced cost, and little or no change in wagea.25 Of course, wage stability and labor efficiency must be considered in relation to the reduction of two hours in length of working day. Relative price levels must also be considered. Land General.--This section will provide some of the general back ground on the public lands of the South and of Florida as a preface to the next section derived fran the gubernatorial messages. Woodward writes a 22Ibid., p. 465. 25rbid. p. 461.

PAGE 125

115 The transition from the missionary and political to the economic and exploitative phase of Northern policy is nowhere better illustrated than by a comparison of Federal land policy toward Southern states in the period from 1866 to 1876 with the policy from 1877 to 1888.24 Florida was one of the five public-land states of the South. In 1861 about one-third of this total Southern domain was federally owned. In 1874 some 17 million acres out of a Florida total of some 55 million acres belonged to the federal government, and could only be secured by homestead entry at a price of some fourteen dollars for 160 acres. The Swamp Land Act of 1850 provided for the transfer of swamp and overflowed lands in the federal domain to the states in which they were located upon application by the state and approval by the federal government. To come under the definition of swamp and overflowed lands it was provided that "each forty acre tract must be overflowed, either at the planting or harvesting season, that it could not be freed from water without artificial drainage.1125 In 1874, nearly seven million acres of these swamp lands were available for purchase from the State of Florida at prices ranging from $.75 to $100 per acre. In addition there were some 220,000 acres of "internal improvement lands11 at prices of $1.25 and upward per acreJ and some 600,000 acres of "school and seminary lands" at similar prices. As a result of the Federal Land Law of 1878 which removed the restrictions of 1866, some 5,692,000 acres of federal lands were sold in the five Southern states between 1877 and 1878. Woodward writes, 24woodward, p. 116. 25Dau, p. 247.

PAGE 126

116 When in the latter year, under the spirit of agrarian alarm and resentment, the Southern representatives succeedei in reviving some of the restrictions of 1866 it was too late. 6 By then the Northerners controlled the best stands of timber. But the sale of state lands was even more prodigal and the sale or other disposition of Florida lands will be discussed in the next chapter. The sale of Florida lands in the 18701s was inhibited by contested titles resulting from legal claims registered against all state lands. As Patrick puts its Before the Civil War, the trustees of the Internal Improve ment Fund had used state lands as a reserve to guarantee the payment of railroad bonds; and though the bankrupt railroads of Florida were sold after the War, there remained unsatisfied bond holders with valid claims against the Internal Improvement Fund.27 Patrick further notes that the attempts made in the 18701s to repay theae claims by selling millions of acres of land for twenty-five and thirty cents an acre had been unsuccessful. It was not until the decade of the 18801s that the solution was worked out. Speoifio.--The public lands of Florida were under the control of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund (IIF). In 1869, Governor Reed noted that the affairs of the IIF were "in rather a confused and unsatisfactory condition." (He appears to use "rather" in the English sense, as though an Englishman remarked that fallout would be rather annoying in a World War III.) During the past two years some 463,000 acres of the state domain had been disposed ofJ some 560,000 acres to cover railroad bond interest; some 70,000 to 26woodward, p. 117. 27 Patrick, p. 67.

PAGE 127

117 purchasers; and some 33,000 in connection with improving the Ocklawaha River. He estimated the remainder of the state domain at some 10,718,000 acres and noted: "To this may be added several millions of acres yet unsurveyed, which will inure to the State under the acts of Congress." In 1871, Reed noted that homestead exemption was not being recognized by all local officers. In 1872, Reed reported to the Legislatures After discharging all the liabilities of the Internal Improve ment Fund and meeting all the grants made to railroads, rivers, canals, etc., we shall have at least four million acres of lands remaining, as a final resource for any State liabilities. (20) In 1874, Governor Hart reported on the status of the proposed annexation of West Florida to Alabama. A referendum on annexation had been taken, in the 1869 elections, in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Walton, Holmes, Washington, Jackson, Calhoun, and Franklin Counties. The majority favored annexation by a light vote of 1045 for and 659 against. Hart commented that Escambia was pressing for annexation to Alabama and he recommended that the legislature make provision for a state vote on the question. In 1875, Governor Stearns only stated that the Report of the Trustees or the IIF was not ready and would be suanitted at a later date. In 1877, Drew noted, under the heading of the IIF, thats "The report of the Salesmen shows a considerable increase in the quantity of land sold during the past year over that of the year previous." He also recommended an investigation by the legislature of the activities of the IIF during the Reconstruction period. In 1879, Drew reported that sales of land ware increasing in the past

PAGE 128

118 two years despite a general depression of business. He stated his philosophy as to the use of public land in connection with internal improvement. He believed that encouragement of enterprises for the construction of railroads and canals through wise legislation with "grant; of unoccupied and now unproductive land, is not only a public necessity, but would do much toward enhancing the value of the remain ing land and would promote the interests of the State in every locality." Capital In 1869, Reed noted that one of the purposes of a recently commissioned immigration pamphlet was to seek to attract the "capitalists of the North" to Florida. In 1871, he noted that the last legislature had authorized the issue of eight per cent bonds to the Jacksonville, Pensacola, and Mobile Railroad Company to the amount of $16,000 per mile for a cross-state connection, in exchange for a first mortgage on the railroad.28 Four million dollars in bonds had been prepared and three million delivered to the railroad. But Reed questioned the sound ness of the policy of affording state credit to railroad companies and doubted the constitutional right to issue state bonds for railroad purposes. He reconmended repeal of laws authorizing state credit in works of internal improvement. e9This is the core transaction which stimulated a very inter esting dissertation in the form of a case study of business enterprise in post-Civil War Florida. See Paul E. Fenlon, "The Struggle for Control of the Florida Central Railroad (1867-1882)" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1956). As to the varying railroad nomenclature see, especially, pages 77 and 90. Also note that the conditions of state support varied in the 1870 Act from the provisions of the 1869 Act, as detailed on pages 77 and 87.

PAGE 129

119 In 1872, Reed noted that the above railroad oompany had received all of the four million dollars in state bondeJ that "fraud and villainy" had bean involved in their disposalJ and that only about $1.2 million remained for further work on the railroad. He vastly overestimated (over ten-fold as it ultimately turned out) the value of' the property back of the mortgage held by the state, claim:illg thats The losses of the company in no way involve lose to the state as the securities held by the State can at any time be converted for sufficient to redeem the State bonds. (19) In 1874, Hart was much less optimistic. He reviewed the state aid for this projected railroad extension "which I do not think the said company ever intended to do. It has disposed of most of these bonds in Europe." He noted that the company had paid the state some inter est on its m~rtgage from proceeds of the bond sales but had even stopped doing that the previous July. He recited the plight of the state relative to "a claim of a prior lien to the aforesaid of the State" which threatened to leave the state without security "for any reimbursement for its $4,000,000 and more." The "and more" phrase refers to acownu lating interest charges of' $520,000 per year at a high 8 per cent rate. Hart noted that the case was in the courts and that because of "neglect" by the State Attorney-General the interests of the state had suffered. He reported that he had asked the Attomey-General for his resignation and that it had been refused. He recommended apppropriate action by the legislature to dispose of the matter. In the meantime the European bondholders had submitted a petition to the state, which Hart appended to his message. Thesebondholders,

PAGE 130

120 mostly Dutch, held over three million dollars of these bonds and were concerned over the state's failure to take action to protect the state equity in the railroad company. Hart felt that it was the direct responsibility of the state to settle with these bondholders. However the fears of the bondholders were justified by events. In 1875, Stearns noted, with too much optimism, that in April of 1874 the railroad company had been placed under a Receivership and that both its credit and its operations had been improved. He hoped to obtain the state bonds back in exchange for "the property or the proceeds of its sale." After Stearns, future governors preferred not to mention this unsavory episode in their messages. However the entire affair is summarized by Ratchford, as follows: Durig Reconstruction, Florida issued to two railroad companies $4,000,000 of state bonds in exchange for bonds of the railroads. The latter promised that the road would make interest and principal payments at the time and in the amounts such payments were due on the state bonds. In a short time the roads defaulted on their payments, and the state took possession of them. Although the legislature never repudiated the state bonds, payments were refused. In 1876 the state supreme court held that the bonds were illegal because they were issued in violation of the state constitution. This decision was repeated in at least two other cases, and the Supreme Court of the United States gave its tacit approval by saving that the question was "one it was eminently proper the courts of Florida should determine." In 1880 the same court held that, although state bonds were illegal and "steeped in fraud," the innocent Dutch holders should have some redress. It accordingly gave the bondholders liens against the railroads, holding that the roads were not released from liability because the state bonds were illegal. The two roads were sold for a total of $555, 000. 29 29Benjamin U. Ratchford, American State Debts (Durhams Duke University Press, 1941), pp. 186-

PAGE 131

121 In 1875, Governor Stearns also commented on the General Incorporation Act which had been passed at the prior session of the Legislature. He stated that it was good in theory but that the law had some defects; a notable one (for those days) being the failure to pin down the "evident" responsibility of railroads to fence their right of way or pay damages for destruction of livestock. He reported on the failure of the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, which involved losses of some three million dollars. I cannot but regard the failure of this institution in July last as a great public calamity. The Freedman's Savings and Trust Company was chartered by Congress, and, in connection with the Freedman's Bureau, was made a part of the Congressional reconstruction policy. (51) Governor Stearns felt that the United States was thus morally obligated to make good to the depositors. Knox, in addition to providing a few figures on Florida banking in the 18701s wrote in 1Q05: The period immediately following the Civil War was one of considerable political and commercial disturbance, and for some years the banking business of the State [Florida] was conducted by private bankers and small associations of capital, in the chief business centers, without State supervision or authorization, and without a uniform system of laws or practice.50 Knox listed one national bank in Florida in 1874, and again in 1879. In 1874, capital, surplus, and undivided profits totaled $38,000; and in 1879 they totaled $58,000. Deposits went up from $11,000 to $100,000; and loans, discounts, and overdrafts went up from $5,000 to $73,000, during this same five-year period.51 30John Jay Knox, A History of Banking in the United States (New York: Bradford Rhodes ind Company, 1903), p. 592. 51Toid., p. 595.

PAGE 132

122 Economic Sectors Statistical One useful way to better understand economic change is to study the major economic sectorss their absolute magnitudes at beginning and end of each period; the percentage change of each during the period; the percentage which each sector contributes to the total at the begin ning and end of each period; and the change in percentage points in sector contributions to the total during the period. These elements of the major economic sectors for the 18701s, as measured by labor force distribution, are perhaps most concisely presented in tabular form, as in Table 52. 52 Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Trans. Services Total TABLE 52 ABSOLUTE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 18701s Labor Force of Total Labor Force In In In In Change in 1870 1880 Change 1870 1880 % Points 456 648 42.l 75.1 70.8 -4.3 2 3 50.0 0.3 0.3 o.o 5 10 100.0 0.8 1.1 +0.3 0 0 o.o o.o o.o o.o 40 84 110.0 6.6 9.2 +2.6 56 78 122.8 5.8 8.5 +2.7 69 92 35.3 11.4 10.1 -1.3 -607 915 50.7 100.0 100.0 o.o Note: Labor r orce in 100 , s. Sources Reference Table LS-3. 52The same basic format of including this descriptive table (and the two which follow it) in "Statistical" section under "Economic Sectors" will be followed for each decade. These tables are identical for each decade as to the factors they measure and the data sources from which derived. Therefore the introduction to the tables will be

PAGE 133

Table 32 dealt with absolute changes within Florida. It is also useful to consider the changes in Florida relative to changes 125 in the United States; and disaggregate these changes in terms of competition and composition effects, as described in Chapter Ill. Thus Table 55 deals primarily with how norida fared competitively in each sector, relative to the nation as a whole. The difference between the summation of these competitive sector results and the aggregate relative change of the total is then identified as the composition effectJ that portion of total change which results from the relative degree of norida's specialization in rapid or slow growth sectors. '!be over-all composition effect, identified in Table 33, is disaggregated by sectors in Table 54 which states the absolute national growth rate of each sectorJ the growth rate of each sector relative to the over-all national rate; the percentage which each sector contrib utes to the Florida labor forceJ and each sector's contribution to the composition effect for the State, thus weighted. A. summary measure is then provided for interdecade comparisons by dividing the sum of the rapid growth sectors by the sum of the slow growth sectors. curtailed in later decades and sources will not be repeated. Discussion of sources and data deficiencies is contained in Part II. It is enough to note at this point that specific figures are suspect but the rela tiva magnitudes, directions of change, and pattern of development are reasonably dependable. It may further be noted that these tables are included in the text for ease in reference but that they need not be absorbed in any detail since the most significant points are covered in summary fashion in later textual discussion. All figures in the tables are in tams of hundreds of labor force, except percentages, ratios, and indices.

PAGE 134

Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Trans. Services Net Sum Total Total rn:inus TABLE 33 RELATIVE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 18701s Relative Change in Labor Force Distribution of Change % Fla. Change as j of U.S. Change +55.4 58.2 +0.56 + 0.6 0.7 +l.42 + 1.8 2.0 +0,85 + 0.5 0.5 +0.05 +22.0 25.8 +1.55 +18.5 20.0 +1.71 +15.9 15.0 +0.54 100.0 +92.5 resulting from competitive sector gains +71.2 +0.75 Sum -21.3 resulting from composition losses Note1 Labor force in 1 0 01s. 124 Source: Based on unpublished shift tables, as explained in Chapter III. Sector Forestry Fiehing Trade:.Trans. Services Mining Manufacture Total Agriculture TABLE 54 SECTOR CONTRIBUTION TO COMPOSITION EFFECT IN THE 1870 1 s Rate of Relative F1.a. Sector Sector Contribution U.S. Growth Rate Proportion to Composition 1870-1880 1870-1880 1870 Effect for state 1.578 +.187 0.6 0,ll2 1.526 +.155 0.2 0.027 1.520 +.129 5.0 0.645 1.518 +.127 17.8 2.260 1.505 +.114 o.o 0.000 1.409 +.018 6.1 0.110 3.154 1.591 ,000 99.9 1.294 -.097 70.2 6.810 Rapid Growth Total 5,154 62 i I Slow Growth Total 6.810 4 u Compos tion ndex Source: Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 135

126 The highlights. of the three foregoing tables may be summarized as follows. In absolute terms, Florida increased employment in every sector during the l870's, except for mining employment which :remained at zero. In tenns of percentage of the total state labor force, the gaining sectors were trade and transport, manufacturing, and forestry. The losing sectors were agriculture and service, with fishing and mining unchanged. In terms relative to the national nonn, the larg est gainers were agriculture, manufacturing, trade and transport, and services. There were no losers. In percentage of national gains 1n each sector, trade and transport, f'il!lhing, and manufacturing were the top Florida sectors with about 1.7, 1.4, and 1.4 per cent, respectively, of' tho1e national gains. The over-all gains were less than the summa tion of the competitive sector gains, which demonstrates that Florida tended to specialize in slow growth sectors (or the slow growth components of rapid growth sectors).55 Competitively, Florida gained 9,940 jobs during the period but lost 2,S20 jobs throuh the adTilrse composition ef'f'ect tor a net gain of 7,120 jobs, all relative to the national average. During the 1870's all national sectors had sector growth rates in employment above the U.S. total employment growth rate, except for counterbalancing agriculture. Thus, in tem.1 of oompo11ition effect, Florida made gains in all sectors except agriculture. The two sectors making the primary contribution to rapid growth composition effect 33.rhe rationale f'or this is discussed in the sections on shift technique in Chapter III and in Part tI.

PAGE 136

126 were services, with 72 per cent, and trade and transport, with 20 per cent. Obviously, agriculture provided 100 per cent of the slow growth composition effect. The composition index was .463, as derived in the last of the three foregoing tables. For comparison, the index of a hypothetical state with an industrial mix of rapid and slow growth industries identical with the national mix (at all levels of disaggregation) would have a composition index of 1.000, or unity. A composition index of .463 thus indicates that Florida had an adverse composition effect in the 18701s, with the single slow growth sector of agriculture overbalancing all of the rapid growth sectors because of Florida's specialization in the former, relative to the nation. Descriptive General.--!! time, space, and data permitted, it would be infonnative to subdivide each of the~ major sectors and apply the foregoing shift technique to examine relative change at various levels of aggregation. Since this ie not possible, a brief descriptive breakdown of each of these major sectors is substituted. This breakdown is couched in a rather impressionistic presentation of selected occupational categories. These occupational figures do not neatly fit our labor force control figures but they will contribute to an appreciation of the changing structure of the econorny.34 Also included in this descriptive section will be occasional notes from governors' messages M All of these figures will be taken from the several U.S. Censuses of population over the total period. Specific footnotes would result in a forest of ibids. Thus they are normally omitted.

PAGE 137

127 related to the individual sectors. The purpose here is to move from the abstractness of labor force statistics to get some feeling of the work people were doing and how their jobs were changing over time. Agriculture.--The census of occupations does not provide a very infonnative breakdown of this sector for the decade of the 1870's. The general category of farmers and planters increased from 11,200 to 25,500J agricultural laborers from 31,000 to 32,300J farm and plantation owners from 46 to 54; gardeners and nurserymen from 59 to 403J stock drovers, herders, and raisers from 107 to 231; florists from 1 to 4J and apiarists from Oto 4. Dairymen declined by one from 17 to 16. These statistics are quite suspect in detail beca use of enumeration and classification problems, but do give an impression of relative magnitudes. It should also be noted that the number of agricultural laborers is understated because many were included as laborers, not specified, in the services sector. Fishing.--The occupational censuses indicate that fishermen and oystermen declined from 309 to 161 during this decade but notes that many fiehennen were reported as sailors in the trade and transportation sector. Forestry.--Turpentine farmers and laborers increased from 64 to 275 during the decade. The category of lumbennen and rafts-men increased from 229 to 560 and woodchoppers declined from 176 to 95. Mining.--There were no miners or quarrymen listed in 1870 and only 29 miners were enumerated in 1880.

PAGE 138

128 Manufacturing.--Manufacturing employment increased 110 per cent from 1870 to 1880 and increased its ehare of total employment by 2.6 per cent. The primary contributing counties to this increase were Columbia, Escambia, Madison, Monroe (half of the total increase), Nassau, Santa Rosa, Suwannee, Manatee 71, Washington 51, and Marion 21. These counties, except for Marion 21, are grouped generally in the three corners of the state, as represented by Escambia, Nassau, and Monroe. Spatially, this accords with expectations. The limited transportation "network" in the 18701s generally dictated the locale of manufacturing industries, other than the small "neighborhood" industries. The principal manufacturing sectors in 1870 were sawed lumber, carpentering, tobacco (cigars), flouring and grist mill products, molasses and eugar, and blacksmithingJ in that order, with sawed lumber accounting for over 25 per cent of the total manufacturing labor force. In 1880, the principal sectors were sawed lumber, tobacco (cigars), naval stores, and flouring and grist mill products; in that order, with sawed lumber still accounting for almost 25 per cent of the total. The principal expanding sectors in the 18701s were tobacco (cigars), sawed lumber, naval stores, brick and tile, and ehipbuild ing; in that order, with the first two accounting for about 50 per cent of the total manufacturing labor force increase during the 18701s. The following comparisons are based only on the manufacturing establishments which employed 70 per cent of the estimated 1870 labor force and 66 per cent of the estimated 1880 labor force :in manufacturing.

PAGE 139

129 The number of establishments decreased by a third; steam horsepower almost doubled from 3,172 to 6,208; water-wheel horsepower almost doubled from 528 to 959; capital was up from $1.7 to $3.2 million; wages were up from $1.0 to $1.3 million; materials were up from $2.3 to $3.0 million; and product value was up from $4.7 to $5.5 million.35 Leading counties in terms of value of product in 1870 were Duval (sawed lumber), Monroe (cigars), Escambia (sawed lumber), Santa Rosa (sawed lumber), Nassau (sawed lumber), and Leon (primarily machinery, railway repairing). By 1880 the order had shifted to Monroe (cigars), Escambia (sawed lumber), Santa Rosa (sawed lumber), Duval (sawed lumber and cigars), Nassau (sawed lumber), and Madison (sawed lumber). Duval1s decline was related to a 70 per cent decline in its sawed lumber industry, as measured by wages, materials used, and value of product. During the same period, Escambia County more than doubled its sawed lumber industry. Trade and Transportation.--In 1869, Governor Reed reported that "while the railroad system of contiguous states is rapidly improving, ours still languishes and makes no progress toward completion." He recommended a survey and estimate, at state expense, for a railroad to Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor, and Key West, to render "our State railroad system complete." In 1872, he optimietically reported on the South Florida Railroad Company stating that "we may reasonably hope 56 United States Census Office, Ninth Census. Vol. III. The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the United States (1869), p. 505J and United States Census Office,7ie~rt on the Manufactures of the United States at the Tenth Census Emracing General Statistics. Vol. II (1879}, p. 108.

PAGE 140

130 that within the year this important thoroughfare will be opened to Tampa Bay." In 1874, Governor Hart mentioned that the Great Southern Railroad Company was about ready to grade a line between Jessup, Georgia, and Jacksonville. In 1879, Governor Drew, in speaking of transportation as the surest way of promoting immigration, remarked that "as it is true that the burden of taxation diminishes in the ratio that the wealth of the State increases, it seems the dictate of wisdom and sound policy to encourage and foster such improvements."56 In 1873, Governor Hart reported to the legislature on the condition of the roads in Florida: The camnon roads of the country in the counties, so necessary to the people, are almost everywhere neglected, and in such bad condition as to be discouraging to persons wishing to settle in our State. This is caused by neglect or incompetency of County Commissioners. (32) He noted that the county commissioners controlled the road commissioners or overseers and that the latter had the power to compel work on roads "or commutation in money for it." In 1877, Governor Drew reported great dissatisfaction with roads and road laws. Better road laws and enforcement of road duties were needed. He stated that a better road system would enhance "the material prosperity of many cc:mirnunities." In 1879, he recommended that the law be changed to make it a "punishable misdemeanor for failure to do road duty when properly notified." 36Al.so note that the preceding section on Ca!!:tal provides additional detail on state support of railroad build g.

PAGE 141

131 The census of occupations sheds some light on the internal composition of the trade and transportation sector. In the trade area, traders and dealers in groceries increased from 275 to 373; clerks in stores from 458 to 1,099; saloon-keepers and bartenders from 37 to 103J real estate dealers from 11 to 26; and bankers and brokers of money and stocks from 16 to 25. In the transportation area, employees of railroads increased from 278 to 988; sailors from Sil to 1,170; pilots from 72 to 107; steamboat men and women from 69 to 128; and boatmen and watermen from 72 to llS. The census notes that many of those reported as sailors may have been fishermen. Services.--In occupational terms, the professions made some substantial gains with clergymen increasing from 197 to 420J dentists from 20 to 68J civil engineers from 15 to 58; journalists from 12 to 33; lawyers from 149 to 306; midwives from 8 to 33; physicians and surgeons from 248 to 374; and teachers and scientific persons from 251 to 618. In the public service we find that officials of govern ment (including national, state, county, city, and town) increased from 312 to 448 and that armed forces strength decreased from 512 to 79. In the domestic field there was a small increase from 4,000 to 4,400 domestic servants and a larger increase of launderers and laundresses from 700 to 1,100. Among some of the characteristic occupations of the times there was an increase from 14 to 29 livery-stable keepers and from 8 to 95 hunters, trappers, guides, and scouts.

PAGE 142

CHA.PTER V THE 18801s Institutional Background General The economic problems of th& South about 1880 were largely local to each state but most states faced about the same set of local problems; and Florida was no exception to the rule. Woodward writesa The economic issues that divided Southern whites in this period [about 1880] were predaninantly local. Struggles over taxation, interest rates, and the lien law, over the disgraceful convict-lease system and the plight of the share cropper, over public schools, fence laws, fertilizer inspection, exhorbitant grants of land to corporations, and railroad regulation raged on the hustlings and in the legislatures of a dozen states. In general they were indexes of the county-versus-town character of the cleavage. The Redeemer governments were regularly aligned against the popular side of the etruggle.l Another major issue was Southern state debts and their readjustment. Questions of legality, fraud, character of the obligation, period incurred, and purpose, contributed to differeing solutions in the several states. Ratchford writes that only two or three states did not find some method of reducing the state debt and that the "extent of reduction in1debte by all methods ranged from down to $4,000,000 in Florida." Ratchford indicates that Florida l Woodward, p. 85. 132

PAGE 143

"acted drastically in repudiating all Reconstruction bonds without discrimination" but, relative to the over-all Southern situation, believes that "on the whole the repudiations can be defended." Repudiation still left a large per capita debt for the poor regions 155 of the South--in 1890 over ten dollars per capita as compared to less than one and one-half dollars for the North Atlantic states.2 The bonded debt in Florida in 1891 was only $1,276,000 and all but $558,200 of thie wae in state sinking funds. Thus, with an 1890 population of over 591,000, the per capita bonded debt in private hande was lees than one dollar. Without repudiation, other things being equal, the Florida per capita bonded debt would have been about eleven dollar!!. Perhaps the most decisive action taken with regard to one of Florida's major economic problems was that of William D. Bloxham in negotiating the sale of four million acres of state land to Hamilton Disston1s group at a price of twenty-five cents per aore. This action was not unattended by criticism. Woodward notes that the Disston Purchase of 1881 was "attended by illegal practices, uprooted many squatters, and left behind it a trail of resentment clearly discernable in a Populist campaign fifteen years later.115 However the weight of contemporary opinion evidently leans to the belief that Governor Bloxham1s action produced results generally beneficial to the state. The 1915 Florida Ceneus Report states that the Disston sale rehabilitated the credit of the state "which since then has been kept at the 2Ibid., pp. 87-89 (based on Ratchford). Ibid. p. 117.

PAGE 144

134 high-water mark, and Florida entered upon an era of internal develop ment which has made her one of the most prosperous states in the South, and must soon make her one of the richest."4 Abbey writes thats "By the end of 1882 the entire million had been paid to the trustees and the .fund cleared from its debts.115 As background to the foregoing, Patrick points out that behind the Bloxham sale was a history of unsuccessful efforts to solve the problem in the previous decadeJ and an appeal by the bondholders to the United States Circuit Court in 1881 "for an order to force the sale of all lands held by the Internal Improvement Fund."6 As a practical consequence of the sale Patrick writes1 "Land grants could now be made to foster internal improvements, and within a few years railroad building was in a boom period."7 As will presently appear in later sections, these land grants were the subject of abuses and, as elsewhere in the country, one must consider whether the haste of rapid develoJJ!lent was worth the waste; in social as well as economic terms. Politically, during the 18801s, the state was firmly in con servative Democratic hands. Governor William D. Bloxham succeeded Drew in 1881 and he was followed by Edward A. Perry who served from 1885 to 1889. Control of the Black Belt counties was readily achieved through the appointive power of the governor (until the new constitution) 5 Abbey, p. ~51. 6 Patrick, p. 67. 7 ~-, p. 70.

PAGE 145

155 relative to county officials. This was reported not quite complete since it left "to the uninhibited franchise of free Floridians the 8 choice of constables." These Black Belt counties numbered about nine in 1880 and represented about one-half of the population and revenues of the state. After the new constitution, political control was maintained through a variety of measures related to registration and voting, as well described by Price, previously cited, and Kanuss. 9 The remainder of this section on institutional background, and the next section on specific economic factors, will depend largely on the content of the several gubernatorial messages during the period, for reasons mentioned earlier. Among the institutional problems of the period of the 18801s several were notably recurrent; including state finances, covered herein, and public education and the employ ment of convicts, which have been omitted. State Condition The attitude of the several governors in the 18801s to the role of governments in promoting economic developnent, and in other spheres of governmental action was a changing function of the times--and sometimes rather ambiguous. Back in 1871 Governor Reed had written of the "irreconcilable personal, factional, political, and sectional differ ences" which had defeated his proposed plans to "meet the vital interest 8woodward, p. 51. 9 James Owen Knauss, "The Growth of Florida's Election Laws," Florida Historical Quarterly, V (July, 1926), pp. 3-17.

PAGE 146

136 of Florida; and in 1872 he had trenchantly characterized much so-called retrenchment and economy as "saving at the spigot and losing at the bunghole." But in 1885, Governor Bloxham quotes an unattributed source with apparent approval: "The beat scheme of finance is to spend as little as possible, and the best tax is always the lightest." One might, however, note that Bloxham apparently made a distinction between spend ing state money and "spending" state lands. It may also be noteworthy that Bloxham in 1885, and again in 1885, made a plea for federal aid to Southern education "to be applied through the agency of the various state organizations"; aid beyond the more than one billion acres which had already been distributed among the states. Bloxham. himself probably used the above quote more for tactical reasone than to represent his philosophy. In 1885, he concluded his message by listing the great links in the chain of progress; notably innnigration, transportation, and education. And ha effectively employed state resources and power to promote each. Governor Perry, possibly feeling that the legislature had taken Bloxham1s unattributed quote too seriously, stated in the conclusion to his 1887 Messaget It is said, and is in a measure true, that the least governed is the best governed State, yet the people have a right to expect that while you avoid all unnecessary legislation and extravagant expenditures, you will enact such legislation and authorize such expenditures as are helpful to conserve, protect and advance their interests. (55)10 lOHouse Journal, 1887.

PAGE 147

157 State Finance State finance during the 18801s was much discussed but posed no serious problems during the major portion of the period. State bonded debt in private hands was gradually reduced from some $681,000 to $559,000 between 1881 and 1891. The remaining bonded debt of the state was held within state funds. It was made up of $550,000 in 1871 bonds and $925,000 in 1875 bonds. That part in private hands could have been entirely liquidated except that state credit was so high that the bonds sold above par and the state was limited, by it self, to par repurchases. Governor Bloxham reported in 1885 thats "It is not the State tax that burthens the people." He was pointing out that some of the counties had outstanding obligations, some incurred priQ.!:_,to the war, which resulted in heavy county taxes. But he noted that the situation seemed to be improving. Although the state taxes did not seriously "burthen" the people, there were some aspects which concerned each of the governors of the state during the 18801s--and they continue controversial to this day. In 1881, Bloxham discussed the question of unifonnity of taxation and the equalization problem. His suggested solution was that two appraisers accompany each county assessor. In 1889, Governor Fleming recanmended a State Board of Equalization. He pointed out that the weight of ".f'ull cash value" assessment tended to fall more heavily on the small operator than the large, on the poor man rather than the rich; and on some counties more heavily than others. He estimated that the current assessment rolls of $90 million should actually have

PAGE 148

138 been about $250 million. In 1891 he reiterated this thoughts "Al though the law requires assessment at 'full cash value' it is safe to say that the average rate . is not more than one-third." As a result of faulty assessment he reportad1 "The financial problem of the State is the most serious which will claim your attention." He repeated his recommendation for a State Board of Equalization. As a minor, but perhaps noteworthy, contribution to revenue problems he referred in 1889 to the shrinkage in license taxes "by reason of the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquor in many of the counties"J and in 1891 he wryly commented that county prohibition "in most cases, has contributed more to produce a dry treasury than a dry county." Economic Factors Population In 1881, Governor Bloxham stated it was "only within.the past two years that any decided step was taken to secure that increase of population and capital" necessary to Florida's growth. He referred to the establishment of a Bureau of Immigration by the legislature in 1879 and a pamphlet published by the bureau. In 1883, Bloxham pointed out thats "Public lands and climate are useless without population." He noted that Florida was not being properly represented at Conven tions and Expositions. Representation at the Atlantic Exposition in 1881 had been possible only through voluntary helpJ no state appropriation had been made available. A by-product of the Bloxham sale was the impetus it gave to immigration. The Florida Assembly Journal

PAGE 149

139 of 1883 quotes a November 1881 letter of Hamilton Disston1 We have perfected an extensive system of agencies to promote emigration to Florida throughout the United States, as well as in England, Scotland, Germany, Sweeden [sic], Denmark, and Italy.11 Bloxham returned to the exposition theme in 1885. He noted that the 1883 Louimlle Exposition had also had to be supported by the voluntary generosity of citizens and he made a strong plea for a $10,000 appropriation for the current New Orleans Exposition. Governor Perry, in 1887, merely referred to the legislature the question of participation in the 1887 American Exposition in London; though it may be suspected that this was a change in executive tactics rather than policy. Somewhat related to this immigration theme was Perry's proposal for a State Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics in order, in part, to enable him to answer inquiries from potential immigrants. A temporary impediment to immigration occurred when yellow fever reached epidemic proportions in various sections of the state in 1887 and 1888. The over-all problem, economic 88 well as medical, brought about an extra session of the legislature in 1889 to establish a State Board of Health and to take action to reduce unnecessary quar antine restrictions on the movement of people among the counties of Florida. At the regular ses!Bion, a few months later, Governor Fleming noted the fonnation of a voluntary "Florida Immigration Association" in 1887 which had sponsored exhibits at the Cincinnati Exposition in 1888. He recommended an appropriation to participate in the 1889 Paris Exposition. llnorida, Assembly Journal, Appendix, p. 85.

PAGE 150

140 In 1891, Governor Fleming reported that Florida's population had increased by 45.24 per cent from 1880 to 1890, this "being a greater percentage than any other Southern State or any State east of the Mississippi." As Fleming had recommended, the legislature established a Bureau of Immigration in 1889; composed of the Governor, Secretary of State, and Commissioner of Agriculture. A tax allotment of oneeighth of one mill was available to this Bureau; amounting to about $10,000 in 1890. Fleming noted that the annual convention of the National Fanners1 Alliance and Industrial Union recently held at Ocala "will prove a potent factor in the cause of immigration." A one week tour of the state was provided for the some 400 representatives to the convention. Although no appropriation had been made for the 1889 Paris Exposition, Fleming recommended an appropriation for the 1895 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. He also noted that a private exhibit at the Paris Expol!ition by the "Messrs. H. F. Dutton and Co., of Gainesville" had won a diploma and gold medal for the "best display of long staple cotton." Labor.--The first notable reference to labor in the gover-nors' messages of the 18801s was by Governor Perry in 1885. He strongly recommended strengthening of the "laborers and mechanics lien" to include provision not only for the "value of the labor or material, but for the expense necessary to the enforcement of such lien." He emphasized that "labor as well as capital is necessary to the develop ment of the varied resources of our State." Governor Perry continued this theme in a section of his 1887 message under the heading "The

PAGE 151

141 Laborer and His Hire"; and as cited earlier, he suggested the establishment of a Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics. In the 1885 Constitution (effective January 1, 1887) labor was the subject of a right to work provisions The right or a person to work may not be denied because or membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organ ization.12 In 1889, Governor Fleming reported on the use of Florida militia in August, 1888, because of a "threatened riot by strikers among the employees of those engaged in the lumber business at Fernandina." He noted that the ringleaders of the strikers were arrested "without bloodshed." In 1891, Governor Fleming reported another use of troops in connection with "a strike of mill employees at Apalachicola, commencing the 19th of January, 1890." Major Williams was reported to have arrested "the ringleaders of the strikers, and very soon restored order." Migration eetimates.--During the 1880's, Lee estimates the total net migration into Florida to be about 58,000; about 59,000 white and the rest colored. This amounts to some 15 per cent of the end population, almost triple the related percentage for the preceding decade, and also above the six decade average of about 15 per cent. In addition to this very large net in-migration, there was also a big increase in net internal migration among the counties. My estimates indicate that this internal shifting amounted to about 100,000; sane 55,000 white and the rest colored. Thus net internal migration 12Doy le, p. 21.

PAGE 152

142 exceeded net migration by some 72 per cent; much lower than in the preceding decade. In terms of percentage of end population, net internal migration jumped from 15 per cent for the 18701s to over 25 per cent in this decade; above the six decade average of 22 per cent. By both criteria, in net terms, the 18801s was a decade of high population mobility. In spatial terms, Peninsular Florida enjoyed net migration gains above the state average--and monopolized these gains (defining this area as south of a line running throug1Levy, Alachua, Bradford, and Duval Counties). Only St. Johns County fell below the state average in this section. On the other hand, North Florida contained several individual counties above the state average in net in-migration, notably, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Holmes, Washington, Franklin, and Lafayette Counties, with Suwannee County just about at the state norm. Almost all of the absolute net out-migration came from Leon, Jefferson, Madison, and Gadsden Counties. Land General.--A portion of the story of Florida land in the 18801s has been told in a previous section. The logical break in the land story is the Disston Purchase (or Bloxham Sale) in 1881. This broke the log jam. This sale has been questioned but Bloxham makes a good case for it. After futile piecemeal efforts to clear the title on State lands in the 18701s, Bloxham in this one sale achieved the desired end. The immediate results in respect to state finances were stated by Bloxham in 1885 as follows:

PAGE 153

The sale to discumber our Internal Improvement Fund has necessarily placed a large amount of lands upon the tax books, and the great impetus thus given to railroad building has largely increased that source of revenue. (17) 145 The effect on state finances was minor, however, compared to the economic development which resulted from the :impetus thus given to construction of transportation facilities. Aa an out-going governor in 1885, Bloxham told the legislature that prior to 18811 The Legislature had granted charters with large land grants, but as the Trustees could give no valid title to said lands as long as the debt existed, capital was not forthcoming to build the roads. (26) But, he continuedr "In the last four years there have been finished, built and now in operation 776 miles of new road." This figure does not include 224 miles graded and ready for cross-ties and iron. For c0111parison, only 537 miles of railroad had been built prior to 1881almoet all of it prior to the Civil War. Two years later, in 1887, Governor Perry mentions another complicationJ that unfortunately the United States had not granted any land patents to the state since late in 1885. Consequently many legialative grantees could not claim their lands. Governor Perry also stated a philosophy for the use of public lands1 "The wisest use that a State can make of public lands is such a use as will most surely and quickly subject them to honest settlement for actual cultivation and substantial improvement." Despite the hiatue in land patentsJ legislative intent, and perhaps momentum, still brought about a "Marvellous increase in transportation facilities." Governor Perry cites the addition of 600 new miles of railroad in 1885 and 1886 and "the renovation of as many miles of almost worse than useless old road."

PAGE 154

144 In his 1887 message, Governor Perry also touched on two relatively new subjects concerned with the land. He called attention to a preliminary geological survey of the State to be conducted at no cost to the state by a Dr. J. Kost. Also under the headings of "The Burning of the Woods" and "The Preservation of Timber" he stated, in parts There should be such legislation as will prevent the whole sale destruction by burning of the food which nature provides for the hungry soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Every legitimate effort should be used to prevent a wastef'ul destruction of our forests and to encourage the growth of trees for use and for ornament as well as for their effect on climate and health. (50) Governor Fleming presented some current figures on Internal Improvement lands in his 1889 message. Swamp and overflowed lands patented amounted to over 16 million acres, up from less than 15 million acres in 1885. A.bout 15.9 million acres had been disposed of, leaving a disposable balance of some 2.1 million (presumably heavily committed or over-committed by the legislature). In addition, almost 5.7 million acres had been selected by the state and patents applied forJ leaving a potential disposable balance of almost 5.8 million acres. Since less than 1.7 million acres had been disposed of prior to 1881, as previously cited; the period of eight years, from 1881 through 1888, witnessed the disposal of about 12.2 million acres of state lands out of some 16 million acres available. It may be noted that the total land area of Florida amounts to about 57.5 million acres, of which some 22 million acres were ultimately patented to the state as swamp and overflowed lands. Dau states that perhaps 10 of these

PAGE 155

146 22 million acrei, were "fraudulently" claimed by the state.15 Governor Fleming, in his 1889 message, also reconunended that a law be enacted to make the Conunisaioner of Agriculture an~ officio member of the Board of Truetees of the Internal Improvement Fund since he had "supervision of all matters pertaining to public lands." By 1891, Governor Fleming stated that the additional state claims beyond the some 16 million acres already patented amounted to some 6 million acres; about four-filths of these claims being in or near the Everglades. He quotes an extract of a letter he wrote to the Secretary of the Interior, as follows: Of the 37,931,520 acres constituting the entire area of Florida, lists have been filed by the State for over 22,221,469 acres as swamp lands, the patents for 16,061,129.98. acres of which have already been issued. (51) He disavowed any current responsibility for the possible false claims by the state to "high and dry" lands during the prior forty years. Reclamation.--The 1880's also witnessed the first large scale efforts in land reclamation. Bloxham contracted with a group of Philadelphia capitalists in 1881 for reclamation operations in the Okeechobee area. The consideration was one-half of the specific lands reclaimed and the contract required a continuous work force of at least one hundred men. Bloxham noted that the first dredge entered the Okeechobee late in 1882 and that the area to be reclaimed contained "some of the moat valuable sugar lands in the United States." 15 Frederick W. Dau, Florida Old and New (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1954), p. 249.

PAGE 156

146 In 1885, Bloxham reported in some detail on the land reclamati~n program. The Atlantic Gulf Coast Canal and Okeechobee Company had built up its operations to a level of !our steam dredges and two steamboats; and the "expenditures in legitimate work has aggregated over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars." Now, however, problems arose. Governor Perry in 1887 notes that in accordance with a prior legislative act in 1885 he had set up a three man committee of civil engineers to investigate progress in this operation. Their report indicated that the Internal Improvement Board "had conveyed to the said CompBJ\Y lands that said company have not earned or reclaimed." Accordingly, Perry instructed the state Attorney-General to recover these lands. In 1889, Governor Fleming reported on a new contract with the company of August, 1888. Major provisione includeds a reduction of the drainage land reserve earmarked for the company from about six million to two million acres; a provision that the company need not return lands conveyed in excess on condition that specified expenditures on drainage wre madeJ and that, in general, conveyance would be continued on the basis of four acres !or every dollar spent by the company for reclamation. Governor Fleming further noted that he had received many complaints about the alleged untoward reBUlts of drainage operations. He conducted an investigation, with Hamilton Diaston present, and con cluded that he was impressed with the good faith of the compaey in the presecution of the work. He pointed out that "the work undertaken is of gigantic proportione, and may require many years to complete it,

PAGE 157

147 but when accomplished will be of incalculable benefit and untold wealth to the State." He recorded that sugar cane had already been planted in the area and "the most extensive sugar works in the Untied [!!.] States (perhaps a slip in the Senate Journal by an unreconstructed typesetter] already erected." In 1891, Governor Fleming reported that the company had "made satisfactory progress with their extensive drainage operations during the past two years" and that work was then "to be directed energetically to the lowering of Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades." He also noted that the Internal Improvement Fund had sold some 112,000 acres of Brevard County land at fifty cents per acre on condition that the buyers spend $60,000 in drainage operations. Capital In 1881, Governor Bloxham told the legislature that Florida needed an influx of capital and skill. He suggested a constitutional admendment to exempt a new manufacturing interest "from taxation for the first five or ten years after commencement of operations." He reported that "while Florida is keeping pace with the other States in many respects, a casual glance will show that she lage in this one." Two years later, in 1883, he told the legislature: No State in the South is receiving more attention. Population and capital are continually entering her borders, her lands are being eagerly sought for. And two years later, in 1885, he reported that no other "State in the Union, that I am aware of, has doubled her resources in the last four yeare." It should be noted, however, that Bloxham based this doubling

PAGE 158

148 estimate on an increase in taxable values from $51 million to $60 million between 1880 and 1884. It is probable that the relationship of taxable value to real capital varied widely over the period. According to Knox there were three national banks in.Florida in 1884, with a combined capital of $150,000, surplus and undivided profits of $27,000, deposits of $496,000, and loans of $452,000. By 1889, the corresponding figures for thirteen national banks were $950,000, $277,000, $2,552,000, and $2,459,000. Knox also lists one State bank in Florida in 1885, with capital of some $50,000, deposits of $49,000 and loans of $71,000. Knox wrote that "a general banking law was enacted by the Legislature of 1889, and under its provisions periodical reports to the Comptroller are required."14 Covington wrote that there were very few national banks in Southwestern Florida at first, because of "the requirements for a national bank as stipulated by Federal law, i.e., fifty thousand dollars capital and location in a city of six thousand population." The First National Bank of Tampa was organized in 1886. Later on, Covington writes, "acting under the liberal terms of the Florida Banking Law of 1889 there were many state banks organized."15 14 Knox, pp. 592-95. 15 James Warren Covington, The Story of Southwestern Florida (New Yorks Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1957), p. 281.

PAGE 159

Transportation Transportation is compounded of the factors of population, land, and capital but it will be given a section in its own right 149 for the decade of the 1880's. The key aspect of Florida's development during this period was probably the burgeoning of transportation--and especially the railroads. Martin writes that the railroad mileage in Florida at the time of the Civil War was about 485 and that this total was not appreciably surpassed until 1880. 16 Abbey writes that "during the four years ending in 1884 practically a thousand miles had been completed or graded.1117 By 1886, according to Joubert, Florida had 1700 miles of railroad.18 During the 1880'a each of the governors' messages emphasized the railroad construction progress during the preceding two years and some of these figures, up to 1887, are cited in the preceding section on land, in view of the close linkage. In 1889, Governor Fleming reported that "within the past decade our railroad system has increased from 487 to 2,536 miles" and that Florida had "more railroad to the population, perhaps, than in any other State of the United States." In 1891, he noted that the mileage had increased by 259 in the past two years and then totaled 2,566. He commented that "it has been the history of railroad construction in our State that it has usually 1~artin, p. 100. 17 Abbey, p. 551. 18william H. Joubert, Southern Freight Rates in Transition (Gainesville& University of Florida Presa, 1949), p. 244.

PAGE 160

150 preceded the demand for transportation." In effect, he implied that railroad extension had created its own demand. The three primary figures in the transportation picture of the 1880's were Flagler, Plant and Chipley. Flagler came to Florida for the first time on his honeymoon in 1883. He was then 53 years old and, according to Martin, "worth between ten and twenty million dollars." He returned to Florida with a business associate and an architect in 1885 and his subsequent impact on Florida's east coast was phenomenal.19 Pl.ant was highly experienced in the transportation business. He had consolidated his interests in the Plant Investment Company, chartered in Connecticut, by 1882. This company waa organized to_ control his railroad interests and also to "manage and extend" the Florida South-ern and the South Florida Railroads to give him connections, via Tampa, with water communications to Key West and the West Indies.20 Chipley was, in Williamson's phrase, West F1.orida's Mr. Railroad. He grew up in the Southern railroad business in the 1870'a and by 1880 he was General Manager of the Pensacola Railroad and also Superintendent of the Pensacola and selma Railroad and of the Havana Steamship Lines.21 It is noteworthy that all three of these key figures were interested in the transportation business rather than solely in 19 Martin, p. 92. 20 Smyth, p. 121. 21Edward C. Williamson, ''William D. Chipley, West Florida's Mr. Railroad," F1.orida Historical Quarterly. Vol. XXV (1946-47), pp. 333-55.

PAGE 161

151 railroads. All were concerned with water-borrecomrnerce; both Flagler and Plant invested heavily in the hotel business as a related transportation facilityJ and Plant had specialized and extensive interests in the express business. Joubert calls the 18801s the fonnative period for Florida's interstate rates. National regulation of interstate commerce began in 1887 and in August of that year the Florida Railroad Commiseion was constituted. The Florida railroad picture in that year was rather bleak in financial terms. One-third of the mileage_in the state was in the hands of Receivers, and Joubert states that the Commisesion "proceeded with ext:i:-eme caution.1122 In this decade, as later in large degree, the effect of government regulation was probably secondary to the effect of competitive fonns of transportation in keeping rates down. Joubert cites the intensive water competition given the railroads along the St. Johns River in 1888. He also finds that in 1889 the Cedar Keys rates were raised when New Orleans steamship services were terminated.25 This competitive influence of water-borne rates on railroad rates would appear to be a primary motivation for the extensive shipping interests of Flagler, Plant, and Chipley. Governo r Perry, in his 1887 message to the legislature, states very well the background of the first Florida regulatory agency for the railroads. He acknowledged that: "Without doubt the greatest factors in Florida's progress are her railroads." He emphasized the mutuality 22 Joubert, p. 255. 23rbid., p. 246.

PAGE 162

152 of interest of the railroads and the people served; and that railroad development and state progress have a mutual causal relationship. He pointed out that railroads are a "quasi public servant"; a corporation "endowed by the State with valuable franchises, and . grants of land." He advocated a Commissioner System of regulation and opposed the consolidation of parallel or competing railroads without legislative sanction. He presented an excellent case for the regulation of railroad rates and services to insure equitability throughout Florida but aclmowledged the problems of the railroads and that some unwarranted attacks had been made upon them. Two years later, in his 1889 message, Governor Fleming dis cussed the early difficulties of the Railroad Commission in carrying out its duties. He stated that in general the railroads "stoutly insisted that it was the manifest duty of the Commission to legalize their existing tariffs and adopt the schedules then in force." But the Railroad Commission, in their First Annual Report pointed out that "the law was mandatory upon us to make and fix and publish schedules of rates of charges and rules and regulations." Governor Fleming noted that the railroads generally confonned under pressure, except for two rather important cases then under litigation. The state had won judgements in six cases against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company and the Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad Company; but these cases were under appeal to the State Supreme Court. In 1891, Governor Fleming reported that certain admendments to the Railroad Commission law had helped to reduce friction between the Commission and the railroads. Some litigation was still in progress on phosphate rates and with the

PAGE 163

155 Receiver of the Florida Southern Railway Company on passenger rates. However the legislature in this year disestablished the Railroad Commission, reportedly because there was some feeling that the Governor intended to make appointments to it which would lead to railroad domination. The effects of this rapid extension of the railroad network were manifold. There were other causal factors, but the move of the cigar industry from Key West to Tampa about 1886 was largely motivated by oompletion of the South Florida Railroad to that point, and improve ments to the Port of Tampa. Flagler, particularly, contributed substantially to the financing of items in the social infrastructure of Florida's East Coast, such as hospitals, churches, schools, housing, and utilities. In economic terms, Florida's climate was a localized resource and could only be fully exploited by a transportation network, not by a few fingers to exportable deposits. In another aspect, Florida's climate was especially well-suited to growing citrus fruits and other perishable products. Rapid transport to exterior markets was a precondition to iru.ccessful cozmnercial production. Waterways.--Clearance of state land titles also contributed to waterways develonent. In 1883 Bloxham noted that the 270 mile East Coast Canal from the St. Johns to Biscayne Bay was well under way; the operations subsidized by land grants along the way. In 1885 Bloxham noted that the operating company "is prosecuting its work with commendable zeal and success" and he envisioned the extension "even beyond Biscayne Bay to the waters of Key West." In 1887,

PAGE 164

164 Governor Perry reported that steamers could then run up through Mosquito Lagoon into the Indian River. In 1889, Governor Fleming stated that the Florida East Coast Canal and Transportation Company "hopes that in the near future they will have an open waterway from St. Augustine to Biscayne Bay." Public r.oads. --Al though Governor Bloxham had referred to the need for improvement in roads and in road laws in 1885, Governor Flam ing appears to have been one of the first to come up with a constructive suggestion. In his 1889 message, he stated: The periodical assembling of "hands" to work the roads, followed by the arrest and prosecution of delinquents, is productive of much bad feeling among nei~hbors, and is usually unsatisfactory as to results. {M) He recommended a change from this county system of requiring the individual contribution of labor, in order to provide county roads, to a new county system of tax funding. This he felt would be much more productive since the funds could then be used to employ labor of appropriate skills and to provide suitable equipment. The legislature acted on this recommendation, but the first attempt did not satisfy the Governor. In 1891, Flaming reported that the legislation "has generally proven impractical and unsatisfactory." He then recommended a shift of responsibility for public roads from boards of Road Superintendents to the regular County Commissioners.

PAGE 165

155 Economic Sectors Statietical As in the 1870'e, Table 35 summarizes the absolute changes in major economic sectors of Florida during the 1880's. Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Trane Services Total TABLE 35 ABSOLUTE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 18801s Labor Force I of Total Labor Force In In I In In Change in 1880 1890 Change 1880 1890 j Points 648 717 10.6 70.8 52.4 -18.4 3 10 253.5 0.5 0.7 + 0.4 10 20 100.0 1.1 1.5 + 0.4 0 3 Infinity o.o 0.2 + 0.2 84 220 161.9 9.2 16.1 + 6.9 78 182 155.5 8.5 15.5 + 4.8 92 216 154. 7 10.1 15.8 + 5.7 915 1568 49.5 100.0 100.0 o.o Notes Labor Force in 1001s. Source1 Reference Table LS-5,

PAGE 166

156 As in the 18701s, Table 56 summarizes the relative changes in major economic sectors, considering national changes as the norm. TABLE 56 RELATIVE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 1880 1 s Sector Relative Change Distribution Fla. Change as J Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Transport Services Net Sum Total Total -Sum in Labor Force of Change % of U.S. Change 15 5.5 -0.55 + 5 2.0 +4.97 + 1 0.5 +0.78 + 5 1.1 +0.55 + 74 27.2 +2.68 + 52 11.8 +1.44 +141 52.0 +4.50 100.1 +241 resulting from competitive sector gains +172 total gains +1.54 -69 resulting from composition losses Notes Labor Force in 1001s. Source: Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 167

157 As in the 18701s, Table 37 breaks down the composition effect by sectors, with sector proportion weights. It further provides a single summary measure for composition. Sector Forestry Trade-Trans. Mining Manufacturing Fishing Total Services Agriculture TABLE 57 SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CCMPOSITION EFFECT IN THE 18801 s Rate of U.S. Growth 1880-1890 2.050 1.857 1.555 1.456 1.455 1.307 1.502 1.104 Relative Rate 1880-1890 +.743 +.550 +.246 +.149 +.148 0.000 -.005 -.205 Fla. Sector Proportion 1880 1.1 7.0 o.o 8.1 0.5 99.9 19.6 65.8 Sector Contribution to Composition Effect for State 0.818 3.705 0.000 1.208 0.044 5.775 0.098 12.950 13.048 Rapid Growth Total 5.775 44 iti Eff t Id Slow Growth Total 15.048 2 Compos on ec n ex Sources Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 168

The highlights of the three foregoing tables may be BUI11111ar ized as follows. In absolute terms, Florida increased employment in each sector during the 1880's. Each sector, except agriculture, claimed a higher percentage of the total labor foroe of the state 158 at the expense of agriculture. The highest gains in labor force, relative to national gains, were in the service, manufacturing, and trade and transport sectors; in percentage of national gains they were in the fishing, services, and manufacturing sectors, in that order. However the over-all gains were less than the summation of the competitive sector gains, demonstrating a relative composition loss through specialization in the slow growth sectors. Competitively, Florida gained 24,100 jobs during the period but lost 6,900 jobs through the composition effect for a net gain of 17,200 jobs, all relative to the national average. In terms of composition effect, Florida made gains in all sectors except agriculture and services (negligible loss in the latter). However the preponderant employment in agriculture, which was the sector of slowest growth nationally, resulted in a composition index of only .442; in comparison with a hypothetical index of unity, which would result from a neutral composition effect. Thus Florida suffered from both competitive and composition losses in agriculture of 1,500 and 6,900 jobs, respectively. The competitive loss in agriculture could be disaggregated, if data were available, in tenns of competition and composition effects in that sector. It is suspected that such disaggregation would reveal that specialization in the slow growth

PAGE 169

subsectors of agriculture was the primary element in Florida's competitive loss in the agricultural sector. Descriptive 159 Following the pattern for the last decade this section will introduce descriptive material on the economic sectors, primarily in occupational terms. Agriculture.--During this period the general category of farmers, planters, and overseers increased from 25,500 to 58,200J agricultural laborers declined from 52,500 to 25,600J gardeners, florists, nurserymen, and vinegrowers increased from 407 to 641; stock raisers, herders, and drovers from 251 to 555; dairymen and dairywomen from 16 to 51; and apiarists from 4 to 18. Fishing.--During this period fishennen and oystermen increased from 161 to 991; and the Census again notes that fishermen were frequently reported as sailors in the trade and transportation sector. Forestry.--Lumbermen and raftsman increased from 560 to 821; wood-choppers from 95 to 719; and turpentine farmers and laborers were not separately classified. They numbered 275 in 1880 and may have composed a large part of the category "other agricultural pursuits" which numbered 525 in 1890. Mining.--During this decade the category of miners increased from 29 to 557 and that of quarrymen from Oto 4.24 24The figure of 557 miners for 1890 appears to largely understate employment in the mining industry. Abbey writes that a fair stabilization of the phosphate industry had been achieved by 1900. Abbey, pp. 569-71. Many were probably listed as laborers.

PAGE 170

160 Manufacturing.--Employment in manufacturing increased by about 162 per cent in the 18801s; increasing the manufacturing share of the state labor force by 7 per cent, from 9 to 16 per cent. Florida contributed 2.7 per cent of the national gains in this sector and manufacturing contributed about 27 per cent of Florida's relative gains. The tobacco and cigar industry was primarily responsible for this performance with an increase in employment from about 1,300 in 1880 to 4,800 in 1890.25 Saw and planing mill employees increased from about 800 to 1,700 during this decade and noother manufacturing industry employed as many as a thousand workers. In occupational terms, carpenters and joiners increased from 1,400 to 3,500 during the period; the general group of seamstresses, dressmakers, tailors, and milliners went up from about 500 to 1,800; and all other occupations remained below a thousand. By way of contrast, Georgia's major industry in 1890 was cotton mills, which employed some 7,200 operatives; followed by saw and planing mills which employed about 4,500. Florida's 1890 census lists only 19 cotton mill operatives. isThis expansion was keynoted by the move of the major part of the cigar industry from Key West to Tampa in 1886. For a good evaluation of the cigar industry, with substantial historical back~ound, see: A. Stuert Campbell, The Cigar Industry of Tampa, Florida (Director, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, 19 39)

PAGE 171

161 Trade and transportation.--In the trade area, merchants and dealers in groceries (retail) increased from 575 to 643J clerks from 1,099 to 2,146; and bankers and brokers of money and stocks from 23 to 92. other 1890 figures, not comparable with 1880, included 81 merchants and dealers (wholesale), importers, and shipping merchants; 775 salesmen and saleswomen; 520 bookkeepers and accountants; and 60 stenographers and "typewriters." In the transportation area, steam railroad employees increased from 988 to about 2,700; sailors decreased from 1,170 to 948; pilots increased from 107 to 125; and boatmen and canalmen from 245 (combining categories) to 566. Other 1890 figures, not comparable with 1880, included 75 street railway employees and 252 telegraph and telephone operators. Services.--In the professional category we find clergymen increasing fran 420 to 927; dentists from 68 to 154J engineers from 58 to 258; journalists from 55 to 115; lawyers from 506 to 574J physicians and surgeons from 574 to 649; and teachers from 618 to 1,621. Among the minor categories in 1890, there were 4 actors, 51 architects, 20 professors, and 15 veterinary surgeons. In the field or public services there was an increase from 448 to 745 and armed forces strength increased from 79 to 485. In the domestic and personal services field, servants increased from 4,400 to 7,500; launderers and laundereases from 1,100 to 4,700; livery stable keepers from 29 to 99 (but were reclassified under transportation); and hunters, trappers, guides, and scouts increased from 93 to 112. Saloon keepers and bartenders increased from 105 to 552 during this decade; but in 1880 they had been classified under trade rather than services.

PAGE 172

CHAPTER VI THE 18901s Institutional Background State Condition Governor Henry L. Mitchell, in 18~3, in relation to agricultural conditions, reported that "it is gratifying to note that the disastrous season of 1891 has been followed by one of more than usual prosperity." He noted some mention of a "great depression in agricultural affairs" but argued that so far as true it was "caused mainly by the one crop idea." In this respect, he pointed out, Florida was fortunate because of the stability provided through variety and diversity. Cotton production in 1892 was much below 1891 but since the price was up sixty per cent he felt that even more reduction was in order. He stated that tobacco had substituted to a great extent as a money crop for cotton, up three million dollars in 1892, and that the orange crop exceeded "in value any other crop in the state." In 1895, Mitchell reported that the money market was generally stringent but thats Until the great freeze last winter (1894-95) the entire State was in a prosperous condition, and this is still true except as to the Peninsular or orange growing section .. The cotton crop last year was light, and the prices the lowest ever lmown to the country, but other farm crops were good--the lose in cotton being made up in those crops. (3) 162

PAGE 173

163 According to Martin, the freeze of December, 1894 "ruined not only the citrus crop but killed the vegetables and coconut palms as far south as Palm Beach. 111 This great freeze was followed by the "great freeze of February 8-9, 1895" which resulted in a remarkably explicit statement in the Census of Florida for the year 1895: T"ne loss in fann values was $29,764,089, and by far the greater portion of this loss fell upon the people of the fruit and vegetable growing sections of the State.2 Yet another freeze followed on February 7, 1897, to cause additional harm. Martin writes that Flagler contributed some $200,000 in free seeds and railroad service to aid in recovery.3 In 1897, Governor William D. Bloxham stated: We take up the work of the Legislature and Executive departments of the government at a period of great financial depression and business uncertainty; and 'While State Governments are not responsible for those unsatisfactory conditions, yet the situation demands . the greatest economy consistent with an efficient and progressive administration. (12) By 1899 the general conditions looked better to Governor Bloxham. He spoke optimistically of Florida's future, in terms of the wide range of Florida's resources and products. He predicted great benefits to Florida, by virtue of its geographical position, through an AtlanticPacific isthmian canal. He touched lightly on the Spanish-American War; mostly in connection with the mobilization and demobilization of Florida's regiment of infantry. As to the needs of this ~artin, p. 155. 2norida, Census Report of the State of Florida for the Year 1895, p. 8. 3Martin, p. 167.

PAGE 174

yet pioneer state he spoke of "Immigration and Capital--those two great and unrivalled motive powers of development." 164 Although not indicated by Bloxham'a message (nor two years later by Governor Jennings) the Spanish-American War had a very considerable effect on F1.orida1s economic development. Abbey rather understates the case when she writes1 "Taken as a whole, the war profited F1.orida economically.114 Schellings probably gives the fullest account of the impact of the war on Florida's economy but it may be suspected that he overstates the case, as is common in specialized studies. Schellings writesz In 1898 F1.orida was in the midst of a period of rapid growth, in population and in her economy, and war at first seemed to threaten to interrupt that development. Once hostilities were opened, however, over 100,000 soldiers were camped in the state, and the military and naval activity proved to be a boon to her economy.5 As to the specific beneficial effects of the war, particularly in the economic area, Schellings notes that "the transportation business experienced the most noticeable increase in business."6 Expansion was less in mileage than in warehouses and terminal facilities; the railroads "were enabled to put themselves in condition to handle double the traffic they could before the war.117 Schellings further reports that "next to the transportation companies, retail merchants were the most 4 Abbey, p. 575. 5wnliam J. Sohellings, "The Role of F1.orida in the Spanish American War, 1898" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of F1.orida, 1958), p. iii. 6tbid., p. 256. 7Ibid., p. 268.

PAGE 175

165 obvious recipients of the new buBiness.118 He noted that the distribution of oash money, through the army's purchase of agricultural products to feed the troops, "may have aided the state more than any other, for Floridians were still largely dependent on the soil for their living." Furthennore this farm product demand continued even after the war to feed the troops in Cuba. Schellings concluded that "no one questioned the fact that Florida had received a gigantic economic boost, and there was no doubt but that this was the war's most important effect on the state.119 Among his appendices, Schellings includes tables on money spent in Florida in connection with the war and reaches a partial total of some six million dollars.10 In more general terms, Schellings f'm.md that "Florida had prof' i ted enormously from the war"J millions directly and even more in publicity. He continued, But perhaps the greatest gain to the state had been the chance to push forward the commercial and industrial hopes of the busi ness community. Not only had there been an important expansion of the states productive facilities, but there was the possibility of opening and developing a vast trade with Cuba, Porto Rico [sic], and indeed all of Latin America.11 In the concluding paragraph of his dissertation, Schellings appears to view the war, with somewhat more perspective, as undoubtedly a strengthening mutation but yet somewhat of an hiatus in Florida's economic developnent. Quoted in full, 8Ibid. 9Toid., pp. 275-74. 10:rbid., p. 302. llrbid., p. 281.

PAGE 176

Each city began once again to further its own development. Reports of real estate booms, and of the building of many new homes and factories once again filled the pages of the newspapers. Florida could still be described as a frontier state, 166 and was too much concerned with h8r own growth to pennit too long a distraction, and she was determined to resume her course towards becoming one of the great industrial and commercial states of the nation. After an exciting eight months, Florida was more than willing to forget the war and concentrate again on her future.12 In 1901, Governor Williams. Jennings spoke in tenns of the further basic development of Florida. He referred to the need for improvement of waterways and harbors and for better roads. He told the legislatures It is incumbent on you to aid in every way possible the develoJ!llent and prosperity of the State. Economy should prevail, yet nothing should be done or regarded that is inimical to the rights of the citizens, and to the vast interests you represent I am mindful that I have recommended several appropriations that may seem too liberal, especially for public buildings [but we should make] substantial and permanent improvements, as an econ omic measure. (44) State Finance In 1893, Governor Mitchell reported that state expenses were too high and that some retrenchment was in order since taxes were already too high. However he continued the familiar theme that the rich man was evading taxes at the expense of the poor man and that equalization of taxes would greatly increase revenues. He also recommended state tax assessors, to further unifonn assesl!llllent in the coun tiesJ citing the fact that some counties valued wild lands at one dollar per acre while adjacent counties valued them at two dollars per acre. He noted that state bonded debt in private hands continued at about 12 Ibid. p. 282.

PAGE 177

167 a $358,000 level and that short-term loan debt was $150,000, due in 1895. He advocated a 1 per cent gross receipts tax on insurance companies and also a tax on sleeping car operations in the state. The Indian War Claim and counterclaime remained unsettled. Two years later, Mitchell reported in his 1895 message that the bonded debt was unchanged and that the loan debt was down to $100,000. He modified his approach to the property valuation problem by recom mending an Equalization Board to be "clothed with such powere that the rich man's property will not be exempt from taxation, while the poor man has to bear a disproportionate burden of the taxes." He stated that the Comptroller's tax books "show, I think conclueively," that the rich man does not pay his share and he _refers to this as a "crying evil." Because of the "great freeze last winter" and "the stringency of the money market generally" he reported that the state authorities had advised the tax collectors "not to force collections by sale before August next." He noted that no progress had been made on the Indian War Claim settlement. After a twelve-year time-out, Bloxham returned in 1897 to the governorship; and to the tax question. He commented, somewhat phil osophicallya The vexed question of taxation is always with us. Adam Smith's celebrated canons, "equality, certainty, convenience and economy," have not been improved upon . but to secure such results in practice has baffled the best statesmanship of all times. (14) He noted that the 1895 legislature had increased the revenues through taxes on the stock of national banks, increased taxes on insurance companies, taxes on sleeping car operations, and by investing idle

PAGE 178

168 treasury funds. He called for an inheritance tax and a tax on litigants. He reported that "solvent, successful banks give in their capital stock at from fifteen cents on the dollar, up, while such stock of many of said banks would bring in a large premium if offered for sale." He therefore recommended that the Comptroller, who supervised the state banks and had access to accurate data on the national banks, be empowered to make the tax assessments on banks to eliminate evasion at the local level. Bloxham emphasized the increasing role of government and raised a questions With these growing demands do we wonder that the demand goes out that all wealth should bear its just proportion of taxation, and that many students of political economy are asking if the avenue to public revenue can not be legitimately extended to other channels. (51) Bloxham estimated that the personal property of a state was generally "about equal to the value of its real estate"J but that in Florida it was only about one-sixth. Valuation of personal property of $19.4 million in 1887 had actually gone down to $16.1 million in 1896. He noted that Florida, with 1896 taxable resources of about $95.4 million, paid about $5.5 million annually for the support of federal government. The financial condition of the state he considered to be gratifyingJ with cash on hand, no floating debt, and a small bonded debt of some $357,000 in private hands. He reported that norida's entire debt was "less than any other State in the Union, and her State tax proper is

PAGE 179

169 smaller than any Southern State." He resurveyed the Indian War Claim controversy and concluded that the state had "admitted" claims of more than $800,000 to.more than counterbalance the $152,000 (plus much accumulated interest) in state bonds held by the federal government. Two years later, in his 1899 message, Bloxham reporteds "Florida's financial standing is unsurpassed by that of any State in the Union." He recommended the refunding of the 1871 and 1873 bonds in 1901 and 1903, respectively, at a lower rate of interest; or at least that part held by private individuals. He noted the resignation of the State Treasurer in June 1897; the House resolution that he be criminally prosecuted; the verdict of not guilty; and a civil suit judgement of over $52,000 for the 1896 misappropriation (during the prior administration). In 1901, incoming Governor Jennings reported that "the financial standing of Florida is of the best, she has no floating debt" and that only $179,700 of the bonded debt remained in private hands. By 1903, he stated, the state could be put in the position of "controlling in her own trust funds the entire debt of the State." He recommended that the bonds in the sinking fund be caneelled or otherwise disposed of and that cash in the fund should be converted into the general revenue fund. Governor Jennings repeated Bloxham1s 1897 recommendation that the Comptroller assess banks for tax purposes and infonn the county assessors of the valuation, in view of the great inequality in local assessment. He estimated that property valuation, in general, varied

PAGE 180

170 from about 90 per cent to about 20 per cent among the eeveral counties. Reviewing the background, he notedz In 1871, the Legielature created a State Board of Equalization [which reported to the 1872 Legislature]. Since that time, nearly thirty years, there has been no power or board of equalization resulting in a policy o! local depression of valuations. (16) He reiterated the standard Executive recommendation !or the creation of a State Board of Equalization. As to new sources of revenue, he recomn.ended a constitutional admendment to enable taxing of all corporate franchises and a tax on "inheritance, gifts and devises." He noted that the Indian War Claims were still not settled but computed the net balance to be $666,565 in favor of Florida. Economic Factors Population In 1893, Governor Mitchell reported that the population of the etate had "largely increased" within the last two years. In 1896, he recommended that a moderate sum of money be appropriated to "advertize the State's resources" at the Atlanta Cotton States and International Exposition. In 1897, Governor Bloxham noted that three impor tant national conventione had been held in Florida in early 1897J the National Tobacco Growers at Ocala, the South Atlantic and Gulf Coaet and Harbor Defence at Tampa, and the National Good Roads Congress at Orlando. He called on the legislature for an appropriation to provide a publication on Florida to answer the nwnerous inquiries received for current infonnationJ noting that the state "has not had a publication

PAGE 181

since 1885 that claimed to give the infonnation desired." He also recommended state participation in the Tennessee Centennial. 171 In 1899, Bloxham again noted recent national conventions in Florida; an 1898 Fishery Convention in Tampa and an 1899 Military Convention, also in Tampa. He called legislative attention to the 1899 Cnaha "Greater American Exposition" and to the 1900 Paris International Exposition. Migration estimates.--During the 18901s, Lee estimates the net migration into Florida to be about 45,000; some 15,000 white and the rest colored. This composition of net in-migration represents a decided change from the two prior decades; the 18701a, during which white net in-migration exceeded colored by six to one; and the 18801s, when white net in-migration was double that of colored. Total net in-migration slumped from 15 per cent of end population in the 1880's to only about 8 per cent in the 1890's; and both the absolute and relatjve slump in white net in-migration was very much greater than the total figures indicate. Inter-county population shifts (net internal migration) also decreased, both in relative and in absolute terms. Despite the larger end population of the 18901s net inter-county changes decreased from 100,000 in the 18801s to 90,000 in the 1890's. In terms of end population, net internal migration decreased from 25 per cent in the 1880's to 17 per cent in the 1890's, somewhat below the six decade average of 22 per cent. The composition of net internal migration remained about the same as in the two previous decades (about 56 per

PAGE 182

172 cent white and 44 per cent colored); in very sharp contrast to the extreme change in the composition of net in-migration to the state, aa noted in the preceding paragraph. In spatial terms, the picture was substantially changed. Jefferson, Madison, and Leon counties remained as three of the major out-migration counties but they were joined by a group of the upper peninsular counties. These included Orange, Lake, Putnam, St. Johns, Marion, Clay, Osceola, Volusia, and Sumter Counties; and Monroe County which experienoed the heaviest net out-migration in the state, some 4,600 people representing 26 per cent of the end population. The major net in-migration counties were Hillsborough, Duval, and Dade; setting a pattern long to continue. Hillsborough County's net in-migration of sane 15,900 represented some 44 per cent of end population (1900)J and was in large part at the expense of Monroe County because of the movement of Cuban cigar factory workers. Duval County's net in-migration of 6,100 represented only 15 per cent of end populationJ by contrast Dade County's net in-migration of 3,500 represented 70 per cent of 1900 population. Notable gaine were also made by a number of West Florida counties. These included Escambia, Walton, Holmes, Washington, Calhoun, Liberty, Wakulla, Franklin, Taylor, Suwanee, and Hamilton Counties. other counties above the state norm of 8 per cent in net in-migration included Alachua, Bradford, and Baker Counties.

PAGE 183

Land In 1899, Governor Bloxham reported on the public lands on hand on January 1, 1899, as follows: Swamp lands 422,065 acres Internal improvement lands 94,689 School lands 541,895 Seminary lands 302418 Total 889,065 acres 173 He referred to a June 1898 contract by the Internal Improvement Fund with the "Florida East Coast Drainage and Sugar Company for the reclamation, drainage and purchase of some eight hundred thousand acres of land in the extreme southeastern portion of the State, embracing a large portion of what ie known as the Everglades region." He mentioned the rich muck lands of the area to be reclaimed and that the drainage company was capitalized at two million dollars. The period of rapid disposal of state lands was over but Governor Jennings, two years later in 1901, noted that the unsold school lands had been reduced from about 542,000 to 296,000 acres and that the seminary lands had been reduced from about 50,000 to 28,000 acres. Conservation.--In 1897, Governor Bloxham gave early mention to a problem still of serious concern to many sections of Florida. He reported that the upper portion of the St. Johns River was heavily infested with water hyacinths and that "not only are the large logging and fishing interests seriously impai:re _d, but navigation is threatened . Congress will undoubtedly take steps." He recommended a state law making it a criminal offense to transport the plant or its seeds to other waters of the state.

PAGE 184

174 Capital According to Yoders "Florida passed its first usury law, [in 1822] setting a legal rate of 6 per cent per annum, if no rate was set in the contract." Writing in the middle fifties, he stated, "The present law, enacted in 1891, provides for an annual rate of 8 per cent on contracts in which no rate is specified and a maximum annual rate of 10 per cent on written contracts in which the rate is stated."13 In 1893, Governor Mitchell argued that Florida's "resources and prosperity" had attracted foreign capital and would continue to do so "provided, there is no unfriendly legislation on this subject." He reported that there was really "no contest between the corporations and the people, because the capital so invested benefits both." Discussing bank examinations in 1897, Governor Bloxham declared that Florida enjoyed reasonably good banking laws and that "our State banks are achieving an enviable reputation." The progress of the state banks in Florida during the 18901s, up to 1899, is quickly ascertainable from tha following table. Note the tremendous expansion of deposits and loans between 1890 and 1891, an approxunate doubling; and the even greater contraction between 1891 and 1892 followed by a gradual buildup which did not reach the 1891 peak until after 1898. Corre sponding figures are not available in the same detail for national banks but the related figures and combined totals for 1895 and 1898 have also been inserted in the following table to convey the larger picture. 1 3r.owell c. Yoder, The Consumer Finance Industfi in Florida (Gainesvilles University of Florida Press, 1957), p. 2.

PAGE 185

175 TABLE 58 FLORIDA BANKS, 1890 1898 Loans, No. Banks Surplus and Discounts Year and Type Capital Undivided Deposits and Profits Overdrafts 1890 15 SB $ 490 $ 20 $1588 $1195 1891 15 SB 445 59 2546 2584 1892 11 SB 555 56 1002 729 1895 18 SB 434 81 909 844 1895 17 NB 1300 555 5217 5501 1895 55 Total 1734 656 4126 4545 1894 19 SB 478 99 951 936 1895 21 SB 671 96 956 945 1896 19 SB 550 154 1079 1076 1897 23 SB 775 187 1796 1586 1898 20 SB 690 162 1989 1665 1898 15 NB 1150 647 5102 5045 1898 35 Total 1840 809 7091 4710 Notes& SB represents State banks and NB represents National banks. There was also one eavinie bank which increased deposits from $98,000 in 1890 to ~175,000 in 1898. All dollar figures in thousands. Source: Knox, pp. 592-93. Modified and combined.

PAGE 186

176 Economic Sectors General As in prior periods, Table 39 summarizes the absolute changes in major economic sectors in Florida during the 18901s. Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Trans. Services Total TABLE 39 ABSOLUTE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 1890 1 B In 1890 717 10 20 3 220 182 216 1568 Labor Force In 1900 920 18 105 15 580 286 291 2015 I Change 28.3 80.0 425.0 400.0 72.7 57.1 54.7 47.2 % of Total Labor Force In In Change in 1890 1900 S Points 52.4 45.7 -6. 7 0.7 0.9 +0.2 1.5 5.2 +5.7 0.2 0.7 +0.5 16.1 18.9 +2.7 15.3 14.2 +0.9 15.8 14.4 -1.4 100.0 100.0 -0.1 Note: Labor Force in lOO's. Source: Reference Table LS-3.

PAGE 187

177 Following the previous pattern, Table 40 summarizes the relative changes in major economic sectors considering national changes as the norm. Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Trans. Services Professional All other Net Sum Total Total -Sum TABLE 40 RELATIVE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 18901s Relative Change in Labor Force + 87 + 7 + 15 + 7 + 62 + 16 -1 + 94 Distribution of Change J 50.1 2.3 5.0 2.4 21.5 5.7 0.5 52.4 99.9 Fla. Change as of U.S. Change +1.44 +7.59 +8.20 +1.49 +2.91 +1.19 -0.29 +4.02 +287 resulting from competitive sector gains +266 total gains +2.81 21 resulting from composition losses Notes Labor Force in 1001s. Sources Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 188

178 As previously, Table 41 breaks down the composition effect by sectors, with the sector proportion weights. It further provides a single summary measure for composition effect for the decade. TABLE 41 SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMPOSITION EFFECT IN THE 18901s Rate of U.S. Growth 1890-1900 Relative Rate 1890-1900 Fla. Sector Sector Contribution Sector Mining Trade-Trans Service (Prof. ) Service ( other) Total Manufacture Agriculture Fishing Forestry 1.455 1.455 1.555 1.280 1.279 1.267 1.215 1.146 1.086 +.176 +.164 +.054 +.001 .ooo -.012 -.066 -.135 -.195 Proportion to Composition ia90 Effect for State 0.2 11.0 3.4 24.0 100.0 15.3 46.5 0.7 1.1 0.055 1.694 0.183 0.024 1.936 0.159 3.055 0.093 0.212 3.519 Rapid Growth Total 1.956 Slow Growth Total 5.519 55 Composition Index Notes ~stimated breakdown of the 27.4 per cent in the services sector. Source: Unpublished ehift tables.

PAGE 189

179 The highlights of the three foregoing tables may be summar ized as follows. In absolute terms, Florida increased employment in all sectors during the 18901s. In terms of percentage of total state labor force, all sectors gained except agriculture and services. The principal gaining sectors were forestry and manufacturing. In tenns relative to the national norm, the largest gainers were services, agriculture, and manufacturing. There were no losing sectors except for a minor loss in the professional services subsector of services. In percentage of national gains, the outstanding Florida sectors were forestry with 8.2 per cent, fishing with 7.6 per cent, eervioes with 3.7 per cent, and manufactures with 2.9 per cent; as compared with a 2.8 per cent over-all Florida gain. The over-all gains were less than the summation of the competitive sector gains. Competitively, Florida gained 28,700 jobs during the period but lost 2,100 jobs through the adverse composition effect for a net gain of 26,600 jobs, all relative to the national average. In tenns of composition effect, Florida made gains in trade and transport, services, and mining; trade and transport being the dominant sector making up 88 per cent of the total sector contribution to composition effect for the state. Agriculture was the dominant slow growth sector, accounting for 87 per cent of the slow growth composition effect for the state. The composition index rose from .442 for the prior decade to .550 for the 18901a.

PAGE 190

180 Descriptive Following the pattern for the prior decades, this section will introduce descriptive material on the economic sectors. Primarily this will be in selective occupational terms but pertinent items .from the governors' messages will be included. Agriculture.--During this period the general category of farmers, planters, and overseers increased .from 38,200 to 58,700; agricultural laborers increased from 23,600 to 37,500; gardeners, florists, nurserymen, and fruitgrowers (vinegrowers in 1890) increased from 641 to l,314J stock raisers, herders, and drovers increased from 333 to 489; dairymen and dairywomen from 51 to 87; and apiarists from 18 to 30. In 1897, Governor Bloxham stated that legislation was required "to protect real fruit growers against the influence of their careless neighbors" who refused to destroy infested shrubbery. He also pointed out the need to protect fruit growers and honey producers "from insect and fungus pests." In 1899, Bloxham again called for legislative protection for frui~ growers. Fishing.--According to the Occupational Census, the number of fishennen and oystermen only increased .from 991 to 1,814 during this period. These figures are quite suspect but not as much 80 as the figure given by Bloxham in this section would indicate. Many persons in other occupations also engaged in fishing on a seasonal basis. In 1893, Governor Mitchell recommended some protective legislation on fisheries and in 1896 he referred to some canplaints about the violation of laws protecting food fishes. He infonned the

PAGE 191

181 legislature that it was up to them to pass stricter laws and to appropriate money for their enforcement. In 1897, Governor Bloxham gave considerable emphasis to the prospects for Florida fisheries, Of the many resources of Florida none present so great possibilities as fish and oysters Experiments in fish culture demonstrate that each aore of water may be made to produce more food for man than can be grown on three acres of well-cultivated land. (54) Thus, he concluded, since Florida's fish feeding grounds are more than three times the area of the state it is apparent that the productive capacity of the state can be increased ten-fold; from 58,000 to about 600,000 square miles. Bloxham also cited some current (1897) data on the fishing industry. He stated that no data was available on fresh water fishing but that "it is estimated that there are now at least 7,000 persons actually engaged in salt water fishing.11 He used a U.S. Fish Commission Report as the source for estimates that the current Florida investment in salt water fishing was about $1.5 million and the current annual product value was about $1.2 million. Bloxham suggested that the legislature enact conservation legislation; that a state Fish Commissioner be authorized; and that efforts be made to 11secure a Government hatching and experiment station on our Gulf and Atlantic coasts." Blo.xham1s efforts were only partially successful. In 1899, he stated that the legislature had never made any appropriation "for the expenses of the Commissioners of Fisheries and consequently it has been impossible to accomplish the objects for which the law was enacted." In 1901, Governor Jennings cited some figures on the sponge

PAGE 192

industry, classified as a subsector under the fishing industry. He reported the product value for 1900 as about $568,000 and stated1 182 During the past year 2,245 persons were employed in the sponge industry in Florida This will give some idea of the present value of this industry, and I might add that this industry is also unlmown to the tax books of Florida. (M) Jennings also reported that the U.S. Fish Cormnission had distributed over two million shad try in state waters. Forestry.--During the 18901s, the number of lumbermen and raftsmen increased from 821 to 1,258; woodchoppers from 719 to 1,875; and turpentine farmers and laborers, who were unclassified in 1890, totaled 7,255 in 1900. Mining.--Aocording to the Censuses, the number of miners only increased from 357 to 1,156 during this decade; and the number of quarrymen from 4 to 58. However it seems probable that these figures do not include a considerable number of laborers, not specified, who were actually employed in mining. In 1895, Governor Mitchell brieny reviewed the phosphate industry. He reported that "the supply is apparently inexhaustible" and that several companies for the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers had already been established. He cited the 1892 production figures of some 554,000 ton mined, of which 249,000 ton was exported and 105,000 tons remained in the domestic markets. In 1895, he reported that the industry was still increasing, up to a level of 500,000 tons in 1894. He noted that the prices were low but that profits were still remunerative.

PAGE 193

183 Manufacturing.--Employment in manufacturing increased by about 73 per cent in the 18901s; increasing the manufacturing share of the state labor force by about 3 per cent, from 16 to 19 per cent. Florida contributed 2.9 per cent of the national gains in this sector and manufacturing contributed about 22 per cent of Florida's relative gains. The tobacco and cigar industry continued its leading role with a relatively small increase from 4,800 to 5,600 operatives during the decade. Saw and planing mills continued in second place with a large increase from 1,700 to 3,300 employees. This industry was closely pressed by the turpentine distillers with a 1900 labor force of 5,200. In occupational terms, carpenters and joiners increased from 5,500 to 4,000; the seam.stress, dressmaker, tailor, and milliner group increased from 1,800 to 2,600; and two new occupations exceeded the thousand mark. Non-locomotive firemen and engineers were numbered at about 1,500 and the category of manufacturers and officials totaled about 1,000. For contrast, Georgia's major industry in 1900 continued to be cotton mills, employing 16,500 operatives. The saw and planing mills employed some 6,600, double the size of Florida's industry. Florida held a small lead in turpentine distillers of about 400 over Georgia's 2,800. In occupational terms, Georgia had about twice as many non locomotive firemen and engineers and twioe as many manufacturers and officials.

PAGE 194

184 Trade and transportation.--In the trade area, merchants and dealers in groceries (retail) increased from 545 to 1,049; bankers and brokers of money and stocks from 92 to 252; merchants and dealers (wholesale) from 81 to 124; salesmen and saleswomen from 775 to 1,965; bookkeepers and accountants from 520 to 874; and stenographers and "typewriters" from 60 to 261 (of which 242 were stenographers). In the transportation area, steam railroad employees increased from 2,700 to 5,800; sailors increased from 948 to 1,181; boatmen and canalmen decreased from 566 to 209; street railway employees increased from 73 to 114; telegraph and telephone operators increased from 252 to 530 (285 telegraph); and livery stable keepers increased from 99 to 184. The transportation industry made great progress in the 1890's but received somewhat less attention because growth was less spectac ular than in the 1880's. The effect of the Spanish-Amerioan War in doubling railroad capacity (not mileage) has been noted earlier. The Florida Railroad Commission was resurrected by an Act of May of 1897, after a lapse of six years, but Bloxham, in 1899, reported that it was acting with some deliberation and needed legislative correction-of deficiencies in authority. Joubert notes that this was done and that in 1900 the Commission was more hopeful of establishing its regula-tory authority.14 14Joubert, p. 259

PAGE 195

185 Little mention of develoJ:lllents in transportation was made in any of the gubernatorial messages of the 18901s. The only significant items noted were two references by Governor Jennings in 1901. The first reference is quoted: The improvement of our waterways and harbors is at present of paramount importance. Deep water to our port cities of Jacksonville, Fernandina, Tampa, Key West, Pensacola, and other ports would be of inestimable value. (56) The other refere nce related to "good roads." Jennings reported that this subject had been discussed at the last annual meeting of the State Convention of County Commissioners and he recommended consideration of the subject by the legislature. He presented no "specifics"; merely generalizing that "one of the most important issues is the construction of good roads." Although Flagler is cited as one of the three key railroad figures of the 18801s, Martin wrote that "prior to 1890, he had never built a mile of railroad. All he had done was to buy old railroad properties, improve them, build bridges, and increase the equiJ:lllent.1115 This, of course, was a lot. He had brought order out of relative chaos in his area of operations and laid the foundation for expansion during the next two decades and more. In 1892, Flagler secured a charter from the state to build a railroad along the Indian River as far south as Miami.16 Starting from Daytona, he reached New ~yrna that year, Eau Gallia in 1895, West Palm Beach in 1894, and Miami in l896. The name of the railroad, after 1895, was the Florida East Coast Railway.17 1 5Martin, p. 156. 16rbid., p. 158. 17Ibid., p. 158.

PAGE 196

186 Services.--In the professional category, clergymen increased from 927 to 1,285; dentists from 134 to 157; engineers decreased from 258 to 240 (possibly a result of changing classification); journalists increased from 115 to 137; lawyers from 574 to 615; physicians and surgeons from 649 to 686; teachers from 1,621 to 2,565; actors from 4 to 34; professors from 20 to 32; and veterinary surgeons from 15 to 20. In the field of public services, there was an increase in govern ment officials from 743 to 916; including 527 national, 26 state, 245 county, and 118 city or town. Amed forces strength increased from 485 to 745, of which 675 were soldiers. In 1900, there were 754 persons classified as "watchmen, policemen, firemen, etc." In the domestic and personal services field, servants increased from 7,500 to 7,800; launderers and lawideresses from 4,700 to 7,600; hunters, trappers, guides, and scouts from 112 to 216; and saloon keepers and bartenders from 532 to 451 (119 were saloon keepers). In 1900, there were 762 persons classified as nurses and midwives, including only 28 trained nurses. Hotel keepers numbered 527.

PAGE 197

CHA.PTER VII THE 19001s Institutional Background State Condition In 1903, Governor Jennings reported that while the state "is in an unusually prosperous condition, and no very great public questions present themselves for legislative solution," there were still numerous matters of some importance. He stated: Florida has made splendid progress during the past two decades, but the develoJJnent of her varied resources has been greater during the past two years than ever before in history The ship of state is complete. It is for you gentlemen to determine whether she shall now be anchored, be permitted to drift backward or be empowered and directed to move onward to a glorious destiny. (103-4) In 1905, Governor Broward was also glowing with optimism: Never in the history of our State were all of its material conditions more encouraging Our seaport facilities, our pine forests, our phosphate deposits, our fish and oyster supplies, our vegetable farms, our tobacco plantations, our excellent schools, our low rate of state taxation, our transportation facilities and public aoconuoodations and are attracting to the State a large and desirable class of i.nmdgrants. (3) Two years later, in 1907, his optimism was undiminished though he did add a precautionary note as to guarding the sources of wealth and prosperity: 187

PAGE 198

norida has had unexampled prosperity and material advancement since the last session of the legislature, and her marvelous natural resources and adaptability for such varied pursuits and industries assure her a continuance. (1) In 1909, Governor Gilchrist was more matter-of-fact. He reported the condition of the state to be "satisfactory." He did 188 note that F1.orida population was up some 35.5 per cent in ten years-only exceeded by six etates--and that Florida had less illiteracy than any of the states from Louisiana to Virginia. Under the heading of "General Progress" he reporteds We are now producing more than one-half of the phosphate of the United States, and more than one-third of the phosphate of the world. We are producing more than one-half of the naval stores of the United States. We are accomplishing satisfactory and increasing results in agriculture, horticulture, manufacturing, and in fisheries; in mining, in commerce, in hygiene, in education, in banking, in transportation, in religion, politics, and climates In the products of the field, farm, forest and fireside. [If not in punctuation--which may possibly be the fault of the printer of the Senate Journal]. (4) Two years later, in 1911, Governor Gilchrist briefly noted thats "The State and her people are progressing in every line of human endeavor." He noted that between 1900 and 1910 the population of norida was up 42.2 per cent, twice the 21.1 per cent gain of the United States for the period. State Finance In 1905, Governor Jennings reported that the state had no floating debt and that comptroller warrants for current expenses were accepted at par. At the same tax nd.llage the general revenue receipts had gone up from $544,000 in 1901 to $619,000 in 1902; mostly from

PAGE 199

189 sources other than the general property tax. He noted that the Indian War Claims settlement with the federal government was finally accomplished in 1902 "thus concluding a transaction that has extended I over half a century of time." He recommended that the settlement balance of some $580,000 should be applied to reduce the bonded debt to some $453,000, all of it to be held in state educational funds. He further recommended that this residual internal debt be liquidated by convict lease revenues over the next three years. Over-all, he claimed, "no state in the Union has a better financial standing than Florida." He repeated his recommendation that "a more equitable plan may be provided by the present legislature for the assessment and collection of revenue and the taxation of many items of property that now escape taxation." Though current revenues were adequate, as indicated above, he recognized that "the demands of the State institutions are great; that the spirit of further improvement of our public buildings is urgent . Thus he again recommended a State Board of Equalization to bring assessments up to standard. He also recommended taxation of franchisesJ quoting, with approval, an Ohio Supreme Court decisions What a mockery of substantial justice it would be for a corporation whose property is worth to its stockholders, for the purpose of income and sale, millions of dollars to be adjudged liable for taxation upon only one-fourth of that amount. (44) In 1905, Governor Broward found that the financial condition of Florida was "most excellent." He held that the state should encourage enterprise and capital buts

PAGE 200

Immensely valuable franchises and special privileges granted by the State and protected by law are unjustly allowed to avoid contributing to the expense of maintaining the government under which those holding them prosper and accumulate wealth. (9) 190 He reported some improvement in tax assessments but noted that the burden of direct taxation fell in general on those least able to bear it. He recommended establishment of a State Board of Equalization of Assessnents. He noted that the property valuation for 1904 was $117 million and that the General Revenue Fund totaled about $640,000J about $158,000 in direct tax receipts, $332,000 in license taxes, and the balance from minor varied sources. In 1907, Governor Broward again recommended a law to levy taxes on franchises1 "Franchises are valuable, and they are taxable." He further noted that such taxation was constitutional and that Georgia collected about $200,000 per year in franchise taxes. He introduced a new thought in respect to equalization of asaessrnentsJ that state authorities should assess for state purposes and counties should assess for county needs: "I am convinced that this lack of equalization in assessments will never be corrected until the aub~ects of tax ation for State and county purposes are separated." Broward estimated that full cash value would approximate $300 million rather than the $142 million then assessed; and that county valuations ranged from about 40 to 90 per cent of full cash value. He noted that the assessed valuation of the state was up 45.5 per cent from 1901 to 1906. For rough comparison he also noted that estimated state population was up 16.4 per cent from 1900 to 1905.

PAGE 201

191 In 1909, Governor Gilchrist reported the public debt to be only $601,506 in 5 per cent bonds held by state educational funds. He recommended that this debt be paid off and that education funds be invested in bonds of other states or Florida counties. He provided a breakdown of the assessed valuation of $159.4 million for 1908J $99.4 in real estate, $51.3 in personal property, and $28.0 in railroads and telegraph lines. He eat:1Jnated that real estate and railroads were assessed at about one-half to two-thirds of their true valuation, and personal property only about one-third. He recommended a gross earnings tax for express companies and noted1 Thirty-six States have a graduated inheritance tax. Why not make Florida the thirty-seventh? (18) Governor Gilchrist reported the pension payments of six other Southern states to various classes of veterans of the Confederacy. In rough surmnary, Florida's payments generally ranged about 60 per cent higher. Exclusive of pensions, he noted current deficiencies of about $607,000; composed of $117,000 in accrued deficits and $490,000 in current excess of appropriations over revenues "Utmost economy is necessary." In 1911, Gilchrist noted that the bonded public debt of $601,506 was unchanged and still held by the State Board of Education. He devoted a large section of his message to an analysis of taxation, summarizing the results aa follows1 Assessed Valuation of All ParsalSl Property $34 millionJ Actual Value of All Personal Property Between $500 and $400 million. Assessed Valuation of All Property $178 million--Actual Value is Nearer $1,000 million. [Figures have been rounded.] (37)

PAGE 202

192 Gilchrist also cited a State Insurance Department estimate that the "amount of fire insurance carried in Florida on personal and real estate is fully $200,000,000.11 He concluded with a quotation with which he obviously concurred: "That the general property tax has broken down in administration may be regarded as an establi!hed fact." Not only was it unenforceable; if strictly enforced it would probably result in more inequities than when unenforced. He recommended Florida ratification of the Joint Resolution of Congress which proposed a constitutional amend ment to authorize a federal income tax. As for state revenue additions, he again recommended the graduated inheritance tax then applicable in thirty-nine other states, including all other Southern states except Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The Governor, in effect, threatened to call an extra session of the legislature if it did not enact suitable revenue laws during the regular session. Racial Aspects Neither Governor Jennings' message in 1903 nor Governor Broward1s message in 1905 made any reference to racial problems. In 1907, in arguing for compulsory education however, Broward asked--and answered: Shall the education of white children be limited because of the number of negro children that would be compelled to attend school? IT SHOULD NOT BE. The capacity of the white man's brain for development and education must not be limited by anything else than our power to provide training and opportunity. (52) Later in the message, Broward devoted a section to the "Race Problem." He reviewed the background since the Civil War and stated that "it is

PAGE 203

195 apparent to even the casual observer that the relation between the two races is becoming more strained and acute." He opined that Negroes had leas friendship for white people and the latter had leas tolerance and ftY?Tlpathy for the Negro. He BUpposed that the two races could not for long occupy the same territory without friction and outbreaks. Education, he felt, was no answer for the Negro race; the educated Negros Can look backward with no pride upon the past history of his race; nor can he look forward to a time when his race can hope to control the politics of the country or regulate society. (62) Thus he could foresee but one results "the destruction of the negro and the degrading of the white man"; the latter resulting from the guilt of destruction. There was but one solution, he thought; and, though he did not cite them, he was in w~ll-lmown company because Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln had toyed with the same solution. He recommended to the legislature: A resolution memorializing the Congress of the United States to purchase territory, either domestic or foreign, and provide means to purchase the property of the negroes, at reasonable prices, and to transport them to the territory purchased by the United States. (65) Returning to the possibility of a solution through education he rejected it on the basis that there are: No ultimate good results than can accrue from the education of a race, without planting in their being the hope of attaining the highest position in government affairs and society. (65) In 1909, Governor Gilchrist reported that he concurred in a recommendation by Judge Wall that:

PAGE 204

194 Section 5529 of the General Statutes be so amended as to make it unlawful for whites and negroes to live or cohabit together in this State, though married in another State or country. (27) He further concurred in a recommendation by the Railroad Commission fora "A valid law requiring separate passenger coaches for white and negro passengers." In 1911, Gilchrist in the course of discussing the need for improvements in the Primary System stateda As a matter of fact, our Primaries, though called Democratic Primaries, are generally white Primaries, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, etc., vote in the same. The party law submits it to the Democrats. Being a party system, some one might think that this question is not for the consideration of the Legislature representing all the people. (15) But, in practical tenns, Gilchrist thought it appropriate. Though not specifically linked to race in his 1911 message, Gilchrist devoted some space to a discussion of "Due Process of Law." The preface to this discussion is headedt Due Process of Law Should Not Be So Technical As to Force Judge Lynch to A.ct Without Due Process of Law. (15) Gilchrist refers to "Section 4 of the Declaration of Rights" which provides that "right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay." He also notes that Section 12 provides "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Consequently, after thus promoting Judge Lynch to the Bench, he is faced with a dilemma: "Which shall prevail?"

PAGE 205

195 Economic Factors Population In 1907, Governor Broward recolllTlended action to advance innnigra tion. He gave emphasis to "securing desirable foreign immigrants, both as permanent settlers and as skilled and other laborers." Under the heading of tourists and settlers, he recommended county and community advertising of their attractions to bring the tourists who frequently became settlers. In 1909, Gov~rnor Gilchrist brought the advertising theme back to the state levels "It is recommended that at least $5,000 or more be appropriated, to be used by the Commissioner of Agriculture for advertising the resources of the State." He further recommended relaxing the restrictione on railroad passes; in part, "to give reduced rates or free passes to intending settlers; to exchange transportation for advertisements in newspapers." In 1911, Governor Gilchrist repeated his reco11111endation to authorize railroads to exchange transportation for free ~dvertising. He saw the question not as one involving possible subornation of the press by the railroads, but in simple barter terms such as the exchange of eggs for newspapers for mutual benefit. He emphasized his personal interest in advertising Florida in one of his concluding paragraphs, Upon being inaugurated Governor, I decided I would write at least two communications monthly to outside papers or magazines, relative to the many advanta~es of Florida. I have averaged fully three per month. (108)

PAGE 206

196 Migration estimates.--Judging by results Governor Gilchrist's literary efforts were well rewarded, though it may be suspected that more basic socio-economic factors were also influential. During the decade of the 19001s, Lee estimates the total net migration into Florida to be 120,000; about 70,000 white and the rest colored. This composition of net migration represents a return to predominate white net in-migration after the opposite experience of the 18901s, when colored net in-migration predominated by a two to one ratio. My estimate of net internal migration drops sharply during this period in oanparison with previous periods. Internal shifting, in the net, is estimated at only 163,000; about 91,000 white and the rest colored. Thus net internal migration amounted to only about ~5 per cent of net migration into Florida. In tams of end population, net migration into Florida went up from about 8 to 16 per cent, above the six decade average of 15 per cent. In the same tams, net internal migration went up from 17 to almost 22 per cent, almost to the six decade average of a bit over 22 per cent. An explanation for a large part of the increase in net in-migration into Florida probably lies in the influence of the Spanish-American War in publicizing the climate and potential resources of Florida, In spatial terms, the picture is reminiscent of the prior decade but the boundaries have shifted. Leon, Jefferson, and Madison Counties remain as before the major out-migration counties in West Florida. To these three must be added a contiguous group of counties including Wakulla and Franklin in the West; Hamilton, Columbia, Baker and Nassau

PAGE 207

197 in the East; and Clay, Alachua, Putnam, Marion, an~ Sumter in the Central Section. The far-West complex of counties except Escambia and Jackson Counties, remain above the state nonn of 16 per cent for net in-migrationJ as does the East Coast and lower Peninsula, except for Monroe County. Notable net in-migration counties include Hillsborough with 55,000 representing 42 per cent of end population} Duval with 26,000 representing 55 per cent; Dade with 11,000 representing 61 per cent; and Taylor with 2,200 representing 31 per cent (Taylor also being notable as the only isolated net in-migration county). Labor.--In 1905, Governor Jennings recommended enactment of a child labor law. He also included a section headed "Arbitration" in which he noted that the public was a third party in labor disputes; and that "any law which will aid in bringing about a peaceful and prompt settlement of labor disputes should be heartily encouraged." This, he said, would be a step toward "better relationship between capital and labor." In 1905, Governor Broward recommended that the authority of the Railroad Commission be extended, especially in the area of employee safety provisions. In 1907, Broward noted that 50 rail-road employees and 9 passengers had been killed and 457 others in.iured in fiscal year 1905-06; and again recommended more authority for the Commission. He again brought up the lack of a child labor law, stating there was "no greater crime . than using child labor in industrial enterprises." He strongly urged a law to stop it. Perhaps a bit incongruous in this section on labor--but not totally inapplicable--Governor Gilchrist, in 1911, recommended1

PAGE 208

Sheriffs Should be Paid Salaries, and Not Have to Hound Down Petty Offenders to Make a Living. (55) In similar vein is his recommendation for a law advancing the time 198 50, 45, or 60 minutes between the April-May and September-October periods. Using railroad time, Floridians started work an hour later than in states to the immediate north: Commencing Work Usually An Hour Later, We Lose Much Time in Fifty to One Hundred Years. (84) In a more applicable sense, Gilchrist's 1911 message also recommended that employer's liability be extended from railroads to "All corporations, Operating Machinery." Land General.--In 1905, Governor Jennings urged that a geological survey of the state be undertaken. He also advocated conservation measures for the forests, both against fire and against exploitative destruction by industry. Such measures were needed not only to provide a continuing source of supply for the lumber but also to conserve the land, influence climate, and promote health. He cited a federal report which indicated that 1,433,314 acres of federal public lands in Florida were subject to homestead entry at the federal land office in Gaines ville. Jennings pointed out that this land was the left-over residue and was no good for homesteading. Thus, he said that the "homestead law operates against settlement instead of for settlement, as was intended by its framer." He recommended a memorial to Congress requesting that these lands be given to the state to be disposed of, for the benefit of the public school fund, by sale to lumber and grazing interests.

PAGE 209

199 In 1905, Governor Broward recommended game and forest conser vation measures and in 1907 he renewed this recol!ITlendation. In 1909, Governor Gilchrist recCJl!Jllended an attempt to get indemnity from the federal government for the sale of some swampland which Gilchrist alleged the state should have been granted under the Act of 1850. In view of previously cited allegations that Florida had over-claimed some ten million acres, under the same Act, such an attempt might be considered to involve a touch of temerity. In 1909, Governor Gilchrist reported to the legislature on a series of events beginning on October 28, 1904, when the trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund rebelled. Prior to this time it had been the policy of the Trustees "to deed lands to the various railroad companies, in accordance with the terms of their charter, which had been granted them by the legislature." But in 1904, under Governor Jennings, the Trustees declared "that the Trustees will assert their rights and defend the title to the lands granted and irrevocably vested in them for the purposes therein set forth, of reclaiming said lands by means of levees and drains." The Trustees further asserted that since 1855 the title to patented swamplands had been vested in the Internal Im provement Fund rather than the state legislature. Specifically, they asserted that the "Everglades Patent," conveying 2,862,280 acres of land to the state in 1903, was not subject to any claims based on prior legislative enactments, or even on commitments made by the Internal Improvement Fund itself, if prior to the patent date. The Trustees argued that they couldn't give the land away before they had title to it.

PAGE 210

200 Governor Gilchrist stated that this matter was a factor in the 1904 election of Governor Broward. But the issue was not settled. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, as the successor to "the lands and land grants" of the Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad Company, brought suit against the Trustees. The Company won a court decision but a settlement compromise was negotiated which gave the Company 574,874 acres of Lee County; and some $113,000 in cash in lieu of the Company claim to another million acres. The lands represented by the above claims were then assigned to the State: Board of Education. other similar "deals" brought this assignment up to 1,856,000 acres. But the state only had about 1,792,856 acres of land, including everything. On January 1, 1909, the breakdown was as follows: Swamplands 1,531,163 acres I. I. Fund lands 5,700 School lands 255,548 Seminary lands 445 Total 1,792,856 acres But the lands claimed by all railroad companies amounted to about 5.1 million acres, with all claims not in. Since 1.9 million acres of these claims had been transferred to the State Board of Education there were some 3.2 million acres of swampland claims still unsatisfied. The 1.5 million acres of swamplands still remaining were not sufficient to even cover the transferred claims of about 1.9 million acres. There had been a "hooker" in the various legislative grants1 "A provision to the effect that each grant was sub,1ect to prior grants." Thus the "prior, superior, and preferred" claim of the State Board of

PAGE 211

201 Education to some 1. 9 million acres of swamplands "is greater than the total acreage now remaining in the Fund, and therefore there will be no lands left for subsequent claimants." In reviewing the public land situation, Governor Gilchrist noted that the constitutional provision that 25 per cent of the proceeds of land sales should go to the School Fund had been generally ignored. In attempting to reconstruct the claims of the School Fund it was not possible to cover the period earlier than October of 1881 when all land sale records were destroyed by the burning of the Jacksonville building in which court records were kept. The "net" proceeds subsequent to that date were about $965,000; about $478,000 of that total after January 1, 1901. The School Fund equity in land sales was considered to be covered by the transference of the above described claims of some 1.9 million acres to that Fund. After these lands were drained the residuary title to them would vest in the State Board of Education. In 1911, Governor Gilchrist stated that counsel had been employed by the Trustees because "the litigation now pending to which the Trustees are a party is as important and as varied as at any time in the history of this trust." The primary new problem he discussed had its origins in Governor Jennings' administration. In 1905 the legislature had provided that all current and future funds of the Internal Improvement Fund should go to the State Treasurer to be paid to counties "contingent upon its being used exclusively for the building and constructing of a system of hard, macadamized, or other hard surface roads." In 1905, Governor Broward had vetoed a bill to repeal this legislative

PAGE 212

202 action. The bill was based on the theory that the Trustees had been given irrevocable authority over lands and funds in their custody. HoweTer, Governor Gilchrist noted that this theory was no longer tenable, since in 1910 the Florida Supreme Court held that the legislature had not lost ult:ilnate control. Governor Gilchrist recommended, in effect, that Internal Improvement Funds should be held by the State Treasurer for drainage purposes and not used for hard roads. He also recommended that the homestead laws be tightened up to require specified tenns of actual settlement on the lands homesteaded. He noted that the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund now "make a reservation in the deed for 50 per cent of any oil and 75 per cent of phosphate or other mineral that may be found upon the land." He further mentioned that only recently had state lands been graded for a differential sales price; theretofore it had all been priced alike. Raclamation.--In 1905, Governor Jennings, in reporting on drainage and reclamation, commented that no question "had caused greater research and effort on the part of rrry predecessors"; and that it was currently the "paramount question before the people of Florida." He stated that the essential problem was that since the lands involved were "not tillable and without commercial value" they could not themselves be used to finance self-drainageJ that it was a bootstraps problem. Jennings provided some background on the 4,000 square miles of the Everglades. The lands had been granted to the state in 1897 but because of some Washington-level questions on Indian rights the grant had been revoked in 1898. However Jennings did not learn of

PAGE 213

205 this revocation until 1903; rather a surprising failure in communication relative to the ownership of about 10 per cent of the land area of Florida. When Jennings became aware of this situation he pressed the issue with Washington and secured patents for some 2.9 million acres. He recommended drainage of this area as "entirely feasible and practicable, thus reclaiming 3,760,000 acres, a large percentage of which would be available, and the most valuable agricultural land in the Southern States," Jennings further recommended that Congress be memorialized for a million dollars to initiate this reclamation project. Governor Broward did not mention drainage or reclamation in either his 1905 or 1907 regular messages. 1 In 1909, Governor Gilchrist touched on recent drainage operations near Fort Lauderdale. Two canals, each sixty feet wide by ten feet deep and over seven miles long, had been completed at a cost of some $7,600 per mile, Two dredges were operating and two more had just been canpleted in Tampa and were about ready to move to the scene of operations. In 1911, Governor Gilchrist reported: The work in the Everglades involves the drainage and after drainage, irrigation and transportation. For irrigation and transportation, the Trustees are having permanent locks placed 1However on May 3, 1905, Governor Broward sent the legislature a special message outlining his program for drainage and reclamation of the Everglades. The substance of this message, its background and its fate, are well presented in the book by Samuel Proctor, Napoleon Bona Mrte Broward (Gainesville: University of Florin a Press, 1950), pp. 216- Th.is book also continues the story of drainage of the Everglades into the administration of Governor Gilchrist.

PAGE 214

in the canals There are now employed in the work of excavation six dredges . Within twelve or thirteen months it is safe to say that the Atlantic Ocean will be connected 204 by canals with Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee has already been connected by canal with the Gulf of Mexico. (63-4) Capital In 1903, Governor Jennings estimated that the total valuation of state property was some $655,000; insured for only $346,000. He recommended new appropriations of about $214,000 for public buildings. Speaking of the South generally, he noted that the value of lands with improvements had increased by 67 per cent in the South, as compared with 62 per cent in the nation, over an unstated period. He noted that the capital invested in lumber in the South had increased from $23 million in 1898 to $200 million, "with the greatest increase being in Florida." Physical capital in railroads in Florida was high in relation to population. Jennings declared that "we have more miles of railroad per capita than any other State." Florida's average population per one mile of railroad was only 163; less than the figure of 541 in the North, 485 in the South, and even the figure of 204 in the relatively unsettled West. As to financial resources, he reported a big leap forward "and yet we have just begun." In 1905, Governor Broward was quite concerned about the loss of money capital to life insurance companies outside of the state. He reported that in the past year Floridians had paid out $1.5 million in premiums to 13 out-of-state insurance companies and had received loss payments of only $0.4 million; resulting in a $1.1 million flow out of the state, equal to a "ten mill tax on the present assessed value

PAGE 215

205 of Florida." For a longer twelve-year period, he estimated that loss payments had been about 50 per cent of gross premiums. Broward's recolllllended solution was to "establish a life immrance business con ducted by the State." In 1907, Broward reported that further investigation of his 1905 proposal on a state life insurance business had convinced him that it was "practical and beneficial" and that he would submit a special communication to the legislature on it. In 1909, Governor Gilchrist provided some statistics on Florida banks in 1908, taken from the 1908 Report of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. Capital stock was $8.3 million, surplus $2.5 million, undivided profits $1.1 million, individual deposits $51.2 million, resources $51.9 million, and bank property and securities (other than U.S. bonds) $6.8 million. In 1911, Governor Gilchrist provided similar infonnation on national banks taken from the 1910 Comptroller's Report. Rounding the figures, there were 43 national banks in Florida with total resources of $44.6 million, individual deposits of $25.8 million, capital stock of $5.8 million, surplus of $2.2 million, and undivided profits of $0.8 million. Then shifting to the 1910 Report of the State Comptroller, he cited the 1910 figures on state banks. Rounding the figures, there were 134 state banks in Florida with total resources of $23.3 million, deposits subject to check of $14.9 million, certificates of deposit of $2.2 million, specie and currency on hand of $1.3 million, and other securities of $0.6 million. In summary, banks in Florida (both state and national) in 1910 had resources totaling $67.9 million and total deposits of $45.6 million. These figures do not include the relatively insignificant private banks.

PAGE 216

206 Also in 1911, Governor Gilchrist quoted the annual report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, "conunent:ing on page 65." Table 42 contains the gist of the quoted information in simplified form. Corporation Class A B C D E Total TABLE 4 2 STATISTICS ON FLORIDA CORPORATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1910 Nature Bonded or Other of No. of Capital Stock Indebtedness Corporation Returns (millions) (millions) Financial and Conunercial 209 $ 10.2 $ 2.9 Public Service 142 57.1 48.2 Industrial and Manufacturing 372 34.8 19.5 Dealers in Coal, Lumber, 358 14.5 9.2 Grain, etc. Miscellaneous (contractors, 406 21. 7 11.1 hotels) $138. '3 1,487 $90.9 Note: The net income for all the above corporations was $8.9 million. Gilchrist further reported that the State Insurance Department estimated that the "amount of fire insurance carried in Florida on personal and real estate is fully $200,000,000.11 He reconunended a general law for the incorporation of trust companies, with provisions

PAGE 217

207 to ensure safeguards for trusts. He also advocated that private banks should be regulated or abolished. He recommended the extension of the deposit requirement of fire insurance companies to other insurance companies, and a law for the "regulation of fraternal insurance orders in this State." Economic Sectors Statistical As in prior periods, Table 43 summarizes the absolute changes in labor force in the major economic sectors of Florida during the 19001s~ TABLE 43 .ABSOLUTE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 19001s Labor Force of Total Labor Force Sector In In In In Change in 1()0 0 1910 Change 1900 1910 % Points Agriculture 920 1178 28.0 45.7 56.6 -9.1 Fishing 18 30 66.7 0.9 0.9 o.o Forestry 105 190 80.9 5.2 5.9 +0.7 Mining 15 35 133.3 0.7 1.1 +0.4 Manufacture 380 747 96.5 18.9 23.2 +4.3 Trade-Trans. 286 482 68.5 14.2 15.0 +0.8 Services 291 558 91.7 14.4 17.3 +2.9 Total 2015 3220 59.8 100.0 100.0 o.o Note1 Labor Force in 1001s. Sources Reference Table LS-3.

PAGE 218

208 Following the previous pattern, Table 44 summarizes the relative changes in major economic sectors, considering national changes as the norm. Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Transport Services (Prof.) Services (other) Net Sum Total Total -Sum TABLE 44 RELATIVE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 19001s Relative Change in Labor Force +251 + 12 + 33 + 15 +254 +127 + 8 21 Distribution of Change% 33.0 1.7 4.7 2.1 36.3 18.2 1.1 3.0 100.1 Fla. Change as of U.S. Change + 2.43 +14.70 +10.38 + 1.59 + 4.50 + 2.62 + 0.92 0,36 +659 resulting from competitive sector gains +575 +3.41 -84 resulting from composition losses Notes Labor Force in 1001s. Source: Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 219

209 As previously, Table 45 breaks down the composition effect by sectors, using sector proportion weights. It further provides a single summary measure for composition effect for the decade. TABLE 45 SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMPOSITION EFFECT IN THE 1900 1 s Rate of Relative Fla. Sector Sector Contribution Sector U.S. Growth Rate Proportion to Composition 1900-1910 1900-1910 1900 Effect for State Mining 1.712 +. 399 0.6 0.259 Manufacture 1.652 +.559 14.5 4.920 Forestry 1.514 +.201 1.6 0.522 Services ( Prof. ) 1.322 +.009 5.5 0.031 5.512 Total 1.313 .000 100.0 Trade-Transport 1.312 -.001 11.5 0.012 Agriculture 1.209 -.104 42.4 4.410 Services ( Other) 1.070 -.243 25.0 6.080 Fishing 0.990 -.323 0.9 0.290 10.792 RaEid Growth Total 5.512 .512 Composition Index Slow Growth Total -l0.792 Source: Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 220

210 The highlights of the three foregoing tables may be summar-ized as follows. In absolute tenns, Florida increased employment in each sector during the 19001s. Each sector, except agriculture, claimed a higher percentage of the total labor force of the state at the expenBe of agriculture. In terms relative to the national nonn, the largest gainers were the manufacturing, agriculture, and trade and transport sectors} and the sole loser was services (other than professional services, which gained). In percentage of the national gains in each sector, fishing and forestry were outstanding with about 14.7 and 10.4 per cent, respectively; and the manufacturing sector made a respectable contribution of about 4.5 per cent of the national gain. The over-all gains were still less than the summation of the competitive sector gains, demonstrating the customary composition loss through Florida's relative specialization in slow growth industries (or the slow growth components of rapid growth industries). Competitively, Florida gained 65,900 jobs during the period but lost 8,400 jobs through the composition effect for a net gain of 57,500 jobs, all relative to the national average. In terms of composition effect, Florida made gains in mining, manufacturing, forestry, and professional services during the periodJ with manufacturing making about 89 per cent of the total sector contribution to these gains. Losses in the remaining sectors were dominated by services (other than professional) and agriculture. The former contributed 56 per cent and the latter 41 per cent to the total sector contributions to these losses. The composition index dropped from .550 for the prior decade to .512, thus showing a small tendency to

PAGE 221

211 reverse the general period trend toward relative specialization in faster growth sectors. It is of interest to note that services (other than professional services) was the sole Florida sector making a competitive loss; was the dominant Florida sector in making a composition loss; and, except for fishing, was the slowest growing sector in the nation during this period.2 Descriptive Following the pattern of prior decades, this section will introduce descriptive material relating to the economic sectors. This material will include pertinent items from the governors' messages and selected occupat.4-onal data from the U.S. Censuses of 1900 and 1910. Agriculture.--There was a considerable reclassification of occupations during this period. Equating the farmer, planter, overseer category of 1900 with the farmers and farm foremen of 1910, there was an increase from 58,700 to 43,000. Abstracting turpentine laborers, farm laborers increased from 37,300 to 65,100 (42,700 male and 22,400 female)J but this must be qualified. As covered in more detail in the methodology chapter, the figure of 37,500 farm laborers in 1900 does not include an estimated 15,800 laborers, not specified, who were actually farm laborers. Thus the real increase was more on the order of 51,100 to 65,100. Gardeners, florists, fruit growers, and nurserymen increased from 1,300 to 4,700 (including 2,300 fruit growers and 2This characterization of the service sector is subject to the vagaries of Census enumeration and classification.

PAGE 222

212 nurserymen, and almost 2,400 gardeners); stock raisers, herders, and drovers decreased from 489 to 356 (239 listed as stock raisers); and apiarists increased from 30 to 57. Other categories in 1910 included 1,500 garden laborers and 1,700 orchard and nursery laborers. Fishing.--Fisherrnen and oysterrnen increased from about 1,800 to 5,000 during this decade. In 1903, Governor Jennings noted that the legislature was still failing to appropriate funds for the expenses of the Commissioners of Fisheries. He reported that the U.S. Fish Commission had provided fifteen million shad fry for Florida waters. In 1905, Governor Broward commented that there were no more important resources in the state than fish and oysters. He recommended "proper legislation with a view to the protection of the resources rather than the protection of those interests connected with it." To generate the revenue to conserve and develop the fisheries, he recommended a lease and fee system. In 1907, Broward reiterated these recommendations in more detail. He recited the conservation measures taken by Maine, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Virginia. Not for revenue, but for enforcement, he stated: I also strongly recommend the enactment of a statute similar to that introduced at the last session, establishing a graduated license tax upon the fish industry. (46) Both in 1909, and again in 1911, Governor Gilchrist refrained from comment on the fisheries; a departure from decades of emphasis--or perhaps over-emphasis.

PAGE 223

213 Forestry.--The composite lumbermen, raftsmen, and woodchopper category increased from 5,100 to 5,100 and turpentine farmers and laborers increased from 7,500 to 15,600 (though turpentine farmers were not separately identified in 1910).5 There were also 22 foresters listed in 1910. Mining.--Mine operatives increased from 1,200 to 5,200 and quarry operatives increased from 58 to 146. In connection with the extraction of minerals, there were 99 operators, officials, and managers, and 102 foremen and overseers, in 1910. Manufacturing.--Employment in manufacturing increased by 97 per cent in the 1900's; increasing the manufacturing share of the state labor force by about 4 per cent, from 19 to 25 per cent. Florida contributed about 4.5 per cent of the national gains in this sector and manufacturing contributed the largest share, about 56 per cent, to Florida's relative gains. The U.S. Census of 1910 adopted a new classification of occupations, described as "an occupational classification within an industrial framework.114 It is consequently a bit more difficult to compare 3&th in terms of persona engaged and production, the end of this decade marked the approximate high water point of the forestry industry in Florida for the period. See A. Stuart Campbell, Studies in ForestK Resources in Florida. 5 Vols., Vol. I, Timber Conservation; Vol. II, he Lumber Industry; Vol. III, The Naval Stores Indust~ (Gainesville1 University of Florida, Vols. I and II, 1952 and ol. III, 1953) for detailed information. Note especially Table 14, Vol. II, p. 57, for lumber production by years and Tables 1 and 2, Vol. III, pp. 11 and 12, for naval stores production by decades. 4 U.S. Census, 1910, Occupational Statistics, p. 17.

PAGE 224

214 industries as between 1900 and 1910 and classification errors in enumeration may be larger. It is clear, however, that the tobacco and cigar industry continued its dominance with a large gain from 5,600 to 12,900 in employment. Saw and planing mills also made a large increase from 5,500 to ll,400 employees. Employment in turpentine distilling fell off from 5,200 to about 5,000. In occupational tenna, carpenters and joiners increased from 4,000 to 7,700; manufacturers and officials from 1,000 to 1,700; and a new classification of stationary engineers numbered about 1,600. By way of contrast, Georgia's employment in saw and planing mills rose to about 14,400 and turpentine distilling employment fell off to about 1,600. Florida was thus nearing parity with Georgia in forest product industries. In occupational tenna, Georgia had only a few more than Florida's 1,600 stationary engineers but continued its two to one lead in manufacturers and officials with a 1910 total of about 3,500. In a new classification, that of managers and superintendents, Georgia was off to an early three to one lead with 2,100 compared with Florida's 700. Trade and transportation.--In the trade area, retail dealers increased from 4,500 to B,200J bankers, brokers, and moneylenders from 232 to 657J wholesale dealers, importers and exporters from 124 to 575J and salesmen and saleswomen from 2,000 to 4,600. Other notable categories in 1910 were 2,200 clerks in stores; 576 commercial travelersJ 1,100 deliverymenJ 894 real estate agents and officialsJ and 679 fruit graders and packers. In a new clerical occupations

PAGE 225

215 category, bookkeepers and accountants increased from 874 to 2,546 (including cashiers in 1910) and stenographers and typewriters (typists) increased from 261 to 1,222. As for transportation, railroad transportation employees increased from 5,900 to about 9,600 (including 5,000 railroad labor ers); sailors increased slightly from 1,200 to 1,500; boatmen and canalmen decreased from 209 to 75 (including lock keepers); telegraph operators increased from 285 to 499; telephone operators from 47 to 139; and livery stable keepers and managers from 184 to 511. other notable categories in 1910 were 1,700 longshoremen and stevedores; 47 garage keepers and managersJ and 2,600 draymen, teamsters, and expreB11men. In 1905, Governor Broward recommended a constitutional admendment to make the Railroad Commission a constitutional branch of the state government; presumably to avoid a repetition of its earlier hiatus. He made several other recommendations to extend its authority, especially in the fields of public safety and health. His attitude toward the COO!Illission was expressed as followsz I believe that no agency has contributed more to material progress and prosperity than the wise, able, and conservative administration of our Railroad Commission Law. (58) In 1907, Broward devoted a ma.jor portion of his message to "Railroad Legislation." He realized "the mutual obligations and dependence which exist between the railroads and the public." He warned that the railroads should not be oppressed. But he saids "Let us not forget that the people were not made for the railroads,

PAGE 226

216 but the railroads for the people." He reiterated his 1905 reconrnenda tions and declared that both the physical condition of the railroads and their service was poor. He introduced another legislative recom mendation on the subject of "watering" or inflating stock, which tended to drive up the rates in order to pay interest and dividends on the inflated values. Reporting that "no railroad 50 miles long has been built in Florida" since 1898, he estimated that the current railroad valuation at reproduction cost should be about $12,000 per mile. The railroads wanted rates established to provide returns based on an inflated valuation of $28,000 per mile. Broward posed the question of what was to keep the railroads from issuing stocks and bonds on the basis of $100,000 per mile and asking yet higher rates. He objected that not only did rates go up but that this extra $16,000 of inflated value was even exempt from taxation of any kind. Thus, he alleged, the people suffered both ways. In 1909, Governor Gilchrist also recommended strengthening the Railroad Commission, including: more appropriations; a law empowering the Commissioners to prescribe joint rates for railroad and water carriers; and a law to bring telegraph companies under the Commission. In 1911, Gilchrist reported on a letter from the Florida East Coast Railroad Company reciting some construction problems on the Key West extension. The Company had suffered setbacks through a 1906 storm; 1907 troubles in the general business world; a 1909 hurricane; and a 1910 storm. All this had increased costs by several millions and had delayed construction. However the Company had completed

PAGE 227

217 and opened 112 miles in 1909 and was working on a 44 mile balance. The labor force had varied from 1500 to 5000. Governor Gilchrist recommended that the railroad be granted a two-year extension to the seven-year completion period allowed by the law; deliberately punning that "it is quite apparent from the foregoing that Mr. Flagler1s efforts have never nagged." In 1905, Governor Jennings advanced rather specific proposals on road improvement: I recommend that a law be enacted establishing a uniform system of road improvement outside of the incorporated cities and towns, prescribing the kinds of materials that must be used in such work, defining a standard road, in width, convexity, depth of bed, etc., as may be recommended and found to be neces sary for the establishment and maintenance of a permanent road bed, to be approved and accepted by an engineer before the money should be paid out of funds raised for this prupose. (77) He suggested that the money for these improvements should be raised and expended by the counties since "I fail to see any good reason for the State to become a party to handling the money." In 1905, Governor Broward neglected any mention of roads but in 1907 he remedied this neglect, with a proposal to spare. He remarked that "probably no one improvement could be more useful, valuable and enjoyable to the people of Florida than a system of GOOD ROADS." He devoted about six pages of his message to an analysis of the situa tion and to a detailed proposal. He concluded that for permanence it would be necessary to use vitrified brick or Dade County rock. To fund a road program he noted that "it may be necessary to amend the Constitution providing the bonding cannot be done without."

PAGE 228

He stated that it was difficult to swnmarize the funds now spent on the roads by the counties, buts I assume, from the data obtained, that the amount of money 218 and labor expended for road building now, equals a five mill tax; which on the present valuation of $142,000,000 means $710,000 per annum. ( 49) Broward estimated that for $10 million he could build about 2,000 miles of double width (15 feet) vitrified brick road at $5,000 per mile; or alternatively, a proportionally greater mileage of Dade County rock road at $3,520 per mile. He proposed a $10 million, 4 per cent, l50 year bond issue to undertake a five year hard road program. He considered that this could be funded by a five mill tax levy, on the assumption of a yearly $5 million increment in assessed valuation. He appended a proposed amortization table to his message. In 1909, Governor Gilchrist reverted back to Jennings' 1903 principle of keeping the funding responsibility for road construction at the co\lllty level. Broward had been ahead of his time. Gilchrist suggested that it would hardly be fair to tax counties with good roads for the purpose of building good roads in other counties through a system of state taxation. He advocated general laws giving full power to counties to assess taxes for roads. In 1911, Gilchrist ignored the subject of roads entirely, in his message to the legislature. In 1903, Governor Jennings stated that Florida needed "large appropriations for the harbor of Apalachicola, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Fernandina, and Miami." He reported that "the ports of Pensacola, Fernandina, Key West, and Port Tampa have been highly improved by the liberal appropriations from the Federal government."

PAGE 229

219 Services.--In the professional category, clergymen increased from 1,500 to 1,700; dentists from 157 to 267; engineers from 240 to 405; lawyers from 615 to 715 (including judges and .iustices); physicians and surgeons from 686 to 1,070; teachers from 2,400 to 3,600; actors from 54 to 155J professors from 52 to 267 (including college presidents)J and veterinary surgeons from 20 to 50. In the field of public services, there was an increase in government officials from 916 to 1,598J 675 national, 96 state, 526 county, and ro1 city. Armed forces strength decreased from 745 to 295. The composite category of "watchmen, policemen, firemen, etc." increased from 754 to 1,418 (including 245 policemen and 214 firemen). In the domestic and personal services field, servants increased from 7,800 to 15,800; launderers and launderesses from 7,600 to 15,200; saloon keepers from 119 to 147; bartenders from 552 to 610; midwives and nurses (not trained) from 754 to 1,076 (including 145 midwives); and hotel keepers and managers from 527 to 570.

PAGE 230

CHAPTER VIII THE 19101s Institutional Background State Condition In 1915, Governor Park Tranmell reported the condition of Florida to be "most satisfactory." In 1915, he noted that "Florida people and her industries are getting along remarkably well," considering the depressed conditions in the United States because of the disturbed trade conditions consequent on the war. He admitted that the war had hampered Florida's progress in some areas but declared that "our State continues to grow and prosper ... In all parts of the State notable public improvements are beiJlLmade.11 Later in the message he referred to the necessity for economy "when a large number of the taxpayers of the State are not enjoying to a considerable extent their usual prosperity, as at present--due to the European War." In 1917, Governor Sidney J. Catts did not comment on the general condition of the State. "Liquor and Prohibition," he declared, "this is the burning issue." In November of 1918 he called an extra session of the legislature, for reasons largely related to prohibition. He noted that Florida was the first state to have such a post-war ses sion and he brought up several war-related subjects. One of these con cerned conferences between the Board of Trustees of the Internal 220

PAGE 231

221 Improvement Fund and the Department of the Interior on ways and means of inducing returning soldiers and sailors to settle in Florida. Another subject concerned the return of labor from the factories and shipbuilding to the farms to produce, not only for the country, but "to produce a surplus to aid the starving millions of Europe." Catts also noted that the war-induced high prices had made supplementary appropriations for some state institutions necessary. In 1919, Governor Catts brought up several national problems, as they looked to him, which had resulted from the war. He suggested that Congress be memorialized to relax the "very strict laws concerning espionage and the right of free speech." He cited high prices, high wages, and war profiteering as other national problem areas. He urged the legislature to help returning soldiers and sailors "to insure these returned men positions which will at least give them a support until they can find something better to do." He bragged a bit that Florida had about $1.8 million cash in the bank but noted with alann that the counties had an aggregate bonded indebtedness of about $2.5 million for roads, schools, and drainage.1 He demanded, in effect, that such reckless extravagance be stopped and that retrenchment be the watchwords The Legislature should insist that all bonds for the future be curtailed . This is one of the supremest matters that could come before you for consideration as a law-making body. (11) In 1921, Governor Cary A. Hardee had little to add about the general condition of the state. He stated that "in a general sense, 10bviously the $2.s million figure is in error. House Concurrent Resolution No. 6, in 1918 suggests a $21 million figure for roads alone.

PAGE 232

222 the financial condition of the State is sound." But he could not "say as much" for the financial condition of the individual counties of the state. He concluded that what the state really needed was fewer and better laws. State Finance The bonded indebtedness of the state remained at $601,506 through this decade, all held in state educational funds. In 1921, Governor Hardee recommended the retirement of these bonds by estab lisranent of a sinking fund funded by interest accumulated from state deposits in banks. He estimated that these bonds could be retired in about nine years. In 1915, Governor Trammell considered that the financial situation was good, with a $574,000 balance in the General Revenue Fund and sufficient special funds to meet maturing appropriations. He recommended a constitutional admendrnent to provide a $500 homestead exemption to encourage owner-occupied homes; noting later in the mes sage that the present homestead and exemption law was too liberal and should be limited to "real estate of reasonable value and a reasonable amount of personal property." Among revenue measures, he recommended a graded corporation tax of five to fifty dollars annually, based on capital stock; and full cash value assessment of railroad, Pullman, and telegraph companies on value added through franchise, in addition to current assessment on physical properties only. Remarking that no subject was more difficult than tax equalization, he suggested that the system be changed to discontinue "ad valorem State tax, and have the

PAGE 233

223 State government supported exclusively by the lieense and franchise taxes." This, he felt, would eliminate the need for "State Unifonnity.11 He invited the attention of the legislature to the report of the Tax Commission, authorized by the 1911 legislature, which also suggested separation of county and state tax revenue sources. Among other 1913 proposals, Tranmell repeated the recommendation of several of his predecessors for a graduated inheritance tax law. He recommended an enforcement law for the current two per cent tax on gross receipts of insurance companies. To correct a problem of long standing, he proposed a law that public monies be paid over to the public treasury by the tenth of the month after the month in which collected. As to economy in government, he felt that the public business should be "conducted with the strictest economy consistent with the public welfare." His tone was not niggardly but cautious. Calling for legislative economy, he referred to the unnecessary attaches and clerks and asked that no one be employed "who will not perfonn any actual service further than signing the payroll." In 1915, Governor Trammell stated that "Florida is maintaining a splendid financial condition." He noted that the tax millage had been reduced in 1914 (reducing taxes about $soo,ooo). The reason for this reduction, other than the general desire to lighten the tax burden, was to "enforce economy by preventing the accumulation of large and tempting surpluses .mich might tend to encourage extravagant and unnecessary appropriations." In similar vein he also urged reduction of county millage when and .mere possible. Trammell noted that the state School

PAGE 234

224 Funds were now invested exclusively in Florida public securities which kept the money at home, earned five to six per cent, and stimulated Florida improvement. Reporting that county taxes were from four to six times larger than state taxes, including pensions, he proposed state limitations on county millage for specific purposes. He also suggested that counties be required by law to get interest on their bank deposits, as did the state; estimating an aggregate annual income from this source to the counties would be from $50,000 to $75,000. Among other 1915 proposals, Trammell repeated his suggestion on homestead exemption and on ensuring the prompt paying over of public funds to the Treasury. He also repeated hie revenue proposals relative to abolishing the state millage tax; establishing a graded corporation taxJ taxing "value added through franchise"; and establishing a graduated inheritance tax. He further recommended that the maximum corporate charter fee be raised from $250 to $soo. In 1917, Governor Catts declared that Florida finances were in good shape but he advised caution "so that we shall not be forced to either go upon a credit basis or raise the tax rate, for either of these would be ruinous to us as a State." He particularly urged that great caution be used "because we have lowered the tax rate within the last two years"; a reason which seems to contain some flavor of a non sequitur. Citing the fact that 46 to 48 states had an inheritance tax, Catts recommended that one be adopted in Florida. He recommended more power for the Tax Commission and noted that much property among the larger corporations and estates was escaping taxation. He also

PAGE 235

225 suggested taxation of all church property except the church buildings and the pastors' homes. He reported that the Florida gross receipts tax of one and one-half per cent on Pullman sleeping car service had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and he recoJIU'llended similar taxes for "telegraph companies, telephone companies and railroad companies doing business in Florida," In the extra session of 1918, Governor Catts noted that under the Supreme Court construction of the automobile licensing law the state would lose about $55,000 in taxes, unless the law were clarified. He recommended taxation on a horsepower basis so that expensive cars would nonnally pay a higher tax. During this session, House Concurrent Resolution No. 6 was passed to set up an Investigating CoJl'lllittee to consider the problem of public roads. In the Resolution it was noted that "there is now a bonded indebtedness in the State of Florida amounting to $21,000,000 approximately for bonds issued by the various counties of the state for the purpose of constructing roads.112 It was further noted that some of these issues carried 6 per cent interest and that some were below par. In 1919, Governor Catts produced a constructive suggestion, though his motivation may be questioned. He recommended a Budget System 11to do away with the wild appropriations system at the conclusion of each session," He also recommended a Second Board of Control to do for other state institutions what the first board had done for 2Florida, House Journal, 1918, p. 155.

PAGE 236

226 institutions of higher learning. He stated that Florida might well be proud of her $1.9 million balance on hand "which is quite different to that of many Southern states, which are deeply in debt." On taxation, he saids "This is the most important question which will come before the Legislature. The people of Florida are and have been too heavily taxed." The primary revenue recommendations of Governor Catts were to get tax evaders on the rolls; establish a privilege or franchise tax; initiate an inheritance tax; and consider a small state income tax. He again recommended elimination of any levy of property taxes for state expenses, thus doing away with the inter-county unifonnity problem and permitting elimination of the Tax Commission. He recommended a "special tax on Foreign Corporations [presumably out-of-state] doing business in Florida." Catts did point out that Florida must levy a two-mill tax if they were to obtain federal matching money for roads under the Federal Road Aid A.ct, but he made no recommendation in his message that this be done. In 1921, Governor Hardee noted that the state institutions at Chatahoochee and Marianna had deficiencies of $178,000 and $42,000, respectively. This had been financed by an interim 6 per cent loan by the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions but legislative action was requested to meet this deficit obligation. Hardee reported that some counties had gotten into financial difficulties by abusing the law which authorized them to borrow up to 80 per cent of the budget to maintain their schools. He recommended some fonn of state aid

PAGE 237

227 or action on this matter. Hardee abandoned Catts' proposal for bypassing the unifomity problem and recommended the creation--or re-creationof a Tax Commission for this purpose. He suggested a email tax on intangible property but noted that this would require a constitutional admendment to get around the "full cash value" provision. Hardee argued that "if all the property which ought to bear its burden of truces was on our rolls at a reasonable value, we could reduce the millage for state and county purposes nearly fifty per cent." He recommended that the taxpayer be required to "give in, under binding oath, all of his property" for trucation purposes. Hardee again brought up Catts' proposal for a Budget System. He pointed out that thirty-nine states had such a system and recommended establishment of a Budget Com mission composed of the Governor, the Comptroller, and the Treasurer. Economic Factors Population General.--In 1915, and again in 1915, Governor Trammell proposed a Settler's A.ct designed to distribute some 100,000 acres of public lands in maximum 40 acre plots. In 1913, he also reported that the State Board of Health, then over twenty years old, "has really been a great factor in building up the State, by inducing immigration through the confidence inspired in regard to the State's satisfactory health conditions." In 1915, under the heading of Immigration Bureau he stated that "suitable provision should be made for the Department of Agriculture to provide literature relative to the climate, the soil, and

PAGE 238

228 the varied industries and resources of Florida." He added that many inquiries were being received and "we are interested in bringing desirable immigration this way." Prior reference has been made to Gover-nor Catts' 1918 and 1919 recommendations relative to inducing return ing soldiers and sailors to settle in the etate. In 1919, Catts suggested a train of three cars, one each for the products of West, Central, and South Florida, to travel through the northern and western parts of the nation to advertise Florida products and lands. He recalled that Alabama had done something of this nature in 1886 with succesBful results. Declaring that Florida had millions of untenanted acres, he stated Florida's primary need as people. Labor.--In 1913, Governor Trammell recommended "enactment of a strong employers' liability act" with a comparative negligence provision so that a partially negligent employee could still have some recourse He stated that "the best modern thought recognized the dignity of labor, which may well be called the cornerstone of industrial life." Trartlllell also recommended a law to strengthen and make effective the Child Labor law. Administratively, he advocated establishment of the office of Labor Commissioner, to compile labor statistics, aid in enforcement of labor laws, and promote labor's interests generally. In 1915, he repeated his recommendations relative to a liability law and comparative negligence, and further recormnended legislation to require safety railroad switches. He noted that the State Labor Inspector, provided by the legislature, was concerned with enforcing the Child Labor law, improving sanitary conditions in shops, and promoting safety appliances.

PAGE 239

229 In 1917, Governor Catts took up the subject of "The Federation of Labor." Noting that this was becoming a live issue he pointed out that the labor question had now reached the South "and we have within this State many societies of federated labor demanding that we give them proper recognition." He proposed offering "a haven to these federated labor societies by treating labor as a part of the great body politic of our State." Suggesting that their power had been demonstrated in respect to enforcement of the eight-hour law on the railroads, he concluded, "therefore we can not treat in silence these great forces in our national organization." In 1919, Governor Catts repeated the substance of the foregoing comment on federated labor. Also in 1919, Governor Catts reported that the State Labor Inspector had found "an increase in children employed since the War began" and he called for strengthening the Child Labor law. Noting that "only eight states now remain that have not passed a workmen's compensation law" he recommended that the "labor interests of the State should receive the proper consideration at your hands." Further noting that forty-three other states had had bureaus of labor statistics for years, he expressed his belief that the state had now "developed to such an extent in manufacturing enterprise that a bureau of labor and industrial statistics should be created." In 1921, Governor Hardee refrained from comment on the several subjects related to labor. Migration estimates.--Du.ring the 19101s, Lee estimates the total net migration into Florida to be 115,000; about 109,000 white and 6,000 colored. This represents a very great change in the composition of net in-migration from the preceding three decades when the

PAGE 240

racial input was relatively balanced. White net in-migration went up to 109,000 fran 70,000 in the prior decade, and colored net in-migration went down to 6,000 from 50,000 in the prior decade; a shift divergent not only in direction but in magnitudes. Net in-migration, as a percentage of end migration in 1920, moved down from the 16 per cent of the prior decade to about 12 per cent, a bit below the six-decade average of 13 per cent. On the other hand, my estimate of net internal migration moves up from the 22 per cent of the prior decade to nearer 27 per centJ above the six-decade average of 22 per cent. The net internal migration is estimated to be about 257,000J about 165,000 white and 92,000 colored. In relation to net in-migration into the state(and the racial composition of the state) this represents a very moderate shifting of white population and a violent movement of the internal colored population. In spatial terms, the picture is somewhat modified from prior decades. With few exceptions, all counties northwest of Hillsborough, Lake, St. Johns, and Duval Counties are not only below the state norm of 12 per cent on net in-migration, but have actually had net outmigration. Only Escambia, Taylor, and the Washington-Bay-Calhoun-Gulf County group are above the state norm. In Peninsular Florida, below the Hillsborough-Duval line, the only net out-migration county is Monroe, with a loss of 4,400 representing 22 per cent of end population in 1920. The big gainers in net in-migration in the 1910's were Dade County with 45,500 representing 52 per cent of end population; Duval County with 27,500 representing 24 per cent; and Hillsborough with

PAGE 241

251 26,800 representing 25 per cent. The big losers were Alachua County with 6,500 representing 21 per cent; Marion County with 5,900 representing 25 per cent; and Jefferson with 4,600 representing 52 per cent of end population in 1920. Land General.--In 1915, Governor TraI11T1ell recommended repeal of the law which provided for railroad land grants. He pointed out that the state still had about one million acres of land in the Everglades but could no longer afford land grants to encourage railroad building. This appears to be only a gesture or pro fo:nna recommendation since these Everglades lands had already gone over to the State Board of Education in connection with prior land grant settlements, as previously described. Furthennore there were still unsatisfied land grant claims of over three million acres under prior legislative grants. In 1915, Trammell noted that the federal government had made soil surveys in other states but that little had been done in Florida. He deemed advisable a "memorial asking Congress to make provision for a soil survey in the counties respectively of Florida." He recommended that one section of state land in Dade County be designated as Royal Palm State Park and that it be operated under the supervision of the State Federation of Women's Clubs; an early bow to the pressures leading to female suffrage. In 1917, Governor Catts included a section in his message headed "Privilege Tax on Right to Hold Lands or Interest in Lands in Large Bodies." He recommended a graduated tax on holdings of 640 acres or

PAGE 242

232 more which were not used for agriculture or manufacturing. His rationale was that such holdings were speculative in nature and that such speculation amounted to a business venture which should be taxed. Emotionally, he felt that idle lands and starving people were incompatible and that the people had a right to act accordingly. Catts also recommended establishment of a 10,000 acre tribal reservation for the Seminoles near Moore Haven City. In 1919, Governor Catts repeated his recommendation for a privilege tax on the right to own speculative lands. He also brought up the question of riparian rights and water rights. He called for legislation to settle "for all times" the important issues of "Riparian Rights, over-flowed lands rights, and other kindred legal claims." Catts further reported that some towns in the state were "multiplying" the state valuation of surrounding farm lands and thereby taxing them as high as six per cent of the state valuation. Since earnings were commonly in the area of three or four per cent, according to a source cited by Catts, this amounted to confiscation of these farms through the taxation process. In 1921, Governor Hardee repeated Catts' recommendation for legislation to clarify the subject of riparian rights but noted that state sovereignty was clear. He also urged conservation and reforestation. To this end he suggested a state law giving assent to the establishment of national forests in F1.orida. He further reported on drainage in the Everglades, as discussed in the following section on reclamation.

PAGE 243

235 Reclamation.--In 1915, Governor Trammell reported, in reference to the reclamation of the Everglades, that "under more or less financial embarrassment this State enterprise has made marked progress, and it is believed that it is worthy of being continued to its completion. 11 He recommended that the Internal Improvement Fund be empowered to establish one or more experimental farms in the Everglades. The value of some one million acres of state lands would thereby be enhanced. He declared that the Everglades reclamation was the "greatest and most important work now being carried on by the State." He attributed its inauguration to the "late lamented Governor Broward, who, with his master mind, saw the possibilities." Tranmell recommended a law to authorize Local Drainage Districts, so that the state main canals could be supplemented by lateral canals and local ditches. The 1915 Senate Journal contains a report on the Everglades Drainage District which summarizes the costs and revenues of this reclamation project.5 Costs: 1905 to July 1910 Four dredges Operations July 1910 to April 1915 Canals Locks other Total $ 225,000 390,000 1,403,000 75,000 59,000 $2,155,000 Revenues: Drainage tax at 5i per acre Sale of 500,000 acres to Bolles4 other land sales Total 5F1orida, Senate Journal, 1915, p. 918. $1,063,000 491,000 598,000 $2,153,000 4The Bolles sale was at two dollars per acre "half of which was to be used for drainage."

PAGE 244

2M In 1915, Governor Trammell reported that the reclamation of the Everglades had gone forward as rapidly as funds available permitted. He noted that raising money had been difficult because of "financial stringency during the last year and a half." Drainage District bonds had been authorized by the prior legislature but purchasers were hard to find. Currently, however, Trammell found prospects to be promising since a large contracting finn had agreed to accept Drainage Board notes in part, secured by drainage district bonds for the remainder. He again recommended a project for experimental fanns in the Everglades. In 1917, Governor Catts tried to dispose of the Everglades drainage problem so far as the state government was concerned. In regard to this mooted and restless matter I desire to recommend that the Legislature pass a law putting all of the one million two hundred and fifty thousand acres of land now held by the Internal Improvement Board for sale at from five to eight dollars an acre, and that the same be sold at private or public sale and the amount of money gotten from these sales be, after the debts of the Board have been paid, turned over to the State School Fund, whereby each and every child of the State shall obtain its pro rata share, and allow the drainage of these lands to continue after they pass into the hands of private owners. By 1919, Governor Catts apparently had abandoned his earlier idea of getting the state out of the Egerglades. Noting that the "Internal Improvement Board has about 1,200,000 acres of these rich, redeemed from overflow lands in their possession" he repeated Governor Trammell's recommendation for a State Experimental Farm in the Everglades. Catts also stated that the Everglades urgently required fire protection because the rich muck lands, when dry, were like peat. Fires would burn down through five or ten feet of muck to the white sand base rendering the land useless for agriculture. The drainage

PAGE 245

235 of the Everglades had resulted in uncovering land areas along the lake fronts and Catts further called for a law as to the selling and dis position of such lands by the Internal Improvement Fund. Another problem that arose, of some concern to Catts, was that of the "sub-drainage districts, established by the Legislature of 1917, which are not liable at the present time to any higher authority than themselves." Although the Internal Improvement Board had been restrained in floating bonds for drainage of the Everglades, Catts feared that the sub-drainage districts might go overboard on bond issues and hurt the total effort. In 1921, Governor Hardee summarized the results and status of Everglades drainage after fourteen years of active reclamation. The work thus far accomplished is represented in principal part by the opening of three hundred and sixty-one miles of main drainage canals, the construction of twelve locks and dame, the survey of one million acres and other undertakings . involving an expenditure to date of approximately six million dollars. The Everglades Drainage District comprises a land area of four and one-half million acres. (18) This was an area larger than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. Hardee noted that some of the drained areas were "thriving communities and productive farms." He reported the state holdings as about one and a quarter million acres. He pointed out that the work had been largely supported from within the Everglades area by drainage taxes. He stated that the project had not drawn on the State Treasury but had actually contributed revenue to the state. He suggested action toward the issuance of bonds for further construction and promised to suggest other measures to advance this "great reclamation enterprise." Greatly

PAGE 246

236 impressed by the progress and possibilities in the Everglades, he also recommended that an Agricultural Experiment Station be established therein. Capital In 1913, Governor Trammell recommended that the state provide for a guarantee fund for bank deposits; and a law to require payment of interest on county bank deposits. He pointed out that it had been twenty-two years since the maximum legal rates of interest had been established at 8 per cent (10 per cent in written contracts). Stating that most Southern states had lower legal interest rates than Florida, he proposed a reduction of the legal rate t o S per cent and the contract rate to 8 pe~ cent. Governor Tramnell also recommended Florida participation in the Southern State Comnission to Europe to study the subject of cooperative rural credits, especially "the eystem of rural co-operative banks." The purposes of the Commission, he stated, weres To inquire into the business organization of agriculture in Europe. To examine the methods employed by progressive agricultural communities in production and marketing, and in the financing of both operations, noting:. (a) the parts played, respectively, in the pranotion of agriculture by Governments and by voluntary organizations of the agricultural classes; (b) the application of the co-operative system to agricultural production, distribution, and finence; (c) the effect of co-orrative action upon social conditions in rural communities; (d the relation of the cost of living to the organization of the food-producing classes. (33) Another of Trammell1s 1913 recommendations was that the investment requirements of live-stock insurance companies be reduced to

PAGE 247

237 $so,ooo. Fire insurance and casualty companiee were required to meet a $250,000 figure and life insurance and live-stock insurance companies were held to $200,000. But this was too high for live-stock insurance companies and kept them out of the state. The governor recommended another law to keep insurance combines from fixing rates through mutual understanding; barring them from the state if necessary. He also recommended that life insurance companies be required to invest a reasonable percentage of net surplus from Florida earnings in "securities of this State" (in context, either public or private securities). Tranrnell called for a strengthening of corporation laws to protect the public against wildcat schemes. In the anti-trust field he stated: A large majority of the States have passed anti-trust laws, and in my opinion it is advisable that a strong anti-trust law should be enacted in Florida. (61) He also recommended a law prohibiting "watered stock" in the future. The past, he said, could not be undone but "the over-capitalization of public service corporations is one of the greatest menaces of the present age." In 1915, Governor Trammell repeated his several recommendations on insurance combines, investment of Florida-earned surplus, antitrust legislation, and watered stock. In a reference to the new Federal Reserve System he declared: Our National banking system has been materially strengthened by the new banking laws enacted by Congress, yet I am of the opinion that a State law requiring the banks to maintain a bank guarantee fund for the protection of depositors is desirable and should be enacted. ( 30)

PAGE 248

238 He also repeated his recommendation to reduce interest rates, claiming that "it would merely be adjusting the statutes of the State to the changed conditions of the times." In 1917, Governor Catts recommended that the office of State Insurance Commissioner be separated from the office of State Treasurer and that the State Ineurance Commissioner also be assigned supervision of state banks (a function of the State Comptroller). He recommended that fire and life insurance companies doing business in Florida be required to deposit $so,ooo in cash or good bonds in the hands of the State Treasurer. He furtherstated that "as the insurance laws of Florida have weeded out the smaller companies I recommend that the taxes on those that do business in Florida be largely increased." Also ?dvocated was a law to require publication of insurance company financial statements for the protection of the people. In a section titled "Federal Farm Aid and Bonds," Governor Catts reported that currently Florida could not have its quota of Federal Farm Loan Bonds because they were not a legal investment for trustees and fiduciary funds. He recommended a change "so that we, as a State, may obtain our part of these funds." He reiterated the recommendation of his predecessor that a Bank Guarantee Fund, similar to that in several other states, be set up so that depositors would be guaranteed against loss in bank failures. Also supporting another recommenda-tion of his predecessor, on reduction of the legal rate of interest from 8 down to 6 per cent and the contract rate from 10 down to 8 per cent, he gave as his reason the "congested" monetary conditions of the nation. He declareds

PAGE 249

This will bring many thousands of dollars into our State for investment, for the financial world is afraid of high rates of interest, while they seek with much avidity thoee investments based upon a low rate of percentage, because they are safer. (48) In 1919, Governor Catts repeated his prior recommendations on bank guarantee funds and a new legal rate of interest. He declared again that capitalists were afraid of high rates of interest and that "the lowering of the rate of interest from 8 per cent to 6 per cent will bring millions of dollars into this State, seeking the development of the State." As another inducement for both local and foreign capital he suggested state aid for the "Encouragement of Small Canning and De-Hydrating Plants." He argued that such plants could utilize the less perfect but still wholesome produce that was in oversupply for the perishables market. Noting that other states had such plants he suggested that consideration be given to exempting such companies from taxation for several years and thereafter taxing them at low rates. To revert back to the rate of interest problem, Catts refers in another part of his message to some would-be capitalists who were not interested in any reduction in interest rates. These were the loan sharks whose charges were "seldom less than 33 1/3 per cent a month the lowest rate ever charged is 10 per cent a month." He called for legislation in this area, stating that the small loan business was legitimate but that the people must be protected. Governor Catts was as ardent an advocate of private capital and use of credit as he was a skeptic of public capital and use of credit. He stated:

PAGE 250

240 It will be admitted without argument, the Governor thinks, that more capital is needed in our State and at a lower rate of interest and for longer time than is, or can be, supplied by the local banks. (39) But, he pointed out, Florida chattel mortgage laws over-protect the borrowers at the expense of the lenders. He suggested changes, relative to cattle and livestock, to attract investment in the cattle industry by the capital loan companies of the big livestock markets. He con tinued, Credit, rightly used, is an indispensable adjunct of business and without it the development of American industry would have been impossible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legislation should stimulate commerce, not throttle it. (40-1) In 1921, Governor Hardee had no collD'llent which fits under this catch-all heading of capital; perhaps feeling that Catts had not left much unsaid.

PAGE 251

241 Economic Sectors Statistical As in prior decades, Table 46 summarizes the absolute changes in labor force in the major economic sectors of Florida during the 19101s. Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Trans. Services Total TABLE 46 .ABSOLUTE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 19101 s In 1910 1178 30 190 55 747 482 558 5220 Labor Force i In 1920 Change 1075 -8.8 43 +45.5 122 -35.8 50 -14.3 1027 +57.4 754 +56.4 801 +43.5 3852 +19.6 % of Total Labor Force In In Change in 1910 1920 j Points 56.6 27.9 -8.7 0.9 1.1 +0.2 5.9 3.2 -2.7 1.1 0.8 -0.5 23.2 26.7 +5.5 15.0 19.6 +4.6 17.3 20.8 +5.5 100.0 100.1 +0.1 Note, Labor Force in 1001s. Source: Reference Table LS-3.

PAGE 252

242 Following the previous pattern, Table 47 stunmarizes the relative changes in major economic sectors, considering national changes as. the norm. TABLE 47 RELATIVE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR BORGE IN THE 19101s Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade Services (Public) Services (Prof. ) Services (Other) Clerical Transport Relative Change in Labor Force + 61 + 20 -100 10 +121 + 95 + 17 + 44 +155 + 20 + 51 Distribution of Change% 8.8 2.9 14.5 1.4 17.5 15.7 2.5 6.3 22.2 2.9 7.3 100.0 Fla. Change as% of U.S. Change + 1.58 +52.28 -27.86 0 .69 + 2.15 + 5.95 + 1.91 + 6.04 +12.29 + 1.57 + 4.16 Net Stun Total +472 resulting from competitive sector gains +341 + 2.17 Total Stun -151 resulting from composition losses Note: Labor Force in 1001s. Source: Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 253

243 As previously, Table 48 breaks down the composition effect by sectors, using sector proportion weights. It further provides a single summary measure for composition effect for the decade. Sector TABLE 48 SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMPOSITION EFFECT IN THE 19101a Rate of Relative Fla. Sector U.S. Growth Rate Proportion ec or Contribution to Composition 1910-1920 1910-1920 1910 Effect for State Clerical 1.800 +.710 (Note) (Note) Services (Public 1.677 +.587 2.4 1.408 Service a ( Prof. ) 1.289 +.199 5.2 0.658 Manufacture 1.205 +.115 22.8 2.575 Trade 1.174 +.084 7.5 0.650 Forestry 1.166 +.076 5.9 0.448 Transport 1.161 +.071 5.9 0.419 Mining 1.150 +.040 1.1 0.044 6.162 Total 1.090 .ooo 99.9 Services ( other) 0.903 -.187 13.7 2.330 Agriculture 0.861 -.229 36.5 8.365 Fishing o. 774 - 316 0.9 0.284 10.979 RaEid Growth Total 6.162 .562 Composition Index Slow Growth Total 10.979 Note1 The proportion of clerical to total gains is estimated to be not more than 2.5 per cent and this small percentage is distributed primarily in other rapid growth sectors so that distortion of the composition index is Bmall and in the direction of a ~light lowering of the index. Source1 Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 254

244 The highlights of the three foregoing tables may be summarized as follows. In absolute terms, Florida increased employment during the 1910's in all sectors except agriculture, forestry, and mining. These three sectors consequently dropped in their percentage contribution to the total labor force of the state. In tenns relative to the national norm, the largest gainers were services (other than professional and public services), manufacture, and trade. The largest loser was forestry and the only other loser was mining. In percentage of national gains in each sector, fishing and services (other than professional and public services) were outstanding with about 52.5 and 12.5 per cent, respectively. The professional services, trade, and transport sectors also made notable percentage contributions to national gains on the order of 4 to 6 per cent. The over-all gains were still less than the summation of the competitive sector gains. Competitively, Florida gained 47,200 jobs during the period but lost 15,100 jobs, all relative to the national average. It is noteworthy that competition gains were less and composition losses were greater during this decade than for the prior decade, relative to the national changes. In terms of composition effect, Florida made gains in all sectors except services (other than professional and public services), agriculture, and fishing. The dominant gaining sectorswere manufacture and public services which contributed about 42 and 25 per cent, respectively, to the total composition effect for the state in the rapid growth area. The dominant losing sectors were agriculture and services (other than professional and public services), with contribution percentages

PAGE 255

245 of 76 and 21 per cent, respedtively. The composition index went up from .512 for the prior decade to .562; the highest thus far for the period but still far below the hypothetical index of 1.000 which would represent neutral composition effect relative to the nation. Descriptive Following the pattern of prior decades, this section will introduce descriptive material relating to the economic sectors. This material will include pertinent items from the governors' messages and selected occupational data from the U.S. Censuses of 1910 and 1920. Agriculture.--During the 19101s, general farmers increased from 42,200 to 44,800 and general farm laborers decreased from 65,100 to 43,800. A breakdown of the farm laborer figure shows a decline from 17,100 to 9,200 in male home-farm laborers; from 25,600 to 24,400 in male working-out laborers; from 14,300 to 4,900 in female home-farm laborers; and from 8,100 to 5,300 in female working-out laborers. The significant decline is in home-farm laborers and it seems probable that this is largely related to additional years of school for the children and to a change in the status of females on home farms. Fruit growers increased from 2,500 (including nurserymen) to 5,300; gardeners from 2,400 to 4,100; stock raisers from 239 to 561; garden laborers from 1,500 to 5,100; and orchard and nursery laborers from 1,700 to 5,300. In 1920, dairy farmers numbered 284 and dairy farm and stock farm laborers numbered 511. In 1913, Governor Trammell recommended a law to authorize counties to employ "agricultural and horticultural demonstrators" and

PAGE 256

246 assistants. He proposed a Fanners Institute to be held in each county each year for one or two weeks. Each Institute was to be preceded by an advance written course of instruction to be funded by a state appropriation to the responsible Experiment Station. He also recom mended an annual $3,000 appropriation to the Experiment Station to help in preventing insect and disease damage to agricultural and horticultural interests. In 1915, he repeated his request for the latter appropriation. Since it had not been provided in the preceding biennium he had found it necessary to use $1,000 fran his small contingency fund to fight citrus canker on the lower East Coast. The federal government, he noted, had provided $55,000 to help. Trarrmell urged that a thorough crop peat law be enacted. In 1915, Tra1T1T1ell again recommended a law to provide County Demonstrators, noting that federal aid was available in this area. Concurrent with the emphasis on adequate shipping facilities, as discussed in the following section on transportation, he was concerned with adequate marketing facilities. He recormnended creation of a self sustaining State Marketing Bureau to aid producers in "proper marketing and successful selling." He also recommended that Congress be memorialized for a federal law to regulate commission merchants; its purpose "to require fair dealing and prompt returns to our fanners and growers." Tr81T1llell also recommended a law to establish a "Fanners' and Growers' Day" as a legal state holiday. In the extra session in 1918 Governor Catts noted that, during the War, labor had been drawn from the farms to the factories. He

PAGE 257

247 called on the farmers to produce a surplus to aid Europe in a section of his message titled Farm Labor Law and Protection of Agriculture. In 1921, Governor Hardee, in a section called "Agriculture and Livestock," asked for support of the Bureau of Marketing, declaring that the real need was marketing facilities. He advocated that marketing be stabilized and that direct distribution be sought. He stated that cooperative marketing would be beneficial. He pointed to the state production of "more than thirty million crates of perishable products per annum," in addition to many other products, and noted that only a small portion of the 55 million acres in the state was under cultivation. The bottleneck on expansion in agriculture was marketing, notproduction. Cattle.--In 1913, Governor Trammell cited 1910 Census figures showing some 800,000 cattle valued at $8,000,000 in Florida. He estimated an annual loss of about three per cent from cow-tick eradication measures. In 1915, Trammell requested a $15,000 annual appropriation to carry out cow-tick eradication. He stated that "we have the possibilities for making Florida the greatest cattle and stock raising State east of the Mississippi River." In 1917, Governor Catts reported that "the statute now reads that drovers selling at auction, trading or otherwise, shall pay a license tax of $100 in each county." This, he stated, was un iust because it cut out the little dealers and he recommended that the tax be graduated from $10 to $100. In 1921, Governor Hardee reported that the state was now cut off from outside markets by quarantine.5 He recommended that the cattle-tic k campaign 5 T his was not a paper quarantine. It was a 200-mile tick-trap fence composed of two lines of four strand barbed wire which were

PAGE 258

248 should continue because outside markets were needed. He stated that there was no alternative to passing a law to get cattle dipped: "Whether you favor the dipping of cattle or not is now hardly pertinent to the issue." Fishing.--furing the 19101s, fishennen and oysterman increased from 3,000 to 4,300. Forestry.--The category of lumbermen, raftsmen, and woodchoppers decreased from 5,100 to 5,000 and turpentine laborers decreased from 13,600 to 6,000 between 1910 and 1920. Mining.--During the decade, all occupations employed in the extraction of minerals contributed to a total labor force which decreased from about 3,500 to 3,000. Manufacturing.--Employment in manufacturing increased by 37 per cent in the 19101s; increasing the manufacturing share of the state labor force by 3.5 per cent, from 23.2 to 26.7 per cent. Florida contributed about 2.2 per cent of the national gains in this sector and manufacturing contributed about 18 per cent to Florida's relative gaine. The Census of Manufactures provides a table which clearly portrays the relative status of the principal industries of Florida in 1919. It is reproduced below in part. Included with it are figures from another table which provides the number of persons engaged in the selected industries.6 fifteen feet apart and patrolled by armed riders on twenty-mile beats. Dacy, p. 276. 6u.s. Census of Manufactures, Table 3, p. 243 and Table 30, p. 256 ff. Also see pages 241 through 261 for very comprehensive

PAGE 259

249 TABLE 49 PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIES, RANKED 'BY VALUE OF PRODUCTS, 1919 Wage Earners Persons Value of Value Industry Av. No. Engaged Products Added (1001 s) No. j % ( 100' s) All Industries 745 100.0 850 100.0 100.0 Lumber and Timber 211 28.5 225 20.0 24.1 Tobacco and Cigars 124 16.6 154 17.8 18.6 Shipbuilding-Steel 78 10.5 82 11.4 11.2 Turpentine-Rosin 117 15.8 150 10.1 15.0 Fertilizers 14 1.9 17 5.0 2.9 RR Cars-Repairs 58 5.1 40 4.0 4.5 Ship-Boat, Wooden 54 4.5 56 5.9 4.5 Meat Packing 5 0,5 4 2.5 0.4 Other Lumber 15 1. 7 15 2.5 1.8 Bakery 7 1.0 12 2.4 1.5 Printing 8 1.1 14 1.9 2.5 Ice, Manufactured 14 1.9 17 1.9 2.1 Foundry and Shop 9 1.2 10 1.6 1.6 Mineral Waters 4 0.6 7 1.5 1.0 Boxes, Packing 10 1.4 11 1.2 1.2 Wood Distillation 4 0.6 5 0.9 0.8 Gas, Light-Heat 4 0.6 5 0.9 0.8 Minerals-Earths 7 1.0 7 0.8 1.0 Boxes, Cigar 7 0.9 7 0.8 0.8 All Other Industries 5~ 4.8 52 9.1 6.3 statistics covering many aspects of manufacturing in Florida. The following discussion of Florida manufacturing in the 19101s is based on these statistics.

PAGE 260

250 Between 1909 and 1914 there was an actual decrease of 2.5 per cent in the number of persons engaged in manufacturing industries in Florida. Between 1914 and 1919, however, there was a very substantial growth rate exceeding 31 per cent. In terms of primary horsepower the growth in the manufacturing industry was 11.4 per cent between 1909 and 1914 and 39.4 per cent between 1914 and 1919. The European War appears to have been the principal cause of this disparity between the two halves of the decade. The lumber and timber products industry jumped to a large lead over the cigar and tobacco industry during this decade in terms of labor force. If one combines the several industries which were largely based on forest products (also including naval stores, wooden ship and boat building, other lumber products, wood distillation, and packing and cigar boxes) it appears that some 53 per cent of Florida's total manufacturing labor force in 1919 was employed in these combined industries. It may seem rather strange that manufactures based largely on raw materials from the forests should have so increased in relative importance during this decade. In this same decade, employment in the forestry sector declined very substantially, both in absolute terms and in terms relative to the nation. There was a concomitant decline in the total lumber cut in the state by 5.4 per cent during this decade.? On the other hand, the relative importance of Florida as a lumber producing state raised it in national rank from seventeenth place in 1909 to tenth place in 1919. The principle causes for the rise in manufacturing employment based on the natural resource of forestry and the 7 1919 Census of Manufactures, p. 252.

PAGE 261

251 concurrent decline in forestry employment would appear to reside, jointly, in the more intensive processing and utilization of this raw material and in increased productivity in the forestry sector. Georgia and Alabama also had the experience of relative decline in the forestry sector and rise in the manufacturing sector during this decade. Of course the structure of the manufacturing sector in the three states was quite different. The tobacco and cigar industry dropped about 2,000 in employ ment at mid-decade but by 1920 had regained and slightly exceeded its 1910 level.8 Steel ship-building increased greatly between 1916 and 1919 from a gross tonnage of 1,884 to 81,381; with the employment total reaching about 8,200 to rank it as the fourth largest industry in Florida manufacturing in labor force terms. In occupational terms, Florida's carpenters increased from 7,700 to 11,700 during the decade; stationary engineers from 1,600 to 2,000; and managers and superintendents from 700 to 1,300, The occupational census also makes a distinction in manufacturing employment between semi-skilled operatives and laborers, which is of some interest. For example, employment in saw and planing mills included some 1,300 semi-skilled operatives and 11,500 laborers. Turpentine distilleries employed some 400 semi-skilled operatives and 4,100 laborers. The steel 8 The Fourth Census of the State of F1orida, 1915, reports that as a result of the "demoralization of the cigar manufacturing industry in Key West, caused by the E uropean War . 1434 persons left Key West and went to Havana." Also reported was some movement from Tampa to Cuba--and some later counter-movement. P. 11.

PAGE 262

252 ship and boat building industry employed some 1,800 semi-skilled operatives and 2,900 laborers. The cigar and tobacco factories specifically list only some 8,600 semi-skilled operatives but presumably employed many of the laborers listed under a general category. As another aspect of manufacturing in 1920, the Census of Manufactures provides the infonnation that the six cities in Florida over 10,000 population in 1920, which together provided 24.4 per cent of the state population, actually produced 47.8 per cent of the value of the state's manufactured products. In terms of value of products in 1919, Jacksonville contributed about 54 per cent of the state total in wooden ship and boat building; about 36 per cent in foundry and machine shop products; about 28 per cent in printing and publishing of newspapers and periodicals; about 3 per cent of tobacco and cigars; and about 57 per cent of copper, tin, and sheet-iron work. Tampa contributed about 75 per cent of the state total in tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes; about 24 per cent in printing and publishing of newspapers and periodicals; and about 10 per cent in foundry and machine-shop products. Trade and transportation.--In the trade area, retail dealers increased from 8,200 to 12,200; bankers, brokers, and moneylenders increased from 657 to 963 (601 bankers and bank officials and 362 commercial brokers and corranissiornnen); wholesale dealers, importers and exporters increased from 375 to 632; salesmen and saleswomen f~om 4,600 to 7,800 (5,500 salesmen and 2,500 saleswomen); clerks in stores from 2,200 to 2,500 (1,600 male and 900 female); corranercial travelers from 576 to 1,093; deliverymen from 1,100 to 1,200; real estate agents

PAGE 263

253 and officials from 894 to 2,308; and fruit graders and packers from 679 to 1,745. Another notable occupation of 1920 was that of insurance agent with a total of 931. In the transportation aDea, locomotive engineers increased from 853 to 965; railroad officials and superintendents from 181 to 295; railroad laborers from 5,000 to 5,100; sailors decreased from 1,500 to 1,100 (including deckhands); telegraph operators increased from 499 to 674; telephone operators from 159 to 617; longshoremen and stevedores decreased from 1,700 to 1,500; garage keepers and managers increased from 47 to 448 (livery stable keepers and managers no longer listed); and draymen, teamsters, and expressmen increased from 2,600 to 5,700. other notable 1920 occupations were 2,800 chauffeurs, as compared with 215 in 1910; and some 2,100 road and street laborers. In 1915, Governor Tral'llllell recommended an increase in Railroad Commission powers. He suggested that the general powers be made more specific; that prescription of joint rates for rail and water carriers be authorized; that Commission penalties have the force of a lien; and that the Canmission have cognizance of sanitation in depots as well as on coaches. He recommended a law providing that shippers could recover damages from common carriers if suitable care for perishable products were not provided within a prescribed notification period; repeating this recommendation in 1915. In 1917, Governor Catts suggested that the legislature "frame such laws as shall force the railroads and other common carrier companies to give means of instant transit to the markets for these goods

PAGE 264

254 and commodities." He was referring generally to Florida products and especially to the perishables. In 1919, Catts again recommended better marketing and shipping laws. Florida as a state, he said, "will be forever divided into about seven sections: Farming, Truck, Citrus, Fruit, Fishing, Phosphate Mining, Lumber and Stock Raising. This roughly shows how the people of the State make their living." These several sections were heavily dependent on laws to safeguard marketing, especially prompt and dependable transportation. In 1913, Governor Tranrnell recommended establishment of a state board of three Public Road Commissioners, with authority to coordinate, advance, instruct, and investigate in the general area of road construction; and to employ a Highway Engineer. However he stated his belief that "the County should be the unit for road building." As to the importance of good roads to Florida, he stated that they "will add more to the material advancement .. than any other one step that can be taken." He repeated the foregoing recommendation in 1915. In 1917, Governor Catts reported on the Federal Aid Road Act, a five-year road program in the several states enacted at the last session of Congress. Catts suggested a moderate start in state participation, employing some 300 convicts and $100,000 annually. The state would then get an "equal amount of money" from the Federal government. In 1919, Catts called for the abolition of Bond Trustees in County Road Districts; since, he alleged, they were almost useless but got salaries of $5,000 to ~10,000 per year plus a percentage on monies expended.

PAGE 265

255 In 1921, Governor Hardee commented that the State Road Department, created in 1915 in order to share in federal funds, had not been too effective in the past. Noting that the federal government paid fifty per cent of the cost of any road designated as a Federal Aid project, as work progressed and subject to conformance with construction standards, he stated: The State of Florida has not utilized the appropriation of the National Government to any considerable extent. There is to the credit of Florida nearly three million dollars .. none of which, however, is available. (16) It wasn't available because Florida hadn't appropriated a like amount. The revenue for the State Road Department came from a two-mill tax, which provided about $700,000 annually; a small gasoline tax which generated about $50,000, 15 per cent of the small automobile license tax; and credit for convict work (subject to some off-setting expenses). Hardee recommended an increase in the gasoline tax, an oil tax, and continuation of the other levies; in addition to a more efficient use of resources by the State Road Department. In 1915, Governor Tranrnell suggested that the legislature memorialize Congress to acquire the East Coast Canal from Jacksonville to Biscayne Bay from the owning corporation and provide for federal control and operation. He stated that "this would be a great boon to the whole East Coast, which is one of the most rapidly developing sections of the State." Trammell also proposed a similar memorial for "a waterway across the Southern part of the State" by using the drainage canals between the coasts and operating the waterway under federal control. Tra11111ell further noted that public servicecorporations

PAGE 266

256 were monopolizing whar~ and dock facilities. He recommended a law to pennit cities to acquire such facilities for the use of all. In 1915, Trammell repeated his earlier recommendations relative to a federalized cross-state waterway and to "municipalized" wharf and dock facilities. Services.--In the professional category, during the 19101s, clergymen increased from 1,700 to 2,000;dentists from 267 to 452; engineers from 405 to 981 (including 621 civil engineers and surveyors and 360 mechanical engineers); lawyers, judges, and justices from 731 to 1,126; physicians and surgeons from 1,070 to 1,570; and school teachers from 3,600 to 5,600 (957 male and 4,609 female). Trained nurses numbered 953 in 1920. In the field of public service, there was an increase of national officials (except postmasters) from 405 to 531. Anned forces strength increased from 293 to 2,846; policemen from 243 to 361; and firemen from 214 to 322. In the field of domestic and personal service, servants increased from 13,800 to 18,500 (3,800 male and 14,700 female); launderers and launderesses, not in laundry, from 15,200 to 16,600 (all female); nurses (not trained) from 931 to 1,286; and hotel keepers and man-agers from 570 to 1,027. Other notable 1920 occupations were 1,100 restaurant, cafe, and lunch room keepers; 961 laundry operatives; 1,800 boarding and lodging house keepers; 1,400 waiters; and 1,300 waitresses. Saloon keepers and bartenders went underground during this prohibition period.

PAGE 267

257 In the clerical field (fonnerly listed under trade and transport and now under services, only as a matter of convenience), bookkeepers, cashiers, and accountants doubled from 2,300 to 4,600 (including 544 accountants and auditors and 4,016 bookkeepers and cashiers); and stenographers and typists increased from 1,200 to 2,800. The major clerical occupation in numbers was clerks (except clerks in stores) with 5,600 in 1920, as contrasted with 2,500 in 1910. Male clerks increased from 2,200 to 4,200 while female clerks increased from 247 to 1,554.

PAGE 268

CHAPTER IX THE 19201s Institutional Background State Condition In 1925, Governor Cary A.. Hardee had little to say about the general conditions in the state except by implication. He repeated his earlier suggestion for fewer and better laws and noted that "the people of F1.orida are in the anomalous position of demanding more and more of government each year and at the same time demanding less ta){es.11 He was concerned with the serious bonding problems in some counties: There are, no doubt, worthy purposes . I believe, however, that there is too great a tendency on the part of our people to recklessly incur heavy obligations, which the coming generation muet somehow pay off. (13) As a minimum criterion, he recommended that improvements funded by bonds should be at least as permanent as the life of the related bonds and he suggested policies to discourage rather than encourage longtime securities. He also noted that the constitutional prohibition against state bonding, except in great emergency, "is a very salutary one." In 1925, Governor John W. Martin delivered an address to the legislature, rather than a message. He told this body: 258

PAGE 269

I congratulate you upon the opportunity to serve your State in this, in many respects, the most interesting period of her history. Yours is a privilege that has rarely fallen to the lot of lawmakers. Our State is on the threshold of an era of prosperity and developnent unparalleled in all her history. People full of hope and expectancy are pouring into Florida attracted by her unexcelled climate, her educations~ her social and material advantages. (13) 259 Martin stated that the danger was not in "too little, but in too much legislation": Florida needs capital, and must have it, in the building and establishing of her industries. She needs labor, also, and must have it. One without the other, though in abundance, will not suffice No statute should be enacted inimical to either. (13) Reflecting the spirit of the times, he suggested that legislation was not a panacea: Law should be designed to protect the individual and society, personal and property rights. You can never make a people good, happy or wealthy by legislation. Paternalism is foreign to the American principle of Government. Individual responsibility is the essence and the underlying principle of our theory of Government. (13) But this was in April of 1925. By November of that year, the legislature was meeting in an extra session ca1led by the governor, in accordance with whereases of the following proclamation (essentially repeated in his later message)s Whereas, The unprecedented immigration into the State of Florida and the great development of the varied natural resources of the State now in progress imperatively require the early enactment of laws relating to useful enterprises and to the public welfare; and Whereas, Among the subjects that should have prompt legislative consideration are: An Act creating the Monroe Water Supply District. The enactment of local legislation that has been advertised in accordance with the law. The enactment of needed legislation of a municipal character. And Whereas, In view of the extraordinary conditions of growth and progress now existing in Florida the best interests of the

PAGE 270

State will not be properly conserved by waiting until the next regular session of the Legislature.l 260 In 1927, Governor Martin used rather cautious wording in his message (not address) to the legislature in referring to the post-boom conditions. He dwelt in large part on the developments in 1925, rather than on those in 1926, and thus managed to give his message a generally optimistic note: For the last two years, the State of Florida has passed through the most unusual period in her history. Her development has been unprecedented, her growth has been more than remarkable. Thousands of people . have settled here and built their homes. Millions of dollars of outside capital have poured into the State for her develonent. (16) He noted that the enonnous influx in 1925 had taJCed to the limit "our facilities, governmental and otherwise." During 1925, he reported, "real estate values increased tremendously. Large acreages of Florida land were sold for splendid prices. New cities sprang up everywhere." Apparently considering the post-boom period to be only a temporary abnonnality, Martin stated: I am thankful . to Him . for this prosperity, and I am more than happy to report to you this splendid development of our natural and economic resources in such a remarkable degree. (17) As to the current interruption, he noted that the state government and the people "generally have measured up magnificently to the unusual conditions." The state, in particular, had met every emergency and had given "economical, responsive and active government such as this period demanded." For the future, he advised, "new conditions bring 1Florida, Senate Journal1 Extra Session, November 17-20, 1925. Part I, p. 1.

PAGE 271

261 new responsibilities and we are now readjusting the affairs of the State in an effort to harmonize and stabilize the conditions brought forth by this abnormal period." Though the state finances "were never on a sounder basis," Martin considered that the counties, districts, and municipalities had rather let Florida down. He reported an "enormous amount" of bond issuance, estimated in 1925 to be 35 per cent of all bonds issued in the nation. He called for a stop to wholesale issuing of bonds because interest rates were at prohibitive levels and bond prices were greatly depressed. He repeated some earlier suggestions as to restricting bond issues to a certain per cent of assessed valuation. Martin also called for the need to avoid undesirable legislation which, though not explicitly described, may be implicitly defined in his conclusion that "governments should be supported by men and not men by governments," Two years later, in April of 1929, Governor Doyle E. Carlton found it necessary to face up more directly to the after effects of the Florida boom period. In this usual April session he stated, in his address to the legislature: We are called upon at a time when the State is on trial, to lay new foundations under our economic, political, and moral structure, thus preparing the way for a progress that is permanent. The uppermost problem is finance and taxation. In every endeavor our whole economic future hinges upon a sane fiscal and sound financial policy, Abnormal conditions resulting from the boom left their mark on public as well as private life to such an extent as to endanger our financial sec\.\I'ity. For this we blame no one. It is a logical outcome of the spirit of the time We have made advances on every front (1000 per cent in public improvement in ten years), but at a cost that must be paid. Our expenditures have exceeded our receipts to an alarming

PAGE 272

262 degree--approximately two and one-half million dollars for the year 1928. While the State as such is free of bonds, we are foolish to ignore the fact that counties and municipalities are loaded to the uttennost, while taxes have reached the danger point In spite of high taxes, so high that many have ceased to pay, bond defaults are imminent in towns, districts, and counties throughout the State. "Unwise," someone says, to release this infonnation. But is is folly to dodge facts which will ultimately force their attention. (5) Carlton also noted that action must be taken to promote the worker's welfare and safeguard his health and safety. Remarking that "the well-being of the State is measured by the well-being of the average man," he suggested that "many induBtries should carry in an orderly faslrl.on the wreckage of man as well as of machinery." In conclusion, Carlton made a plea for an objective legislative program in which selfish interests were subordinated. In June of 1929, Governor Carlton convened an extra session of the legislature primarily to deal with urgent financial matters. Aside from tax collection matters in general, he felt that a Central Board was necessary to handle the sinking funds of outstanding road and bridge bonds, to be funded by a portion of the gasoline tax. In April of 1951 conditions were still generally bad--or worse-and governor Carlton reiterated much of the substance of his 1929 message, even to the extent of much requoting. He defined the essential task as one of maintaining government, paying obligations, and reducing property taxes. His program was economy of expenditure and equalization of the tax burden. He reported thats We are holding down public expenditures for the present biennium $1,soo,000.00 below Legislative appropriation. In spite of the increased burden through these distressing times we have managed to live within our income. (6)

PAGE 273

Despite the emphasis on economy of expenditure, Carlton recognized that many programs could not be cut. For example, he noted that about $518,000 was spent by the State Health Department: 265 We can hardly expect to spend less for the extennination of malaria, hookwonn, pellagra, and other preventable diseases than you do to eradicate cattle ticks. These diseases levy a ghastly toll on the economic, social and even moral life of the State. (6) In June of 1951, Governor Carlton continued the legislature in extraordinary session, declaring: We have accomplished at the Regular Session little which the people expected or the State requires. Thus far it is a liability rather than an asset to the State. (955) He infonned the legislature that the appropriation bill would require a state millage of not less than twenty, "a situation which is unthinkable." Perhaps implying ill faith, he pointed out that "it is an idle ceremony to make appropriations without revenue to meet them~" A month later in July of 1951, he continued the legislature in a second extra session, statinga It is evident that another Special Session of the Legislature is necessary. The General Appropriation Bill has not been completed; additional sources of revenue have not been provided to eliminate the State Ad Valorem Truq nor has the tax collecting machinery been perfected as necessary. (955) Carlton didn't eliminate the state ad valorem tax but he did reduce it. In 1933, Governor Dave Scholtz reported that the millage had been kept below five for the preceding biennium.

PAGE 274

264 State Finance The foregoing section on the condition of the state has unavoidably brought in several aspects of state finance since the two were rather inextricably combined in the 19201s. This section, however, will treat of state finance in considerably more detail. In 1925, Governor Hardee noted that the long standing, if minor, bonded indebtedness of the state was on its way out via the sinking fund he had reconmended to the prior legislature. Some $140,000 had been accumulated against an indebtedness of only $601,506. Reporting that state millage had been reduced during his administration, he pointed out that demands for lower taxes should go to local governments since "less than one-fifth of the money which people pay for taxes finds its way into the State Treasury." And that one-fifth, he claimed, was economically expended: I am somewhat familiar with the govermnents of the various States of the Union and I have no hesitancy in saying that there is no State in the Union whose State Government is more economically administered than the State of Florida. (15) Hardee recognized the "obligation rests with the State to so regulate the tax laws that the burdens will be equally distributed"s There are millions of property values in Florida escaping taxation entirely. There are other hundreds of millions of property values now on the assessment roll at a mere fraction of its value. (15) He referred to the dual inter-county and intra-county equalization problems and suggested that a complete tax return be required from each taxpayer--with penalties for failure. He specifically recommendeds

PAGE 275

A competent central authority, such as we now have in our State Tax Equalizer Law, should be maintained and vested with plenary power, looking toward an equitable ad justment of the tax burdens as between counties. A thorough re-evaluation of the property of each county, under local agencies and subject to the advice and direction of the State equalizer, should be had. No tax assessor is really assessing taxes when he simply copies the roll for the preceding year. (16) 265 Noting that he had scanned the messages of governors of other states, Hardee reported unanimity among them that "that State is best governed which has generally refrained from indiscriminate creation of commis sions." He felt that functions of the state, particularly those related to public funds should come under one of the constitutionallyprovided Cabinet officers. Hardee noted one new ma,ior fiscal refonn; that the 1921 legislature had accepted his budget law recommendation and that his 1923 budget message would be forthcoming soon. In 1925, Governor Martin reported that "the financial condition of the State is sound." On taxation, he stated: I approach this subject with a feeling of humble trepidation. We all realize that our tax system is antiquated and that conditions are in a confused state. We are at the same time conscious of our limitations to deal with satisfactorily with this subject. (17) Martin suggested, as usual, that efforts should be directed to tax equalization and greater unifonnity. He noted that new sources of taxation would probably be proposed but that "equalization is the thing moat practical and desirable." More specifically, he pointed out that the constitution had been amended at the last election to give the legislature "power to levy a tax on intangibles. Thia comes to you as a mandate from the people and you will . consider it as such."

PAGE 276

266 Governor Martin's philosophy on the budget and on economy was rather general, as perhaps fitted the spirit of the booming year of 1925 in Florida. In the public mind there are two kinds of economy: penurious, penny-wise economy, which when practiced impairs the efficiency and effectiveness of Government. This is false economy. And economy free from extravagance and yet permitting the expenditure of the necessary money to bring about the highest degree of efficiency attainable. This is true economy. (23) Martin reconunended itemized separation pf state and county truces on true payment receipts so that taxpayers could see that it was the counties that were extravagant--not the state. As did many other governors, he appeared to limit his role to that of governing the state government, rather than governing Florida. So long as the state government was recognized to be economical it was perhaps unfortunate and annoying, but still someone else's problem, if the elements of the state--created by the state--went bankrupt. It appears rather a paradox that the state constitution prevented the state from bonding itself but that the state took no effective measures to control bonding by the counties and municip alities which were the creations of the state. These small units, it seems, were considered to posse~ more financial acumen and planning foresight than their parent. In 1927, Governor Martin highlighted the paradox. He reported that the bonded state debt to the E duc ational Funds, not due until the early 19501s, had been paid off and that "the finances of the State were never on a sounder basis." Noting that "we now have in our Treasury the magnificent sum of around $14,000,000 he nevertheless injected a note of caution:

PAGE 277

267 Even with the magnificent showing of our finances, I am convinced that the new conditions that prevail in Florida demand of us extreme caution and a greater exercise of prudence, wisdom and conservatism. (17) Taxation, Martin stated, was heavy enough and no more was needed for the eoonanical administration of the state, counties, and cities. Besides,. the people were in no humor for an increase in taxation. Martin thus advised against new ventures which would increase expenditures. Governor Martin infonned the legislature that it was impossible to audit state, county, and city funds with the small staff of three auditors in the Comptroller's Department. Consequently the peoples' funds could not be safeguarded. He recommended a separate auditing department on the basis that the Comptroller was already overloaded. In connection with handling state funds he recommended, as had some of his predecessors, a law to require prompt paying over of public funds to the Treasury. Thi21 would benefit the state by some $so,ooo annually, since banks were required to pay three per cent on Treaeury deposits; and would also protect the state against loss by bank failure since Treasury deposits were covered by bonded security. Despite suggestions by earlier governors that Florida consider an inheritance tax, Governor Martin was deeply upset by passage of a Federal Inheritance Tax Law which, in effect, forced Florida to levy such a tax. Martin atated1 This iniquitous measure, passed by Congress for no other reason than to nullify Florida's constitution and aimed particularly at Florida, is a gross injustice to the people of the State and it should either be repealed or the rebate provision

PAGE 278

268 taken out by the Federal Congress. I suggest the propriety and wisdom of our Legislature, by a suitable resolution, memorializing Congress for the repeal of this unfair, unjust and discriminatory tax against our State. (22) The effect of this tax, and the objection to it are expressed in the whereases of Florida Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 7: Whereas, the Congress of the United States, in enacting the present revenue law, provided therein for a Federal inheritance tax, but allowing those States that have inheritance taxes a credit to the extent of eighty per cent of the taxes so paid, the avowed purpose of which was to force the State of Florida, Alabama, and others similarly situated, to levy an inheritance tax; and, Whereas, taxing the dead, either by federal legislation or state legislation, is a capital levy and should not be resorted to except in time of war or other grave emergency.2 One might observe that taxing the dead is a rather difficult procedure, even in time of war. In April of 1929, Governor Carlton declared that Florida must have economy in public expenditures; must direct revenues to proper channels; must equalize the tax burden with a simple and effective collection system; and must provide safeguards against unreasonable debts and obligations in the future. He reported: Multiplication of boards and commissions with powers usually granted is a menace from an economic and political standpoint Our practice is in some respects like fanning out the taxing power with the amount of receipts as the only limitation upon spending power. (4) He recommended that all boards and commissions "should be anchored to the Cabinet" and that "no monies should be expended except on appropriation made by law." Noting that "it is well to keep government out 2Florida, Senate Journal, 1927, p. 181.

PAGE 279

269 of businese but that business principles should be employed in government"; he stated: Our scattered financial control must be centralized. Bond trustees have cost the State untold sums of money. This office should be abolished and the State Treasurer made the trustee for every outstanding bond issue. As it is there is no central authority in the State where public obligations can be ascertained or the people find assurance that trust funds to discharge such obligations are being maintained. (4) Other recommendations by Carlton were for a centralized purchasing system and for canpulsory tax returns. He added that "steps should be taken to collect our delinquent taxes and bring lands sold for taxes back on the books." To redeem the state credit, Carlton recommended impounding of certain money "now returned to the counties and that p.aid to the schools" in order to provide a common fund to be administered by the State Treasurer for "the retirement of road bonds and school board obligations." Attached to this recommendation were provisos as to keeping State Road Department revenues intact; as to equity among countiesJ and as to limiting the state obligations to administration only. To protect state credit in the future, Carlton stated: We should next restrict the power by which counties and districts burden themselves with financial obligations. First, bi limiting the bonded indebtedness to a reasonable proportion of the assessed valuation, and next requiring a more general expression of the taxpayers as a condition to the issuance of bonds. (5) In June of 1929, at the extraordinary session, Governor Carlton again called for a Central Board to handle the sinking funds of outstanding road and bridge bonds; to be funded by part of the gasoline

PAGE 280

270 tax. He recommended that the tax collection law be amended to reduce the coat of collection; and that tax ad,justment boards be employed to get property back on the tax books, stating, In view of the fact that $30,000,000 is now due the State for back taxes, steps must be taken .. In many cases the tax is exhorbitant. In other cases property owners are indifferent to payment. (831) In April of 1931, Carlton emphasized that many of the paramount issues of 1929 still existed and pointed out that now "we have the advantage of much valuable information accumulated by the Governor's Tax Committee, the Legislative Committee and the Col'llllittee representing our Municipalities." His recommended economy measures are generally familiar: to reduce court costs; to control county officer compensation; to abolish bond trustees; and to consolidate tax assessment and collection agencies for counties and municipalities. He noted that some degree of central purchasing had been attained "but a complete consolidation of all purchasing agencies would accomplish as much more. 11 Carlton stated that the problem of taxation "may be summed up in one word, "Equalization," which means a fair distribution of the tax burden." He estimated that assessments varied from 8 to 100 per cent of property valuation and that this was so "strikingly un just" as to endanger "the entire tax levy." He recommended that "some machinery, preferably a Tax Commission" should be provided to attack this problem. Carlton reported total state disbursements at about $29.7 million but noted that for some $9 million of this total the state was only a disbursing agent for such agencies as the federal

PAGE 281

271 government, the Everglades Drainage District, and the counties. Carlton stated that at the county level "the two big items in the taxpayer's burden are debts and schools." To help with this burden he considered new revenue sources necessary. It is, therefore, evident that new sources of revenue are inevitable. Real Estate cannot continue its present load .. A tax must have some relation to income, otherwise it kills the property and revenue as well. (6) Noting that selection of revenue sources was up to the legislature, he stated: I would, however, respectfully call to your attention the Constitutional requirement of a tax on intangibles, the neglect of which may jeopardize our entire tax levy. The Constitutional admendment providing for an inheritance tax suggests the wisdom of early action on this measure. (7) Martin's opposition to the inheritance tax was thus yielding to stark necessity. Carlton further gave his views on the sales tax as a revenue source: I must say that in my opinion a General Sales Tax is unwise, unsound, and out of keeping with a sane program of relief. The tax ignores the ability to pay and the cost of collection is out of proportion to the income received. It is an inverted income tax . (7) Carlton acknowledged that the county and municipality debt problem was the state debt problem, at least in large part. He stated: No sound program for the State can overlook our debt problem, that is to say, the obligation of Counties, Districts and Municipalities. Defaults in these units of Government reflect on the credit of the entire State and affect the borrowing power of every citizen. Millions of assets which should be liquid are so frozen as to clog the wheels of all public as well as private enterprise. Direct aid by the State in absorbing these obligations with State bonds is out of the question both fran a Constitutional as well as as economic standpoint. Most effective aid, however, can and should be provided. (7)

PAGE 282

His aid measures were identified as uniform but liberal procedures for refunding; a central state authority to mediate between debtors and creditors; and help in developing new revenue sources. Carlton noted that: 272 The debt plan passed by the last session of the Legislature which abolished the office of Road and Bridge Bond Trustee, provided for a central Board of Administration to act as Trustee for all such sinking funds and impounding a tax of 21 per gallon on gasoline for the discharge of Road and Bridge obligations has done much to hold down the General Property Tax as well as preserve the credit structure of the State. (7) Copeland, in his recent study on trends in government financing, used this decade in Florida history as his horrible example: "Among the most extreme instances of disorderly finance during the last fifty or sixty years are those that accompanied the Florida land boom of the 1920's; and the Coral Gables case stands out as one that was clearly characterized by corruption.115 Copeland provides data on Florida co'un ties to show the magnitude of the per capita debt that was incurred, as presented in Table SO, herein. 5Morris A. Copeland, Trends in Government Financing (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 170.

PAGE 283

Population TABLE 50 PER CAPITA DEBT OF SELECTED FLORIDA COUNTIES BETWEEN 1922 AND 1932 County Charlotte Indian River ( after 1922) Martin ( after 1922) St. Lucie Sarasota Florida Average U.S. Average Per Capita Debt ( dollars) 1922 1-32 80 827 None 785 None 976 190 1286 146 947 96 338 80 141 Notes "Debt figures are net of sinking funds. The 1952 census reports include 1931 figures in the case of Florida." Copeland, p. 81. Source: Ibid. Economic Factors 273 During the 19201s the several governors found it unnecessary to advocate state action to induce immigration. Other forces had taken over, the state was being overwhelJTled, and when immigration was briefly mentioned it was the resulting problems which tended to be emphasized. For example, in 1925 Governor Martin found it necessary to convene an extra session to deal with the problems resulting from "the unprecedented immigration into the State of Florida."

PAGE 284

274 In 1927, Martin referred to the enonnous population influx in 1925 which taxed to the limit "our facilities, governmental and otherwise." The only specific suggestion to promote immigration was that of Hardee in 1923, when he recommended action to conserve fresh-water fish and game since they were great assets in bringing people to F1.orida. Migration estimates.--During the 19201s, Lee estimates the total net migration into F1.orida to be about 358,000; some 274,000 white and 64,000 colored. This represents almost a tripling of total net inmigration over the preceding decade; and a ten-fold increase of colored in-migration to the approximate levels prevailing in the decade of the 19001s, before the hiatus of the 19101s. Total net migration as a percentage of end population moved up from the 12 per cent level of the prior decade to a six-decade peak of 23 per cent, much above the sixdecade average of 13 per cent. My estimate of net internal migration in terms of end population moved up from the 27 per cent of the prior decade to a six-decade peak of 29 per cent, well above the six-decade average of 22 per cent. Total net internal migration was estimated to be about 422,000; including about 509,000 white and 113,000 colored. This total is only 25 per cent more than the net in-migration to F1.orida; making it the most stable decade in the over-all period, as measured by net differentials, in respect to internal population movement. Stability of the white popu-lation was most pronounced. In spatial terms, the picture is again modified from that of the prior decade. With the exception of Lafayette, all of the counties

PAGE 285

275 of the state above the state norm on net in-migration were below the line represented by the northwestern borders of Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk, Lake, and Volusia Counties, Within this above-average area, Osceola and the five-county DeSoto complex dipped slightly below the state norm but only Monroe County suffered net out-migration. Northwest of this above-average area, the central portion of the state from coast to coast was in an intermediate position, below the state norm but still enjoying net in-migration. The northern border of this group of central counties was the northern border of Taylor, Lafayette, Alachua, Bradford, Clay and Duval Counties. Within this intermediate area only Citrus, Pasco, and Flagler Counties experienced small net out-migration. The remaining northern and western portions of the state were generally areas of net out-migration; the only exceptions being Walton, Calhoun, Gulf, Franklin, Gadsden, and Leon Counties which had small net in-migration gains. In terms of absolute magnitude, the largest net in-migration was enjoyed by Dade, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Polk, Orange, and Duval Counties, in that order. In tenns of percentage of end population, the largest gainers were Broward, Dade, Palm Beach, Orange, Lee, Pinellas, and Okeechobee Counties, in that order. On the other hand, in terms of absolute magnitude of losses, the largest net outmigration counties were Monroe, Suwannee, Jackson, Nassau, Jefferson, Madison, and Escambia Counties, in that order. In tenns of percentage of end population, the largest losers were Monroe, Suwannee, Liberty, Nassau, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton Counties, in that order.

PAGE 286

276 Land Reclamation.--Governor Hardee did not mention the Everglades in his 1925 message but in 1925 Governor Martin stated that "the State is definitely committed to the reclamation of this vast domain The project is of gigantic proportions and already millions of dollars have been expended upon the undertaking." He pointed out that many more millions would be required and that "finance and more finance is the problem confronting the Drainage Board." He announced that funding proposals would be submittd to the legislature later. In 1927, Governor Martin took the rather unusual action of delivering a special message on the Everglades in person. He recited the 24-year history beginning in 1905 when Governor Jennings investigated the legal aspects of Everglades reclamation. In 1905 the Everglades Drainage District had been initiated by Governor Broward, who completed some 15.2 miles of canal. Martin stated that the engineering and eco~ nomic aspects of drainage were both well justified but that lack of funds had been the big problem throughout. As of 1925, Martin noted, there had been a $10.s million bond issue on the Everglades backed only by an assessed valuation of $15.0 million. Thus, although the 1925 legislature authorized another bond issue of $5.0 million, the bond buyers were not interested. Martin pointed out that he had kept the work going by borrowing $400,000 from the Internal Improvement Fund and going into a $soo,ooo deficit account with the contractor. He stated that more progress had been made in the past biennium than ever before but "we have reached the end of our borrowing ability."

PAGE 287

277 Martin stated that the Drainage Board (which he headed) had no solution to propose but that, acting independently as governor, he had found New York financiers willing to take $20 million in bonds, a aum he estimated to be adequate to complete the project. He submitted this financing proposal to the legislature; the bonds to be backed by current annual income of $750,000 from the drainage tax, after coverage of interest and sinking fund payments on existing bonds. Martin declared that "this project must be completed" and that he knew of no other way. By 1929, however, another way had opened up. Governor Carlton stated that reclamation of the Everglades "has developed into a national as well as a state problem with the federal government giving promise of cooperation that will ensure the completion of this project in a proper way." In 1931, Carlton reported that substantial progress had been made and that Florida had obtained an appropriation of $7 million from Congress to be matched by $2 million from the Drainage District. He stated that work under this funding program was already under way. Capital General.--In 1925, Governor Martin told the legislatures That the manufacturing and industrial possibilities of the State may be known, I would recommend for your serious consideration the advisability of providing for an industrial survey of her natural resources by a competent commission. (19) He stated that this had never been done, though many believe "that the State is rich in minerals and other COlTIITloditiee valuable for industrial purposes." Martin also proposed the revamping of corporation laws:

PAGE 288

278 Consideration should be given to amending our general corporation laws so as to make it attractive for business people to incorporate and transact business in Florida under the most favorable conditions. (21) In 1929, Governor Carlton declared that "industrial development must be encouraged." He suggested enticement of industry by tax remission for a period of years, if they were not competitive with existing industries in the state. He noted that other states in the South were doing this. He also pointed out that "this is a counterpart to our agricultural endeavor, in furnishing~ home market for our produce and employment for labor." In 1951, Carlton repeated the substance of this paragraph. Banking.--In 1927, Martin reported that there were some 267 State banks and trust companies, plus many building and loan associations in Florida. He stated that there was too much involved for the Comptroller to supervise and he recommended that banking institutions be placed under a Banking Commissioner. In 1929, Governor Carlton stated that "our banking laws and regulations must be amended to furnish greater protection to the depositors and stockholders as well." Specifically, he suggested loan limitatione, stricter supervision by bank examiners, and restricting stock ownership of banks to individuals financially able to meet the double assessment requirement. In 1951, he noted that "in the minds of many banking presents the major issue" but he suggested a cautious approach because of the stringent 1929 State Banking Act and the current abnonnal conditions. The 1929 Act had cut the loan limit to bank personnel from 40 to 10 per cent; had set limits of 10 per cent for unsecured and 25 per cent for secured

PAGE 289

279 loans; had limited dividends to 10 per cent; had raised required surplus from 20 to 100 per cent; had provided extra liability for directors; and had given the Comptroller power to formulate banking rules and regulations. Carlton also recoITD'llended a separate Banking Department. 4 In 1951, Governor Carlton noted that state funds deposited in banks had been fully protected and that the state hadn't lost "one dollar." At the same time "our Counties and Municipalities and some of the neighboring States show the loss of millions in cloeed banks." 4see U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Banking and Moneta~ Statistics (Washington: The National Capital Press, 1943), p. 32, for statistics on Florida group and chain banking as of December 31, 1929. Only 20 per cent of all Florida banks were so categorized but they held 50.8 per cent of the state total of $151 million in total loans and investments.

PAGE 290

280 Economic Sectors General As in prior decades, Table 51 swnmarizes the absolute changes in labor force in the major economic sectors of Florida during the 19201s. Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade-Trans. Services Total TABLE 51 .ABSOLtrrE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 19201 s In 1920 1075 43 122 30 1027 754 801 3852 Labor Force i In 1950 Change 1356 +24.2 61 +21.8 67 -45.1 23 -23.4 1458 +41.9 1486 +97,0 1559 +94.6 5990 +55.5 j of Total Labor Force In In Change in 1920 1930 j Points 27.9 22.3 -5.6 1.1 1.0 0.1 3.2 1.1 -2.1 0.8 0,4 0.4 26.7 24.3 -2.4 19.6 24.8 +5.2 20.8 26.0 +5.2 100.1 99.9 -0.2 Notes Labor Force in 1001s. Source: Reference Table LS-3.

PAGE 291

281 Following the previous pattern, Table 52 sunmarizes the relative changes in labor force in major economic sectors, considering national rates of change as the nonn. TABLE 52 RELATIVE CHANGES IN SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN THE 19201s Sector Agriculture Fishing Forestry Mining Manufacture Trade Transport Services (Public) Services (Prof. ) Services (Other) Clerical Relative Change in Labor Force + 280 + 1 + 22 5 + 511 + 287 + 110 + 58 + 111 + 259 + 115 Distribution of Change j 18.5 0.1 1.5 0.3 20.5 18.9 7.2 2.5 7.5 15.7 7.4 99.9 Fla. Change as jof U .s. Change +6.49 +1.42 +7.70 -0.01 +4.58 +0.43 +7.85 +5.49 + 8.08 +9.55 ..5..81 Net Sum Total +1507 resulting from competitive sector gains +1468 +7.52 Total -Sum 39 resulting from composition losses Notes Labor Force in 1001s. Sources Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 292

282 As previously, Table 55 breaks down the composition effect by sectors, using sector proportion weights. It further provides a single swnmary measure for composition effect for the decade. TABLE 55 SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMPOSITION EFFECT IN THE 19201s Sector Services (Prof.) Services (other) Trade Clerical Transport Total Services (Public Manufacture Agriculture Mining Fishing-Forestry RaEid Growth Total Slow Growth Total Rate of U.S. Growth 1920-1930 Relative Fla. Sector Sector Contribution Rate Proportion to Composition 1920-1950 1920 Effect for State 1.518 +.545 4.5 1.55 1.455 +.282 15.6 5.85 1.455 +.360 9.2 2.59 1.287 +.ll4 5.9 0.44 1.254 +.081 7.6 0.61 8.82 1.175 .ooo 100.1 1.111 -.062 2.0 0.12 1.099 -.074 26.3 1.95 0.983 -.190 27.9 5.31 0.905 -.270 0.8 0.22 0.871 -.302 4.5 1.30 8.90 8.82 .992 Composition Index -~-Source: Unpublished shift tables.

PAGE 293

283 The highlights of the three foregoing tables may be summarized as follows. In absolute terms, Florida increased employment in all sectors except for substantial losses in both forestry and mining. In tenns of percentage of total state labor force the only sectors making gains were trade and transport and services. Agriculture, though gaining about 24 per cent during this decade, actually dropped from 27.9 to 22.3 per cent of the total state labor force between 1920 and 1930 because of the larger relative increases in the other sectors. At the beginning of this period, agriculture was the largest employer in the state, pressed closely by manufacture. At the end of the period, agriculture was in fourth place, trailing services, trade and transport, and manufactureJ in that order. Perhaps worthy of mention is a rather remarkable, if merely coincidental, four-way balance of Florida's economy in 1930. Classifying fishing, forestry, and mining with agriculture as the extractive sector, we find 24.8 per cent of Florida's total labor force in this sector; 24.3 per cent in the manufacturing sector; 24.8 per cent in the trade and transport sector; and 26.0 per cent in the services sector. In tenns relative to the national norm, the sectors which registered the largest gains were manufacturing, trade, agriculture, and services (other than professional and public services). The only losing sector was mining. In percentage of national gain in each sector, the sectors were unusually well balanced with services other than professional and public services) and trade in the 9 to 10 per cent range; professional services, transport, and forestry in the 7 to 8 per cent range; agriculture, clerical, and public services in

PAGE 294

284 5 to 6 per cent rangeJ and with manufacture about 4.5 per cent, fish ing about 1.4 per cent, and mining about zero. The over-all gains were still lees than the summation of the competitive sector gains but the differential had become quite insignificant. Competitively, Florida gained 150,700 iobs during the period, but lost 5,900 .iobs through the adverse composition effect for a net gain of 146,800 1obs, all relative to the national average. Florida actually gained 215,800 jobs during the period in absolute terms but 67,000 of the jobs represented only the national rate of job increase. The other 146,800 jobs represented gains for Florida above the national average. In terms of composition effect, Florida made substantial gains in services (other than professional and public services), in trade, and in professional services; with respective sector contributions of 41, 50, and 19 per cent. Transport and clerical sectors also contributed to the rapid growth composition effect. The other sectors were all below the average national growth rate, with agriculture and manufacturing making contributions of 62 and 25 per cent, respectively, to composition effect losses. The composition index moved up remarkably from .562 for the prior decade to .992 for the 19201s. The obvious cause was that the Florida proportion of employment in rapid growth industries to slow growth industries was increasing.5 But more important in contributing to the magnitude of this change was the radical 5The average percentage of labor force in rapid growth sectors for the first two decades was about 25 per cent; for the middle two decades about 29 per cent; and for the last two decades about 49 per cent. I

PAGE 295

shifting in national growth rates in the several sectors over the several decades. Descriptive 285 Following the pattern of prior decades, this section will introduce descriptive material relating to the economic sectors. Thia material will include pertinent items from the governors' messages and selected occupational data from the U.S. Censuses of 1920 and 1950. Agriculture.--The occupation statistics of the 1950 Census provide little agricultural detail. Only four categories are distinguished and these are not comparable with 1920. They include 52,900 farmers (owners and tenants); 2,000 farm managers and foremen; and 78,600 farm laborers, including 62,700 wage workers and 15,900 unpaid family workers. In very approximate terms, there was an increase of farmers during the decade from about 50,000 to 53,000 and an increase of farm laborers from about 53,000 to 79,000. In 1923, Governor Hardee declared that "agriculture in all of its branches, including horticulture, trucking, etc., constitutes the basic industry of Florida." Money used to encourage agriculture, he said, would produce dividends for the state. As an example, he noted that with public funds and scientific discoveries Florida had "practically eliminated cholera from hogs and tuberculosis from cattle." Also noting that "we have eradicated citrus canker" he recommended support of "investigation and experiments regarding all of the various farm crops." This meant support of the State Plant Board and the University of Florida Experiment Station, particularly. Hardee stated

PAGE 296

286 that Florida had lagged in tick eradication in relation to surrounding states and that cattle markets were closed to florida. Consequently, he reco11111ended an effective law, with an appropriation, to enforce the eradication of the cattle fever tick. Hardee also bespoke legislative support for the State Marketing Bureau, which he termed a beneficial agency; and suggested action to protect shippers from dishonest commission men. Two years later in 1925, Governor Martin reverted to the marketing problem. He recoJTll'llended a new law, or revamping of the old one, to better regulate the marketing of fruits and vegetables. He pointed out that many complaints had been received about "the shipping of green citrus fruit and the crude marketing methods in the State." And this was serious because citrus fruit and vegetables combined as a single state resource "are the most valuable from a money-producing standpoint." Also in 1925, Martin proposed a network of county cold storage plants, stating that "florida spends millions of dollars annually for eggs, meat, butter, cheese, lard, and kindred products shipped in from other States." This importation should not be necessary in his opinion, given :F1.orida1s fine agricultural lands. He therefore recommended a law "permitting counties to erect and operate cold storage plants, that the farmers in the agricultural sections of West and Central florida may have facilities for the storing of products to await favorable marketing conditions." Governor Martin had little to say about agriculture in 1927, but in 1929 Governor Carlton repeated Martin's 1925 thesis. He stated

PAGE 297

287 that agriculture "is the basic industry of Florida Sound economy forbids that we retreat in our aid to this enterprise." Despite hard times in Florida, he therefore recommended continuing, and increasing, experimental, extension, and conservation work. As to marketing, he stateds The greatest problem in connection with agriculture ie marketing. More attention must be given to the home market. We are importing approximately 75 per cent of what we consume while much of our produce ie rotting in the fields not far from the place of use and need. The facilities of our marketing commissioner should be enlarged. (5) Considering that "storage warehouses are essential to a sound marketing system," Governor Carlton proposed amending the law thereon "to authorize cooperation between the state and individuals and organizations." He also stated that the Green Fruit law violators had "cost the State in the past season millions of dollars" and he advocated padlocking their places of business and treating them as outlaws. Carlton also criticized the freight rate structure, as covered in the transportation section. In 1931, Governor Carlton reported that about $510,000 was "paid out by the State Plant Board, most of which went for the extermination of the Mediterranean Fly." He noted, however, that the Federal government had spent about twenty times as much to control the fruit fly. Carlton further reported that about $577,000 was "paid out by the State Live Stock Sanitary Board, mostly for tick eradication"; and that the state was more than half way through the tick program. Under the heading of "Research Needed," Carlton stated:

PAGE 298

288 We should next provide for research to establish from a scientific standpoint the true value of Florida's fruits and vegetables. It is confidently believed that these investigations lift these products above the level of competition. The Federal Government is now spending $10,000.00 in the State for such research which should be supplemented with like efforts by the State. (7) Carlton called for a "correct labeling" law to require shippers and manufacturers to label their products with the true point of origin. He said that "it is an interesting fact that_ grapefruit canned in Florida carries a California label." Carlton also asked for more vigor ous steps to prohibit violations of the Green Fruit law; noting that green fruit paralyzed the market and that "in these days of heavy production quality is our chief salvation." As to agriculture generally, Carlton stated: It is generally admitted that the 1929 Legislature gave agriculture the greatest impetus it has received in years by the establishment of a State Mareting Board and the Protection it gave our milk and egg production. This board has been responsible for the sale of several millions in fam products and is fast developing that co-operative effort which is essential to the farmer's success. ( 7) Fishing.--During the 19201s, the number of fishemen and oystermen increased from 4,500 to 6,100. In 1925, Governor Hardee called for conservation of freshwater fish and game under the supervision of a self-sustaining department In 1925, Governor Martin stated that fish and game were one of the most valuable of Florida's commercial assets, as well as an outdoor attraction. He reported a need for conservation and hatcheries, and stated:

PAGE 299

289 Through the administration of the general fish and oyster law, salt water fish and oysters have been very well protected and conserved. Our game and fresh-water fish have not been protected and it is doubtful if the present law can be made effective. (19) He called for a separate department to have jurisdiction over the foregoing activity. In 1929, Governor Carlton also asked for conservation measures to protect fish and game. In 1951, he noted that the Grune and Shell Fish Departments were self-sustaining and that the fish and oyster industry was yielding $15 million per year. Forestry.--Between 1920 and 1950, the ntunber of raftsmen, lumbermen, and woodchoppers increased from 5,000 to 5,900. Foresters, forest rangers, and timber cruisers numbered 155 and owners and managers of log and timber camps numbered 212 in 1950. In 1925, Governor Hardee stated that there waa no more important question for Florida than conservation of natural resources. He reported that timber was rapidly being depleted and that conservation measures, to include elimination of improper boxing for naval stores, were needed. In 1929, Governor Carlton declared: Re-forestation has been too long neglected. We are rapidly depleting what has been and is yet the State's greatest money producer, without adequate effort to replenish it. It would not be amiss to employ a reasonable severance tax to this purpose. (5) In 1951, he reported: The Forestry Board spent $51,784.71, a paltry s\llll for the reestablishment of a great resource. In fact, we are rapidly depleting what has bean and is yet the State's greatest money producer without adequate effort to replenish it; (6) Mining.--All occupations employed in the extraction of minerals suffered a net decrease from about B,000 to 2,300 during the 19201s. No occupational detail was provided by the 1920 Census, but the 1950

PAGE 300

290 Census breaks this figure down into 146 operators, managers, and officials; 159 foremen, overseers, and inspectors; 1,596 mine operatives; 541 quarry operatives; and 29 oil and gas well operatives. Manufacturing,--Employment in manufacturing increased by 42 per cent in the 19201s; but, by reason of much larger relative gains in trade and transport and in services, the manufacturing share of the state labor force decreased by 2.4 per cent, from 26.7 to 24,5 per cent. Florida contributed about 4.4 per cent of the national gains in this sector and manufacturing contributed the largest share, about 21 per cent, to Florida's relative gains. The Population Census in 1930 adopted a new method of classification of persons engaged in gainful occupations by industrial groups.6 The resulting figures, though not as detailed as the Census of Manufactures or the Occupational Statistics, probably present the sector of manufacturing more adequately in the perspective of the earlier decades. For the first time the Census categorized many linked occupations into the building industry, the largest subsector in manufacturing in 1950, with a labor force of some 50,100, Saw and planing mills was the next largest employer with 20,500; followed by cigar and tobacco factories with 14,800; automobile factories and repair shops with 6,700 ; iron and steel industries with 6,600; other food and allied industries with 4,900; independent hand trades with 4,900; chemical and allied industries with 4,200; and a variety of other industries totaling in excess of 55,000 in labor force. 6u.s. Census, 1950. Population, Table 20, p. 426.

PAGE 301

291 The Census of Manufactures, which does not include the building industry labor force, provides a table to show the percentage of in crease or decrease of (average) wage earners in the manufacturing sector for two year intervals between 1919 and 1929. Extracts from this table follow, in Table 54. Year 1919 1921 1925 1925 1927 1929 TABLE 54 BIENNIAL CH.ANGE IN AVERAGE WAGE EARNERS IN MANUFACTURING, 1919-1929 Wage Earners Average for Year 74,415 53,289 65,047 66,204 61,219 64,868 Per Cent Change in Following Biennium -28.4 +22.1 + 1.8 -7.5 + 6.0 1919-1929 -12.8 Source: U.S. Census of Manufactures: 1929, Florida, Table 1, p. 115. First of all, it should be noted that the figure of 74,415 wage earners for 1919 was an inflated war-time figure. The highest previous wage earner figure was 57,473 in 1909. It is also obvious from the foregoing paragraphs that, by one classification, manufacturing employment increased by 42 per cent in the 19201s and that, by another classification it decreased by 13 per cent. In the perspective

PAGE 302

292 of total employment, and industrial sector classification for the total period, we must necessarily consider that manufacturing employ ment did rise by 42 per cent. The Census of Manufactures does not provide a measure of labor force which is integrated with the total economy of the state. The criteria for inclusion in the Census of Manu.f'ao tures varies independently. For example, the building industries were dropped from the Census of Manufactures in 1904 and the criteria for inclusion of establishments shifted from a product value of $500 to a product value of $5,000 in the 19201s.7 It is obvious that references to a decline in manufacturing employment in Florida in the 19201a are highly misleading unless appropriately qualified. In occupational terms, Florida's carpenters increased from ll,700 to 14,300 during the decade; stationary engineers from 2,000 to 2,400; and managers and officials from 1,500 to 2,900. In tenns of the distinction between operatives and laborers, employment in the saw and planing mills included some 1,500 operatives and 14,000 laborers; turpentine distilleries employed some 400 operatives and 12,600 laborersJ the steel ship and boat building industry employed some 200 operatives and 200 laborers (about one-tenth of the 1920 level); and cigar and tobacco factories employed about 15,700 operatives and 200 laborers. One occupational category made particularly large gains, that of me chanicJ increasing from 2,600 in 1920 to 9,400 in 1950 (including 6,700 automobile mechanics) to place it in second place in the trade category-behind carpenters and ahead of painters. 7 U.S. Census of Manufactures: 1929, p. 5.

PAGE 303

By 1950, Jacksonville, Miami, and Tampa were employing about 52 per cent of the state labor force in the manufacturing sector; Tampa about 20,200, Jacksonville about 15,700, and Miami about 12,500. Tampa continued its domination of the cigar and tobacco industry with about 82 per cent of state employment therein; and this industry dominated Tampa's labor force in the manufacturing sector, contributing about 56 per cent thereof. Jacksonville was very well diversified with no industry or trade contributing more than 10 per cent of total manufacturing employment. Miami was also relatively diversified except for a heavy concentration in the building trades. Miami had more carpenters than Jacksonville and Tampa combined; twice as many laborers in building construction as Jacksonville; and four times as many laborers in building construction than did Tampa. If one excludes such industries as saw and planing mills and turpentine distilleries, which are necessarily located near raw materials sources, the concentration of the manufacturing labor force in these three cities is somewhat more pronounced. Trade and transportation.--In the trade area, retail dealers increased from 12,200 to 25,600; bankers and bank officials from 601 to 851; commercial brokers and commission men from 562 to 455; whole sale dealers, importers, and exporters from 652 to 1,255; salesmen from 5,500 to 16,500; saleswomen from 2,500 to 5,800; clerks in stores from 2,500 to 4,100 (2,600 male and 1,500 female); commercial travelers from 1,100 to 2,200J delivery men from 1,200 to 2,200; real estate agents and officials from 2,500 to 5,500; fruit graders and packers from

PAGE 304

294 1,700 to 2,0CO(both fruit and vegetable in 1930); and insurance agents from 951 to 3,362. A notable 1930 figure, not listed in 1920, is that of 489 advertising agents. In the transportation field, locomotive engineers increased from 965 to 1,135; railroad officials and superintendents from 295 to 478; railroad laborers from 5,100 to 6,800; sailors and deckhands from l ,100 to 1,200; telegraph operators from 674 to 1,054; telephone operators from 617 to 1,174; longshoremen and stevedores from 1,500 to 2,000; garage owners, managers, and officials from 448 to 807; the 1920 category of draymen, teamsters, and expressmen numbering 5,700 may be partially comparable to the 1950 category of draymen, teamsters, and carriage drivers which numbered 1,000; chauffeurs increased from 2,800 to 11,400 (including truck and tractor drivers); and road and street laborers increased from 2,100 to 4,300. The aviation induetry was newly listed in the 1930 Census with 167 aviators, 25 air transportation officials, and 123 air transportation laborers. In 1923, Governor Hardee briefly reviewed the history of the State Road Department which he described as created in 1915 not for direct building but for education. As a result of the 1916 Federal Aid Act the 1917 legislature enlarged the Road Department and increased its resources in order to "meet Federal Aid and thus secure the benefit of the National funds allotted to this State." The 1917 Act gave the Deparment the authority and means to build roads directly; and later acts in 1919 and 1921 increased these means. Hardee stated that the first duty of the Department was to build state roads, and that it had

PAGE 305

~5 done this well so he recommended no change whatever in its operations. He argued against any return to a system decentralized to the counties, so far as state roads were concerned. Road Department revenues were primarily derived from automobile licenses, a gasoline tax, and federal funds. Hardee recommended that the powers of the department be increased by giving it: eminent domain power to condemn rights of way; traffic control on state highways; supervision over truck use of public highways (with compensation for such use); and the responsibility for maintenance of trunk lines and inter-county highways. He recommended discontinuance of a one mill property tax for road building but suggested the gasoline tax be greatly increased. He again argued that Florida would never have a well-connected system of public roads if building were localized. In 1925, Governor Martin stated that the estimated Road Department revenues for 1925 would be about $8 million and that the department could effectively spend "not more than Twelve Million Dollars annually." He therefore recommended that the legislature raise four million dollars more by raising gasoline and license taxes and adding taxes on lubricating oil and on trucks and busses (proportionate to road damage). He advised taxing, rather than bonding, because of costly interest charges and he declared: A system of hard-surfaced highways will hasten as nothing else the developnent of Florida. The people are willing to be taxed for the thing that they know will enhance the value of their property and make life happier.

PAGE 306

296 In 1927, Governor Martin reported great progress in road construction and stated that ample money had been provided. He recommended elimination of a one-fourth mill levy on property and stated that "with the other sources . left intact, we will soon have the finest system of highways of any state in the South and the State of Florida incurs no obligation in their construction." Martin suggested that the Motor Vehicle License Department be separated from the Comptroller's Department. He cited the estimated 1927 income of this department to be about $7 million, based on 600,000 license tags. In 1929, Governor Carlton advised the legislature to keep the highways out of politics and preserve the current revenues of the Road Department. He suggested that rights-of-way be secured on the basis of future traffic; and that a highway beautification program be considered because Florida "makes its bid to the visitor." In 1931, Carlton reported that some $10 million went to Road Construction and Maintenance in 1930 (about half of the total state controlled disbursements). Noting that much less money would be so employed in 1951, he stated: It is immaterial to the present issue whether this should be considered as a cost of government or a public improvement. It is interesting to observe, however, that our road system as an investment yields an annual revenue by way of gasoline and motor tax equal to 5 per cent on $300,000,000.00. (5) He further estimated that cost to the motorist was about $.004 per mile of travel, as contrasted with savings of about $.OS per mile over travel costs on dirt roads. Among factors to be considered by the legislature in formulating the road program he noted thatz the Road Department

PAGE 307

297 received 2i of the 6i gasoline tax and 70 per cent of the license tax; Florida got double value on road expenditures because of federal matching funds; the Road Department carried the burden of 1,250 convicts; the Road Department was maintaining over 4,000 miles of county roads; and road construction helped unemployment. As to the latter, he commented that "public employment is better by far than private charity or a public charge." In 1927, Governor Martin referred to the transportation developnents in 1925 when Florida transportation facilities "were ta)Ced beyond their ability to serve." For a time railroad embargoes were necessary to permit essential traffic but railroad facilities generally were greatly expanded. He noted that: the Florida East Coast Railroad "has double-tracked moat of its entire system from Jacksonville to Miami'; the Seaboard Airline Railroad "has built hundreds of miles of new railroad"; and the Atlantic Coast Line and other railroads "have increased their building program." Freight rates were not stressed in gubernatorial messages of the 19201s, except by Governor Carlton in 1929. He stated that "we have seen one agricultural enterprise after another forced to the wall because of unfair rate adjustment." He proposed a canmission to study the rate structure and to bring the influence of the state to bear on "transportation companies and our Interstate Commerce Commission." Carlton declared that "Florida's future, not only from an agricultural but from an industrial standpoint, depends to a large extent on this relief.118 8In addition to the previously cited Joubert book on freight rates, anyone interested in the effect of these rates on Florida's

PAGE 308

298 In 1925, Governor Martin recommended that the legislature establish a conmission to make a "physical and economical [economic] survey of the Florida Coast Line Canal" to report on necessary steps to "make this waterway one of the State's main arteries of commerce." In 1927, Martin noted that the legislature had only appropriated $10,000 for this purpose and that he had taken no action because that amount was insufficient to get results. He recommended an adequate appropriation for this survey and added some details on the contract issue involved. The contract, of some years standing between the Internal Improvement Fund and the Florida Coast Line Canal and Transportation Company, required the company to dig and maintain a SO-foot wide by 6-foot deep canal, in return for the deeding of some 1.2 million acres of state land. Martin stated that the company was not living up to this agreement and should be made to do so--or pessession be sought. It will be recalled that Governor Tranrnell had made an effort to federalize this canal, back in 1915. Services.--In the professional category in the 19201s, clergymen increased from 2,000 to 5,000; dentists from 432 to 688; civil engineers and surveyors from 621 to 1,575; mechanical engineers from 360 to 372; lawyers, judges, and justices from 1,100 to 2,600; physicians from 1,400 to 1,800; school teachers from 5,600 to 11,500 (1,700 male and economic development should Merrill S. Roberts and Truman C. Bigham, Citrus Fruit Rates Economic A raisal (Gainesville1 nivers yo ori a as, A orewor to is book by Walter J. Matherly emphasizes the importance of these rates as factors in regional competition. (P. v.) The authors states "No set of prices has a greater impact on economic develoJJ!lent than railroad rate structures ( P. 1. )

PAGE 309

299 9,600 female); and trained nurses from 1,000 to 2,800. No 1920 figures were listed for the following categories; but from 1910 to 1930, actors increased from 135 to 259; college presidents and professors from 267 to 546 (including 329 male and 217 female); and veterinary surgeons from 30 to 110. Some notable 1930 professional occupations, not previously listed, include some 507 electrical engineers; 169 county agents and farm demonstrators; 273 social and welfare workers; and 477 artists, sculptors, and teachers of art. Also under professional services are listed two catch-all categories including 2,500 semiprofessional and recreational workers and 2,700 professional service attendants and helpers. These categories include such diverse groups as 247 abstracters, notaries, and justices of the peace; 339 billiard room, dance hall, skating rink, etc., keepers; 215 keepers of charitable and penal institutions; 264 keepers of pleasure resorts, race tracks, etc.; and 30 radio announcers, directors, managers, and officials. In the field of public services (not elsewhere classified), there was an increase of national officials from 531 to 1,014 in the 1920's. The 1920 figures at the state, county, and city levels do not appear comparable but from 1910 to 1930, over the 20-year period, state officials increased from 96 to 464; county officials from 526 to 496; and city officials from 301 to 710. During the decade of the 19201s, armed forces strength decreased from 2,800 to 1,900; policemen increased from 361 to 1,189; and firemen increased from 322 to 854. In the field of domestic and personal services, servants increased from 18,500 to 40,000; including 16,000 cooks and 24,000 other

PAGE 310

300 servants (coincidentally, 4,500 of each category was employed in public establishments). Launderers and laundresses (not in laundry) increased from 16,600 to 21,100; laundry operatives from 1,000 to 3,700; nurses (not trained) from 1,300 to 2,400 (plus 210 midwives, up from 145 in 1910); hotel keepers and managers increased from 1,000 to 1,500; restaurant, cafe, and lunch room keepers from 1,100 to 2,900; boarding and lodging house keepers from 1,800 to 2,600; waiters from 1,400 to 2,100; and waitresses from 1,300 to 3,100. Saloon keepers and bartend-ers remained sub rosa. Among some other notable 1930 occupations was the old one of hunters, trappers, and guides totaling 546, a new high for the total period; and the relatively new one of elevator tenders, numbering 411. In the clerical field, accountants and auditors increased from 544 to 1,817; bookkeepers and cashiers from 4,000 to 7,400; stenographers and typists from 2,800 to 6,800; and clerks (except clerks in stores) from 5,600 to 12,100 (8,400 male and 5,700 female). A notable category was that of 2,500 agents, collectors, and credit men, perhaps roughly comparable to a composite 1920 total of about 1,200 agents, collectors and canvassers.

PAGE 311

CHAPI'ER X POSTSCRIPT Conventionally, a summarization or a conclusion is presented at this point. Alternatively, one views development in retrospect and then in prospect. This study is different. Such summarization as was undertaken is included in the preliminary chapters. Following a broad survey, which leaves so much material untouched, speculation seems more appropriate than conclusion. Deriving prospect from retrospect would be post-game quarterbacking for the period from 1930 to date; and would be using but a small part of the crystal ball from this date hence. Thie brief chapter is thus modestly titled "Postcript." Aggre~ation This study has attempted to deal with the aggregation problem in three major aspectsJ space, time, and industrial structure. Spa tially, Florida has been considered as part of the national aggregate of states and as an aggregation of counties. Temporally, the period considered has been disaggregated by decades but little has been done to place this period within the over-all historical period. Sectorally, the seven major sectors have been considered in some detail, in terms of labor force, but only a descriptive disaggregation of each sector, in occupational terms, has been possible. 501

PAGE 312

' ,.', 302 Space.--In spatial terms, one might generalize that the economic development of the Florida areas contiguous to Georgia and Alabama has paralleled that of the deep South while that of peninsular Florida has been typical of that of an expanding frontier. Some of the reasons for peninsular development might be classified in terms of locational environment, natural resources, physical events, historical events, and psychological influences. In terms of locational environment, Florida pointed to Latin America, bestrode sea lines of communication, and was caressed by the Gulf Stream. Among the natural resources which pulled development southward were phosphate mines, grazing lands, and rich muck lands. Important among the physical events were the great freezes of the 18901s, which pushed the locus of Florida population southward. Among the historical events were the warsJ the Spanish American War, World War I, and post-Civil War effects. Among the psychological in fluences one might mention the impulse to push to the periphery of the frontier, an impulse which may have largely motivated Flagler1s railroad to Key West and other large entrepreneurial enterprises. Perhaps ananalag~psychological influence is that which brings one to the frontier of a dissertation before the intervening gaps are well populated with facts, interpretatively developed. Time.--In temporal terms, it seems that the New South faltered about the turn of the century, at a time when Florida alone had gained the momentum for a sustained advance. In terms of Southern migration, Florida's experience had been unique over the period. The South had walled off any substantial divergence from the Westward flow of migration

PAGE 313

303 until the "settlement of the frontier" at the end of the century. But then the minor Southern frontier of peninsular Florida became significant; migration washed over the dikes of the South. In the proceea, it appears, many other Southerners were caught in the now. Sector.--In sectoral terms, Florida's development from 1870 to 1930 was characterized by a remarkably smooth transition from an economy which was 76 per cent primary (the extractive sectors), 7 per cent secondary (manufacturing), and 17 per cent tertiary (all other sectors) to an economy which was 25 per cent primary, 24 per cent secondary, and 51 per cent tertiary. The primary sectors, though de creasing rapidly in over-all proportion, yet made very notable contributions to Florida's gains relative to the national average. The agricultural sector, largely through its diversity, contributed its full share to Florida's economic development, in sharp contrast to the experience of its neighbors in the deep South and in strong parallel to the experience of California. The manufacturing sector, despite its lack of diversity and close dependence on the primary sectors, was the most stable contributor to Florida's relative gains. In manufacturing, however, the experience of Florida was rather paralleled by the experience of its neighbors, though in lesser magnitude. The tertiary sector contributed about half of Florida's gains over the total period, with the services sector generally leading the trade and transportation sector. Here Florida's experience was in sharp contrast to that of Georgia and Alabama, which only managed to keep approximately in pace with over-all national growth. And again, Florida's e~perience was

PAGE 314

B04 closely paralleled by that of California in both of these tertiary sectors, except for the decade of the 18801s when California suffered relative reversal in all sectors. To sum up the sectoral picture, it is clear that the industrial structure of Florida changed radically over the period. Yet, as measured by the labor force variable, each of the major industrial sectors consistently contributed to Florida's relative gains over the period; and, in almost every case, for each decade of the period. Agglomeration This study may be considered to have resulted in me"salliance, if not miscegnation, in its attempt to ccmbine a rather rudimentary statistical approach to Florida's economic develoi:inent with a rather simple descriptive hypothesis based on the governors' messages. Ample justification can be offered for the attempt but none is proffered as to the result. It is considered that both approaches to a description of economic development are potentially useful and that there is no inherent reason why the combined approach should not operate to provide a better view of Florida's economic development; admittedly more blurred but, hopef'ully, more real. More blurred, in that the relationships between institutional background and measures of economic development are usually vague and tenuous at best. More real, in that these statistical measures have little meaning except when oriented to the institutional variables of their time.

PAGE 315

305 Continuation This rather broad-brush treatment of six decades of Florida's economic development brings us up to 1930. This is a logical point of tennination for this study in several respects. The nature of census data changes markedly thereafter and the implicit assumption of full employment should probably be discarded. There is no reason, however, why the general methodology of this study cannot be applied to the treatment of the three full decades since 1930. Since each decade is treated as a temporal structural unit many of the problems of long-run time-series are avoided. The census data available since 1950 would also facilitate further spatial and sectoral disaggregation. Enumerated county labor force data are available for these three decades and the major industrial sectors are disaggregated on a comprehensive and systematic basis. Furthermore, the last three decades have been more intensively analyzed than theretofore. The results of these analyses would aid greatly in achieving added depth in any up-dating of this story of F1.orida1s economic development.

PAGE 316

PART II METHOOOLOGY

PAGE 317

CHAPTER XI MEASURING ECONOMIC DEVELOFMENT Introduction This chapter will generally relate to the various aspects of the measurement of economic development. The next section will briefly note a few items from the vast literature on economic develop ment which appear to have some pertinence to this study. The third section will discuss some of the measures of economic development used in practice and identify the primary measures adopted for this disser tation. The fourth section will relate to the general methodology used in developing these measures and in manipulating the labor force measure (the shift technique). The fifth section will briefly discuss the subject of productivity in tenns of its components. These are largely unmeasurable but must be given some consideration to keep our selected measures in perspective. Notes on Economic Development Regional Approach Implicit in the title of this study is the regional approach. Florida is a unique region of the nation and it is composed of many unique spatial elements. The economic development of Florida is a part of, and a function of, the economic development of both the :307

PAGE 318

308 United States and these constituent elements. Neither the macro nor the micro picture is complete without the intennediate regional connection. Isard writes that "Broadly speaking, economic evolution stems from the action of technologic man upon the elements of his physical enviromnent.111 He begins his study of basic develonent processes by writing: ''We may imagine an area at the start isolated from other areas because of the friction of distance. Upon this area of varying topography and uneven resource content settlement takes place.112 He develops the fundamental importance of transport considerations. He writes that "location and trade are as the two sides of the same coin. The forces detennining one simultaneously detennine the other.115 According to Mookerjee, the differential endowment of productive factors, which varies with regional location, is regarded by 0hlin as the "most important single factor governing trade.114 And Mookerjee underwrites Iaard's coin by pointing out "the tendency of factor supplies themselves to change in response to, and as a result of, trade."5 The regional approach is, of course, supra-economic. It crosses many disciplines, as recognized by Isard. He writes that his emphasis 1Isard, Location, p. 1. 2 ~-, p. 2. 3rbid.' p. 6. 4subimal Mookerjee. Factor Endowments and International Trade (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1958), p. 10. 5Ibid., p. 95.

PAGE 319

309 on economic analysis results from recent analytic advances by regional economists and he advocates "further research, particularly on general political and sociological theory for a system of regions" so that "this imbalance in regional science can be rectified in part.116 Theory, History and Statistics A recent book review referred to "that always-to-be-hoped-for achievement--the integration of economic theory and economic history" and added later "what is needed is.the smell of a country--figures, events, time series, and types of organization drawn from the past of a country do not constitute its history.117 There is an element of truth in this statement but smell alone is not enough to attract economic theory to history. Quantitative structure could, however, convert this smell to a seductive nerfume wedding history to theory--with a miscarriage always possible. William N. Parker writes that statistics merely show the size of phenomena and that: A complete economic history must bring to bear a wide variety of non-quantitative variables and a generous amount of speculation about motivations and about the size and nature of those parts of the historical environment of which only a bare sample remains. 8 6Isard, Methods, p. xii. Also see Walter Isard, "The Value of the Regional Approach in Economic .Analysis" in Regional Income, Vol. 21 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 69 ff. 7 Neale, The Journal of Economic History, XXI, No. 1, p. 107. 8National Bureau of Economic Research, Trends in the American Econom in the Nineteenth Cantu Studies in Income and Wealth, o. 24 rinceton1

PAGE 320

The main difference between the statisticians' problems of historical measurement and the economic historians' problems in narration is that the former are embarrassingly explicit The use of careful measurements and bold estimates of the size of unlmowns must ultimately feed and guide, rather than restrict, historical imagination.9 510 These statements appear to portray the most useful concept of the relationship of economic statistics and economic history to economic theory. Careful measurements of the lmown and bold estimates of the unlmown should contribute to economic history and help it answer the major theoretical question within its province: "By what socioeconomic mechanism was this record of economic change produced?1110 Factors in Economic Development In his summary and synthesis chapter on general theories of economic develorment, Higgins defines the term "economic development" as the age-old problem of how to "assure continually rising standards of living," or, fundamentally, "rising per capita incomes." He attempts a degree of preciseness in defining the term further as "a discernable rise in total and in per capita income, widely diffused through occupational and income groups, continuing for at least tw ~enerations, and becoming cumulative.1111 Higgins concludes that we do not have a general theory of economic development and quotes Kuznets in confinnation.12 9 Ibid., p. 9. lOibid p. 5 11Benjamin Higgins, and Policies (New York: W. 12Ibid., p. 212.

PAGE 321

311 Higgins does, however, point out that "all theories of economic development from Adam Smith to Hansen, relate increases in per capita income to four major factors: capital accumulation, population growth, discoveries of new resources, and technological progress.1113 A favorable conjuncture of all these factors was responsible for the rapid development of this nation. Higgins further refers to the impact of political, sociological, and technological factors (e.g., resource endowment). Williamson and Buttrick lists nine factors in economic)evelop ment under the heading of contributed subject chapters on each. In order these factors are natural resources, demographic patterns, work force, capital formation, entrepreneurship and technological change, consumption patterns, migration of capital, people, and technology, cultural factors, and government. 14 These factors essentially cover the same ground as covered by Higgins. For example, the factor of consumption patterns is considered by Higgins as part of his sociological factor. In a recent article Galbraith lists four internal factors he considers crucial in the economic develonent of underdevelop~d countries. These relate to a substantial degree of literacy and an intellectual elite; a substantial measure of social .iustice; reliable apparatus of public administration; and a clear and purposeful view of 13 Ibid p. 239 14 Harold F. Williamson and John A. Buttrick (eds.), Economic Develotment: Principles and Patterns (Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, nc., l954J.

PAGE 322

312 what development involves.15 These factors may be construed as im plicit in one or more of the factors in the preceding lists. Hoselitz agrees with Higgins that "economic development is measured by the growth of per capita real output of a society" and concludes that "we must, to build a theory of development, detemine the functional interdependence between the level of per capita output 16 and other variables." He concedes that this ie a limited objective but cautionss The attempt to develop a general, universally valid, theory of economic and cultural change may lead into the impenetrable .iungle iri which have been lost so many who searched the way to the formulation of a general theory of history.17 Nevertheless he argues that we need more than a theory of economic growth in purely economic terms, we need a theory "relating economic development to cultural change.1118 Or, one might add, vice versa. Stages of Economic Developnent Hoselitz distinguishes five major systems of economic stages, as developed by the writers of the historical school, and attributes them to Friedrich List, Bruno Hildebrand, Karl Bucher, Guetav Schmoller, and Werner Sombart. 19 Using current but analagoue terminology he writes 15 John Kenneth Galbraith, "A Positive Approach to Economic Aid," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 39, No. 3 (April, 1961), p. 444. 1 6Bert F. Hoselitz, Sociological Asrects of Economic Growth (Illinois& The Free Prees of Glencoe, l960, p. 28. 17Ibid., p. 25. 18Ibid., p. 24. 19~., p. 16.

PAGE 323

313 that List (1841) "distinguishes between economic systems in which primary, secondary, or tertiary production predominates." Hildebrand (1864) chose "the organization of distribution as the distinct1ve mark for his atages.1120 Schmoller1s classification (1864) is a kind of political hierarchy with regional and temporal overtones. His stages are the village or manorial economy; the town economyJ the territorial (or provincial) economyJ and the national economy. Hoselitz writes that Buchers' stages (1893) were "types of socio-economic structures distinguishing between the closed domestic economy, the town economy, and the national economy.1121 His criteria were the division of labor and social complexity. Sombart used a social criteria to distinguish the stages of capitalism. In addition to a pre-capitalist stage he distinguished between "early capitalism, high capitalism, and late capitalism. 1122 These various systems are limited in applicability by the historical orientation and environment of the authors. Hoaelitz suggests an attempt to "distinguish merely between two 'stages,' that preceding and that following a period of rapid economic advance.1125 In addition he suggests some consideration of the nature of the transition. This, 20rbid., p. 17. 21Ibid., p. 18. 22I hid., p. 20. 25Ibid., p. 21.

PAGE 324

514 of course, is reminiscent of the three stages of Rostow, which might be tenned the precondition stage, the take-off stage, and the sustained growth stage.24 Higgins finds this latter division into three stages to be use ful in assessing the lessons of history. He identifies the criteria for the take-off stage to include certain "necessary but not sufficient" conditionss a. a rise in the proportion of net investment to national income (e.g., from 5 to over 10 per cent), "definitely outstripping the likely population pressure"; b. "appearance of one or more manufacturing sectors with high rates of growth"; and c. "existence or quick emergence of a political, social, and institutional framework which exploits the impulses to expansion . 1125 During the take-off stage, Higgins writes: Three kinds of sector will appear in the economys primary growth sectors, with particularly favorable opportunities for innovation and resource discovery; supplementary growth sectors, which expand as a response to, or requirement of, advance in the primary sectors (coal, iron, and engineering in relation to railroads)J and derived growth sectors, where advance responds to growth of national income, output, or some other overall, modestly increasing parameter.26 24Higgins, p. 235. 25~., p. 256. 26rbid., p. 257.

PAGE 325

315 Measures of Economic Development There are many measures of economic activity and change, both conceptual and practical. Lee emphasizes the measures of migration, redistribution of the labor force, redistribution of manufacturing activity, and redistribution of income.27 Saville writes that: "Three basic measures--population movement, industrial shifts, and income modification--reflect intersectional change.1128 Johnson writes that: "Income is the best single index of what is happening to the economy of a nation, a state, or a county,1129 An e ditorial note in the same book softens this statement to read: "one of the best measures of economic well-being.115 Kafoglis writes that income is a dependable and inclusive measure of economic activity.31 Dunn writes that: "While employment alone is far from a perfect measure of relative change in volume of activities, it would seem to be the best measure, and employ ment changes are also significant in and of themselves.1152 The latter 27 Lee, Population. 28Lloyd Saville, "Sectional Developnents in Italy and the United States," The Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1 (July, 1956), p. 39. 29John L. Johnson, Income in Kentucky (Lexington, University of Kentucky Press, 1955), p. 1. 50 ~-, p. viii. 51Madelyn L. Kafoglis, "An Analysis of Methodology of County Income Estimation" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1961), p. i. 52Perloff, Regions, p. 295,

PAGE 326

516 phrase, as to the further significance of employment changes, may have several meanings: (1) the fact that labor force, population characteristics, and migration are all treated in like units (the individual htm1an being), which simplifies analysis of inter-relationshipsJ (2) that this htm1an being can be both a member of the labor force and a constm1er of the produce of theJabor force;and (5) that the htm1an being is more than an economic measure--he is the common meeting point of many influences, ethical, social, political, and economic.35 This study will highlight the measures of migration and labor force. However, in view of the emphasis given to income as an important economic measure, it may be useful in this section to compare and contrast the measures of labor force and income to show their common ground and their differences. Certain of these differences are implicitly brought out at the end of the preceding paragraph. Another difference between them is their relative sensitivity to the effects of cyclical fluctuation. It seems a plausible hypothesis that property income is more sensitive than labor income as a component of total income. It also appears probable that labor income is a more sensitive measure 35.Many other comments as to measures of economic change might be cited. Maunder writes that: "Employment is among the most basic of the many aspects of economic conditions which might be studied." W. F. Maunder, Em lo ent in an Underdevelo ed Area ( New Haven: Yale Uni versi ty Press, 1960, p. v. Kuznets writes that: "The value of the [labor force] data lies in the fact that, unlike the income totals, they are not affected by differential levels of prices for identical goods and resource inputs among the states; and they reflect the grouping of population by its direct participation in the various sectors of the country's productive system." Simon Kuznets, "Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations. III. Industrial Distribution of Income and Labor Force by States, United States, 1919-21 to 1955." Economic Developnent and Cultural Change, Vol. 6, No. 4, Pt. 2 (July, 1958), p. 1.

PAGE 327

317 than labor force, particularly for the period 1870 to 1930 when the wage structure was less rigid. The net effect of these two tendencies would tend to make labor force less sensitive to cyclical fluctuation and therefore a better trend measure for the purposes of this study.54 .. Another difference between these two measures is the added susceptibility of the income measure to possible distortions caused by regional differ ences in price levels and trends. On the other hand, income is a more incluaive measure in that it includes the economic effect of property income and has a built-in wage scale. Income is a more impersonal measure (dollars are more impersonal Mrt may be well at this point to introduce a brief table to show the relative stage of the national business cyole at the decennial points where most of the measurements used in this study are taken. Year AEEroximate Stasa of the Cycle mm Trough 1880 Midway, Trough to Peak 1890 Peak 1900 Trough 1910 Peak 1920 Peak 1930 One-third Way, Peak to Trough This table is derived from: Geoffrey H. Moore (ed.), Business Cycle Indicators (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), Appendix A., ~ 670. Also see Alvin H. Hansen, Business ~cles and National Income (New Yorks W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1951~ Table II, p. 24, which identifies seven major cycles between 1865 and 1938 in terms of output of durables, including magnitude of change; and Table III, p. 41, which identifies the four building cycles from 1864 to 1934. The relative stage of the business cycle is only one of the many distortions which relate to taking measurements at regular decennial intervals. For example, the effect of heavy migration in 1892 would be very different from its effect in 1898 in influencing decennial labor force participation rates. Then there are regional differences which are largely unexplored.

PAGE 328

318 than men) and thus perhaps has the advantage in better isolating economic activity from other human activity. Income may also be a more useful measure in relation to inter-country comparisons between dissimilar peoples. Doubtless many more differences between these two measures could be identified but probably the similarities are more significant and should next be considered. County income estimation is primarily concerned with personal income. At the national level, personal income is measured by deducting from national income all incomes earned in current production but not received by persons and by adding to it the incomes received by persona but not earned in current production. National income, itself, ia the aggregative earnings of labor and property which arise from the current production of goods and services by the Nation's economy.35 The aggregative earnings of labor may be considered as a summation of the subtotals resulting from multiplication of the labor force in each industrial sector by the average earnings in the respective sector. Symbolically: thus I=~ E W + I S a p where I total personal income; Ii= labor earnings; Ip s property earnings; Es labor force in specific industrial sector; and Wac average wage in the related sector. Full employment is aesumed. 35u.s. Department of Commerce, National Income Unit, National Incornea A Supplement to the Survey of Current Business, 1954 edition, pp.51-58.

PAGE 329

519 Conceptually, the income measure, disregarding property income, corresponds to the labor force measure, eectorally weighted by average wage. Labor earnings are by far the largest component of personal income and it follows that there is a high degree of association between the measures of income and labor force, particularly if the latter is sectorally weighted by average wagea.56 This association is used in county income estimation. Kafoglis writes that since the 1950's good basic county employment data has been available on covered industries but there has been a need for estimates of total employment to "eliminate much of the inaccuracy as well as the tedious duplication of effort which is involved in the estimation of income for the uncovered group.1157 As another example of this utilization, Kafoglis writes that in making certain income ad,justments: "The adjustment factor found to be most satisfactory in reflecting general economic change in an area was the increase or decrease in wage and salary employment. A test of this factor indicated a .99 correlation with Census employment data."58 In describing short-cut methods of county income estimation Kafoglis writes: "Researchers have turned to the employment statistics in the Census of Population which are reported 5 6!.abor earnings in 1880 were 85 per cent of U.S. personal income and 87 per cent of Florida personal income; in 1900, 84 and 86 per cent, respectively; and in 1920, about 81 per cent for both the U.S. and Florida. Computed from Lee, Population, pp. 755-7. 57Kafoglis, p. 27. "Covered" relates to coverage by social security programs. 58Ibid., p. 28.

PAGE 330

520 according to residence. These employment data are then weighted by .. average industry wages.1159 Wage and salary income (functionally related to labor force) is not only the largest component of personal incomeJ it is the most reliable, in contrast to property income in general and rental income (probably the least reliable component) in particular.40 In summary, one might aay that both labor force and income (among others) are useful measures of economic activity, that there is a high degree of association between them, and that the choice of which to use depends largely on the purpose sought and the data available.41 Furthermore, one can say that labor force is both the most important and the most reliable element in the income measure of economic activity. The problem of units of measurement of economic activity is a pervasive one. Keynes devotes a major section of The General Theory to justification of the wage-unit (the money-wage of a labor-unit) for his purposes.42 Hansen, in his Guide to Keynes, writes in effect that this was largely lost motion. Wage-units are about as defective as 59~., p. 35. 40Ibid., p. 97. 41 Greenhut and Jackson write that "we have adopted a gross rather than a net income approach. National income theory is essentially employment theory, and the conventional net income approach by its very nature, imperfectly reflects the relationship between employ ment and income." Melvin L. Greenhut and Frank H. Jackson, Intenne diate Income and Growth Theory (Englewood Cliffst Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. iv. 42John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Emplo~ent, Interest, and Money (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1 8), p. 57.

PAGE 331

521 most other units.45 Perhaps the most useful unit of measurement over the years is the number of gainfully employed--in its several variations and aggregations. Of course the worker himself is a rather variable unit, both as a producer and as a consumer (at least above subsistence levels). But the selection of this unit has important advantages, not the least being the convenience of integration with population and migration studies. The gainfully employed worker is thus used as the basic unit of measurement of the volume of economic activity in this study. This unit of measurement has many defects, especially for the period covered herein. Problems of enumeration and classification provide difficulties, as in the dichotomy of occupational versus industrial classification. But the major problem is that this unit, prior to 1950, is available on a comprehensive basis only at the state level, so far as the censuses are concerned. This study purports to work up what are called "labor force estimates" for the substate level--counti~ or comparable county groupings. But in reality these estimates are based upon an artificial unit of measurement which one might call eauls; derived from ~conomic ~ctivity ~it, _!abor ~tandard. The "labor standard" element of this unit is based upon the use of a nationally integrated state labor force series as a parameter control for the substate series. But, although the summation of the county eauls will equal the state labor force control figure 43Alvin H. Hansen, A Guide to Keynes (New Yorki McGraw-Hill, 1955), p. 44. .,

PAGE 332

522 for any specific time and sector, the eauls themselves are not labor force unite in the sense of gainfully employed workers. They are a composite which partakes largely of the nature of the allocators employed 1n their derivation and may include such elements as productivity, capital, and technology. Nevertheless the composite nature of eauls should not be alleged to be an unduly serious defect if this nature is recognized. The worker himself is nonhomogeneous with others and is also a composite with variable productivity, capital, and technology elements similar to those which affiict eauls. Thus, it is considered that eauls are roughly comparable to workers, and every effort is made to keep them so through the selection of allocators, the introduction of scattered external evidence, and the employment of labor force participation rates as county parameters. In any event it is considered that the distribution of eauls and workers, and changes in the direction and magnitude of their distribution, are sufficiently related to justify some hope that eauls may be productively employed in the study of economic developnent. This transient introduction of eaula into this study is intended as a general defense for the generation of county labor force estimates through employment of a miscellany of allocators. It is to eliminate the need for the specific defense of any one allocator. It is to emphasize that in labor force estimates at the county level the labor force units are eauls, not workers, but that they are first cousins.

PAGE 333

Methodology County Labor Force Estimation In the course of developing a methodology of county labor force estimates by the trial and error process an awareness developed of the analogous methodology employed in county income estimation. Formula, aggregation, allocation, correlation, and combination methods are applicable in either methodology. The principal difference is that current county income estimation can also employ census and sampling methods that are not possible in historical labor force estimation. The methodology of county income estimation has developed a small body of literature during the past twelve years. Two handbooks on this methodology are available, dated 1952 and 1955. In addition the writer has been given access to the working draft of a dissertation titled An Analysis of Methodology of County Income Estimation. The author of this analysis has been engaged in the field of county income estimation since its inception and has participated in the actual preparation of estimates in the states of Kentucky, Ohio, and Florida. This analysis has been very helpful in reviewing this field and ensuring that this review is quite current.44 Since much of the literature on the methodology of county income estimation is available in published fonn, and since a similar methodology is employed in the present study in developing county labor force 44Kafoglis. The two handbooks mentioned are: John L. Johnson, Incane in Kentucky (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1955); and Lewis C. Copeland, Methods for Estimatin Income ents to C oun-ties (Bureau of Populat on and conomic Researc, n varsity o Virginia, Charlottesville, 1952).

PAGE 334

324 estimates, it is considered that an extended description, criticism, and defense of the methodology can be excluded from this study, This area is covered to some degree in the two handbooks cited above and thoroughly covered in the dissertation cited. The use of this methodology in county labor force estimation differs from its use in county income estimation in several respects. County income estimation has generally been conffuE:rl to the period since 1950 and has actually employed in its estimation county labor force data which has been available directly from the U.S. Census since that year. County labor force estimation, on the other hand, is concerned with the period prior to 1930, when census labor force data at the county level was nonexistent. A decade is considered a long period in county income estimation and much of the methodology is concerned with "filling-in" the period between the benchmarks of the decennial (and other) censuses. In this study the period is six decades and the only real benchmark is that of 1930. The filling-in process in county income estimation is accomplished in various ways, some of which involve assumptions of the stability of certain income contributing components within the decennial period. The "filling-out" process in county labor force estimation also depends partly on assumptions as to the stability of specified relationships over a portion (or all of the longer period. As an additional justification, it may be argued generally that the pace of structural change was less swift, and the pattern less complex, in the decades before 1930 than in those since.

PAGE 335

325 Another difference in the application of this methodology, as between income and labor force, is that vastly more and better data areavailable for county income estimation after 1930 than for county labor force estimation prior to 1930. This data advantage, however, may be largely offset by the increasing complexity of our economic institutions and structure since 1930. The advent of social insurance, for example, was accompanied by better sources of data but also by complications in the structure of national income. The construction of labor force estimates with the aid of "allocators" carries with it considerable risk of circularity. A major objective in developing these estimates is to employ them in an analysis which seeks to reveal economic structure. But the selection of the allocators involves explicit or implicit assumptions as to economic structure. The circularity is manifest. Fortunately checks do exist. If the assumptions are seriously wrong incongruities will tend to develop. Independent bits of evidence are available. The consistency of the whole over successive periods provides limiting conditions. Disaggregation and reaggregation of spatial units and economic sectors reveals weaknesses for added study. Comparisons with separately developed series, such as that for migration, may be used to reduce the possibility of circularity in the construction of labor force estimates. A continuing awareness of this problem will in itself tend to nullify it. All in all, the danger exists of wandering in circles in the midst of all these data but there are many trees to blaze and the right direction, if not the straight path, appears achievable.

PAGE 336

326 Shift Technique This research design is based upon an analysis of changes over time in the structure of economic activities by economic sector and by selected region. These changes are computed statistically in terms of shifts in economic activity, as measured by such variables as employ ment, population data including migration, and such other economic and social dimensions as can be developed. These shifts are then decomposed into two contributory factors which require different but converging analytical approaches. The first factor is that of the composition of the economic activities of one region relative to other regions. Regions which specialize in rapid-growth sectors will tend to grow faster than other regions, other things being equal, and will experience net inward composition shifts. The second factor is that of the competition of the economic activities of one region with the like activities of other regions. Regions which enjoy a relative gain in comparative economic advantage will tend to grow faster than other regions, other things being equal, and will experience net inward competition shifts. These two factors can be identified and separated statistically. The competition shifts are the algebraic summation, by region, of the net shifts in the chosen variable in each economic sector; at any selected level of aggregation by sector and by region. The composition shifts then equal the differences between these computed competition shifts and the total regional shifts in the variable being measured.

PAGE 337

527 Alternatively, the composition shifts can be derived through a weighted average of the differential national growth rates, by sector, using regional composition weights. In this study the shift technique is applied only to an analysis of the changes from 1870 to 1950 in the labor force of the some seven major industrial sectors; and then only to the relationship of state-testate and state-to-nation. Further description of the shift technique is considered unnecessary since, in application, it is developed on a step-by-step basis in Chapter III. It is further discussed, both in 45 theory and in application, in Regions, Resources, and Economic Growth, Productivity Thie section might be considered a digression from the methodological part of this study in the sense of having anything to do with the methodology of developing quantitative estimates. In a broader sense, however, this section seems not only appropriate but necessary, As briefiy developed in the following paragraphs, productivity looms larger than labor input in economic development. Though not readily susceptible to treatment by comprehensive quantitative estimation on a regional basis, productivity must surely be considered in some form, In this broader sense, then, productivity has been brought within the larger methodology of this study, Figure 1 in Chapter III illustrates 45Perloff, p. 70, To clarify nomenclature differencesJ composition and competition as used herein ,are identical with proportional and differential, respectively, as used in Perloff.

PAGE 338

328 the relationship of one concept of productivity to labor input and to economic growth. Figure 2 of this chapter illustrates a conceptual breakdown of productivity into its major components. Many of these major components have been considered in scattered detail in Part I. Necessarily, this detail has been an erratic mixture but, however deficient, a vital element in contributing to a larger understanding of Florida's economic developnent. In Figure 1, productivity is defined in terms of output per man-hour, Kendrick advocates an operational concept of total factor productivity in which he measures the "productivity of tangible capital separately and in combination with labor, in addition to the labor measures alone.1146 In a critique, incorporated in Kendrick's book, Ruttenberg objects to the phrase "total factor productivity," as based only on combined labor and capital inputs and not such numerous other inputs as "education, science, technology, social organization, cultural heritage, and the quality of human skills and ingenuity which are essential to rising productivity.1147 The two sides of economic growth in Figure 1 are linked not only by the conuoon factor of labor force. Turner writes that "productivity increase, which is the main determinant of economic growth, occurs most freely where conditions of demand call forth a rapid expansion in total output.1148 Turner goes on to say that productivity is more important 46 John W. Kendrick, Productivity Trends in the United States (Princeton, Princeton University Press, l96l), p. 228. 47Ibid., p. 224. 48 Robert C. Turner, Lectures on Economic Growth (School of Business Administration, Tulane University, l960), p. 13.

PAGE 339

529 than labor input in economic growth for two reasona1 First, in simply aggregative terms, productivity increase accounts for roughly two-thirds of our total growth in real output. Second, any increase in the maniower input is matched by a roughly equal increase in population. 9 This of course is subject to labor force participation rate changes but in general Turner notes that "real increases in the standard of living [level of living] can only come from increases in productivity.1150 Other linkages in Figure 1 include the inverse correlation on the supply side between productivity and average workweek, which means that a portion of the potential output from productivity gains has been traded for more leisure. Productivity is also linked with the average wage in a direct correlation. Fabricant, in treating of the diffusion of productivity gains among people, states that real hourly earnings increase about as fast as output per man-hour.51 In simple mechanistic terms, we have a situation where any increase in productivity tends to decrease labor input and to increase labo r income, the labor force remaining unchanged. 49 Ibid., p. Bl. But see Kendrick's Table 6 on page 29, which indicates that from 1889 to 1929 factor input contributed about 2.5 per cent and productivity about 1.4 per cent of real net national product gains of 2.9 per cent. SOibid. But Kendrick, on page 82, states that productivity gains only accounted for about three-fourths of the increase in output per capita and the other one-fourth resulted from growth of input per capita, during the period 1889-1955. The latter one-fourth is a composite of gains in employment per capita, capital per capita, and inter-industry manpower shifts--and losses in average hours worked. 51 Kendrick, p. xxxviii.

PAGE 340

330 Figure 2 is somewhat of a hybrid, based on discussion in Fabricant's introduction to Kendrick's book and on Turner's lectures. PRODUCTIVITY r-INVESTMENT OTHER Public or I I T.ANGIBLE CAJ>IT.AL GOODS I RESE.ARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Private INTANGIBLE CAPIT.AL GOODS EDUCATION I i.ESOUR C~-BA ~ I .----..L INSTIT FAC UTIONA L TORS Fig. 2.--Components of productivity. I ~-~:~IAL I PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS Though this study emphasizes labor force as a significant measure of economic growth it is impossible not to give some consideration to productivitys "the strategic factor in economic growth" according to Turner.52 Furthermore, productivity is closely related to the quality of the labor force. Any thorough study of productivity, as related to the economic development of Florida, is not possible herein for several reasons. 52 Turner, p. 45.

PAGE 341

331 Data is lacking on many aspects of productivity, especially prior to 1900. Relationships among the factors which contribute to productivity are usually complex and obscure; many cannot be quantified. It is apparent, however, that many of the factors related to productivity are treated in a different context. The content of the governors' messages, for example, points up many institutional factors involved and provides some perspective on other factors. The breakdown of the labor force by industrial sectors largely identifies the industrial mix and the underlying resource base.

PAGE 342

CHAPTER XII MEASURING FLORIDA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Introduction The preceding chapter presents the justification for using labor force as the primary economic variable in this study. This chapter will present the methodology employed in measuring Florida's labor force in sectoral detail, by decades, at the state level; and in partial sectoral detail, by decades, at the county level. At the state level, almost complete reliance is placed on U.S. decennial censuses, sub ject to two major adjustments. At the county level, there are no labor force measurements prior to 1930, either in total or in sectoral detail. It was thus necessary to develop independent est:1Jnates, as described herein and as presented in the reference tables. The other important economic variable used in this study is net migration. The comprehensive national est:1Jnates provided by Lee were accepted; both to relate Florida to-the nation and to provide a base for the development of county net migration est:1Jnates, as described herein. A necessary auxiliary purpose of this chapter is to discuss the treatment of county changes during this period, both in number and in boundary; and to identi1'y the conventions used to obtain both decennial comparability and optimum dis aggregation. 332

PAGE 343

333 The next section will describe how the state labor force control series was developed through adjustment of census data. The third section will describe how county changes are treated, as a necessary preliminary to the following sections. The fourth section will present the methodology employed in arriving at county net migration estimates. The fifth section will provide the rationale for using demographic disaggregation to arrive at county labor force estimates. The sixth section will introduce the procedures used to develop a degree of sectoral detail in county labor force estimates. Derivation of State Labor Force Control Series Delineation of labor force sectors, and determination of a workable method of establishing the number of gainfully employed workers in each sector, involves the usual compromises. 1 The principal sources and guidelines were the decennial censuses, and the books authored by Edwards and by Lee.2 Within this period it was necessary to depend upon occupational data from the population censuses. Edwards developed a consistent set of national labor force estimates by sector to cover the period 1870 to 1930. After some study it appeared that his procedures 1The term "labor force" includes the gainfully occupied of the censuses of 1870 through 1930. See Simon Kuznets and others, Analyses of Economic Change, Vol. II: Population Redistribution and Economic Growth (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1960), p. 7. The terms "workers," "jobs," and "employment" are also used in a synonomous sense in this study under the basic assumption of full employment. 2 Alba M. Edwards, Com arative 0ccu ation Statistics for the United States, 1870 to 1940, Sixteent~ Census Washington: G.P 1943); and Lee, Population.

PAGE 344

554 were not well adapted to derivation of state totals. Lee developed a consistent set of state labor force estimates, but only for the years 1880 and 1900 withm the periodJ so far as disaggregation of the nonagricultural sector is concerned. The mterest m Lee, m choice of sectors, was in consistency as between the gainful workers of 1880 and 1900 and the experienced labor force of 1940 and 1950, The census categories were modified and occupations were allocated in whole or in part to the several sectors through a series of well-presented estimating procedures. Another factor in arriving at a state control series for Florida throughout this period was the availability of an unpublished series.5 This series depended heavily upon original census data and census classification with a minimum of adjustment and correction. This unpublished series is employed in this study to analyze Florida labor force structure and trends m relation to the nation. For this purpose, and subject to explicit recognition of the limitations of the source data and classification methods, this series is well suited. It is the simple and clear-cut best evidence of the contemporary period. While it may require some qualification it does not require a book-length exposition of the complications of developing a totally new series. Furthermore, for the purpose of this study, the need for consistency over long time intervals (a very tenuous consistency as discussed earlier) is subordinated by employjng a series of decennial comparisons. 5Previously described in footnote 4 of Chapter III.

PAGE 345

355 The F1.orida estill'lates in this unpublished series were not, however, considered adequate to provide a state control aeries for analyzing intra-state labor force structure and trends. Particularly, during the period 1870 through 1900, it was found necessary to modify this series by a redistribution of the occupational group "laborers, not specified" (LNS). The results of the Lee estill'lating procedures were used to accomplish this modification directly for 1880 and 1900. The relationships appeared sufficiently stable to justify extrapolation for 1870, when the LNS nonagricultural total was small, and to justify interpolation for 1890. The specific bases for the allocation of LNS are apparent in Table 55. Edward's national series makes ad justments for over-and underenumeration in certain census years. In 1870, for example, there was an estill'lated undercount of 1,260,000, ascribed to poor enumeration in the thirteen states of the post-war South. Lee states, however, that this undercount was concentrated in certain Southern states which did not include Florida where, it is implied, "the accuracy of enumeration 4 was not much worse tha n for the colllltry as a whole." If the Lee estimates had been available for the years 1870, 1890, 1910, 1920, and 1950, in addition to 1880 and 1900, serious consideration would have been given to their use as a state control series. However, Miller (who prepared these estimates for the Lee book) writes that estimates for thesJ other five periods were not prepared and 4 Lee, p. 402.

PAGE 346

336 ascribes this to a lack of time rather than to data or methodological difficulties.5 The develonent of similar estimates for these five periods would be a major computational and mechanical undertaking even though most of the estimating procedures would be of like character. One other primary deficiency of the unpublished series, resulting from almost complete reliance on raw census material, is the separate listing of clerical occupations for the censuses of 1910, 1920, and 1930. 6 Prior to 1910, relatively few workers were engaged in clerical occupations (as defined and classified by the census). In 1900 only 3,700 workers are listed in the component ~ategories later described as clerical occupations. These component occupations were all contained in the general classification of trade and transportation and did constitute a sizeable proportion of the 23,200 workers in that classification. However, based upon an analysis of tables in Lee ~ore than 2,700 of these 3,700 clerical workers were properly classified under trade and transportation in 1900. 7 Thus the overstatement of the trade and transportation classification, with respect to clerical occupations, was only about 1,000 in 1900 and quite obviously Jess in earlier years. 5.Ann Ratner Miller. Personal letter. May 1, 1961. 6This unpublished series did develop a consistent method of rearranging occupations as between agriculture, fishing, forestry, and mining. Lee tabulates a comparable method in Population, p. 382. 7 Lee, pp. 456-66,

PAGE 347

537 For 1910 and later years it was considered necessary to allocate those employed in clerical occupations to the several primary sectors and eliminate this anomalous classification. Fortunately, although not dealing directly with the periods 1910, 1920, and 1950, Lee had found it necessary to set up estimating procedures for 1900 based upon the induetrial cla!sification of clerical occupations nationally in 1910. Thie procedure was carried through on a state-by-state basis. Using the resultant data it was possible to arrive at percentage allocators for each of the five major subdivisions which together comprised cler ical occupations. These allocators are based on 1900 and 1910 census statistics but are assumed herein to be valid for the period 1910-1930. These allocators, with their application to the census data of 1910-1930, are set forth in Table 56. In Step 5 of this table, new labor force control figures are established for 1910-1930 with respect to the sectors of manufacturing, trade and transportation, and eervicee. In this table the census terminology for 1950 is followed and minor rearrangements are made for comparability in prior years. In summation, it was found necessary to make two primary ad justments to raw census data {as modified by the unpublished series) to arrive at a serviceable state control series to regulate disaggregation of the labor force at the county level. First, it was necessary to distribute the occupational group "laborers, not specified" in the years 1870 through 1900. Second, it was necessary to distribute the group "clerical occupations" in the years 1910 through 19:30. The results of these two primary ad,iustmente are reflected in Table 57. The sector totals for each decade comprise the state control series which will govern labor force disaggregat~on at the county level.

PAGE 348

TABLE 55 DISTRIBUTION OF "LABORERS, Nar SPECIFIED" (LNS) IN FLORIDA, 1870-1900 Sector LNS total (from census) LNS agriculture (from Lee) LNS nonagri. (residual) Mining Census LNS (Lee) LNS as per cent of census LNS first approximation LNS forced Census modified for LNS Manufacturing Census LNS (Lee) LNS as per cent of census LNS first approximation LNS forced Census modified for LNS Trade and Transport Census LNS (Lee) LNS as per cent of census LNS first approximation LNS forced Census modified for LNS Services Census LNS (Lee) LNS as per cent of census LNS first approximation LNS forced Census modified for LNS LNS forced total LNS first approx. total 1870 41 52 9 0 0 37 5 5 40 7 5 55 68 1 1 69 9 15 1880 89 64 25 0 0 74 10 14
PAGE 349

TABLE 56 DISTRIBUTION OF CLERICAL OCCUPATIONS IN FLORIDA, 1910-1950 Step ls Distribution of clerical occupations in 1900 (based on 1910 distribution by industry). Percentages computed from data by Lee. 539 Occupation Manufacture Trade-Trana 1Service Agents, collectors, and credit men Bookkeepers, cashiers, and account. Clerks (except "clerks" in stores) Messenger, errand, and office boys Stenographers and typists 11 17 6 25 16 87 67 77 68 48 Step 21 Persona engaged in clerical occupations (from censuses) A.gents Bookkeepers Clerks Messengers Stenographers Total 1910 --a 23 24 16 12 83 1920 14 46 55 9 28 152 'a 16 17 7 56 1950 2b 92 121 5 68 309 ,--: .. Step 51 Multiplication of equivalent percentages and numbers and adding the products to the numbers in the censuses for like sectors. Manufacturing (from census) Agents Bookkeepers Clerks Messengers Stenographers Manufacturing (clerical added) Trade-Transport (from census) Agents Bookkeepers Clerks Messengers Stenographers Trade-Trans. (clerical added) 1910 --;:;'!?; 1 4 1 2 2 -m 452 6 15 19 4 6 4 82 1920 ffi17 2 8 5 2 5 1027 649 12 51 45 6 15 754 1930 llw 5 16 7 1 11 Im 1275 22 61 95 2 55 !486

PAGE 350

Services (from census) Agents Bookkeepers Clerks Messengers Stenographers Services (clerical added) TABLE 56--Continued 1910 546 0 4 4 0 4 bb8 Notes All labor force figures in 1001s. 1920 '774 0 7 9 1 10 80I 340 1930 Im" 0 15 21 0 24 Source: Lee, Tables, Tables A 2.4 B, C, F, and G, pp. 456-467; and U.S. Censuses 1900-1950. TABLE 57 STATE LABOR FORCE CONI'ROL SERIES Sector 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1950 Agricultural 456 648 717 920 1178 1075 1356 Fishing 2 3 10 18 50 45 61 Forestry 5 10 20 105 190 122 67 Mining 0 0 3 15 55 50 23 Manufacturing 40 84 220 580 747 1027 1458 Trade-Transport 55 78 182 286 482 754 1486 Services-Other 69 92 216 291 558 801 1559 Total 607 915 1368 2015 3220 5852 5990 Nonagricultural Subtotal 151 267 651 1095 2042 2777 4555 Extractive Subtotal 465 661 750 1058 1455 1270 1487 Notes All figures in hundreds. "Extractive" equals first four sectors. Source: Censuses modified by Table 55 for 1870 to 1900 and by Tabla 56 for 1910 to 1950. Also ad.justed as indicated in footnote 6.

PAGE 351

Ml Treatment of County Changes During the period 1870 to 1950 the number of Florida counties increased from 59 to 67 and, excluding two slight changes, 29 counties had significant boundary changes (nine of them twice).8 This naturally complicates the problem of quantitatively describing the economic development of Florida in substate terms. One solution which has been employed for the period 1880 to 1950 is to classify the substate areas in tenns of 22 separate counties, with boundaries substantially unchanged over the period, and with 11 county groupings to account for those which were subdivided or modified in 0 boundary at any time during the total period.v For the purposes of this study this solution has two major defects. First, it does not cover the decade 1870 to 1880; understandably so because inclusion of this decade would have reduced the separate counties from 22 to 14 and added some new county groupings, greatly reducing the degree of substate disaggregation. The other defect is that in the attempt to obtain compar ability for the period 1880 to 1950 the degree of subatate disaggregation is further substantially reduced. This defect is especially serious because it primarily relates to the rapid-growth areas of Florida. 8Florida Department of Agriculture, Sectional Map of Florida (January, 1958). This map has a chart on county fonnation and boundary changes. 9 J.M. Maclachlan. Unpublished manuscript related to Sixth Census of Florida 1955, pp. 5-6.

PAGE 352

342 The general advantage of step-by-step analysis of economic development by decennial periods (which reduces the distortion which results from structural change over long periods) has been previously discussed. There is also a special advantage which accrues to this decade-by-decade approach in respect to the division of substate areas. The degree of areal disaggregation is very much improved. Restricting ourselves to the period 1880 to 1930, the system of 22 separate counties and 11 county groupings limits the number of areal comparisons over the period to 165 (5 decades and 33 substate areas). By defining substate areas only for decennial comparison purposes we can obtain areal comparisons as followss Period Number 1880 to 1890 37 1890 to 1900 45 1900 to 1910 45 1910 to 1920 41 1920 to 1930 54 Total 222 This is an increase of 54.5 per cent in areal comparisons for the period 1880 to 1950. Inclusion of the period 1870 to 1880 would add 27 more comparisons in the decennial comparison method and would probably operate to reduce the total number of comparisons in the other method (since the number of separate counties would be reduced from 22 to 14). And, as indicated, this increase in areal comparisons is largely concentrated in the rapid-growth areas of the state. Varying the division of substate areas with each decade may seem more complex than it really is. Once this procedure is adopted, county

PAGE 353

543 data fits easily into the standard format used in the reference tables. Specific county groupings to give decennial comparisons automatically now from the mechanical design of the reference table format. Actual county data for each decade is presented in the reference table8 and, where necessary, regrouped in related tables to provide comparable county data for each decennial period. The subdivision of one county into two or more counties presents no problems of treatment or terminology so long as its external boundaries are unchanged. However the formation of a county from portions of two or more other counties means a regrouping of the counties involved, for the two decennial periods which encompass the date of the new county fonnation. Such a regrouping is also necessary to provide comparability after external boundary changes. These two latter cases require some special treatment and possibly some special terminology for convenience in discussion. To this end each county has been assigned a number serialized to correspond with its alphabetical listing in 1950. The eleven r9groupings resulting from the two special cases are indicated by the county numbers contained within the aerial numbers 68 through 78. They include four special groupings for the decade 1910 to 1920; one special grouping for the decade 1880 to 1890; and six special groupings for the decade 1870 to 1880. For descriptive purposes these special groupings are assigned the name of a key county in the group, followed by a number to indicate the number of counties in the group, and by a second number to indicate,

PAGE 354

in chronological order, the number of the decade to which the grouping applies. For example, Calhoun 35 refers to the grouping of the three counties Calhoun, Bay, and Washington, to obtain comparability in the decade 1910 to 1920, the fifth decade of the study period. A table of these groupings is provided in Reference Table G-1. A map of Florida, to show current county boundaries, is provided in Figure 5. County Net Migration Estimates Migration, in large part, may be viewed as a meairure of the response to the varying distribution of economic opportunities over space and time. Data, for this historical period, do not exist which will permit direct measurement of migration. In 1957, however, Lee I 544 published state net migration estimates based on the forward survivor method, but providing a confirming comparison with the birth-residence method. The authors thoroughly spell out their assumptions, the defects of the basic data, and the shortcomings of their estimation methods. But they believe that their estimates are the beat that can be obtained for the period, that they are consistent from decade to decade, and that "there is no doubt in our minds that major swings and interstate differences in the intensity of migration are well portrayed.1110 The authors also point out that the use of counties as the spatial units would provide a better appreciation of population redistribution but that county data for survival techniques does not exist prior to 1920 (and is not published prior to 1950).11 10tee, p. 99. 11Ibid.

PAGE 355

I L _...,,~ \ \-,=-~ ~ ... -( .. i, .. ,. ... ,5 "'L G,(. &:l{ \ .,f,.D ,., ... \ _-;;.--=-~ \ -~ -.. l 'o_, '-.,;, ~ -.., Fig. 3.--M a p f Florid a "('.,.~ '(=-' ,.,..., ,~.,-, -\ ( 345 \

PAGE 356

346 The county net migration estimates developed herein are based on the assumption that the Lee estimates for the state of Florida provide the best available or foreseeable basis for Florida county estimates. By subtracting the Lee net migration estimates from the decennial changes in state population a measure of the change attributable to natural increase is obtained. Rates of natural increase, by population categories, are then computed based on average population for the period.12 It is then assumed that the state rates, by category and by period, are the best available rates to apply to the counties. Next the average county population in each category is multiplied by the equivalent state rate to provide a population change figure attributable to natural increase. This figure added to the beginning population figure provides the expected end population figure in the absence of net migration. The variance between the computed and the actual end population is thus identified as net migration for the county, by period and by category. It should be emphasized that this procedure serves to allocate state net migration totals among the counties. Even the simple allocation procedure described presents some problems. Net migration of foreign-born by county was taken as the simple difference between beginning and ending cenaue figures, neglecting mortality. The differences between the summary figures of foreign-born net migration by counties and the state totals generated 12see Reference Table M-1 for basic figures and computations,

PAGE 357

547 by Lee appeared negligible in relation to rounding errors and inherent data deficiencies. Uee of average population figures to determine rates of natural increase is obviously an approximation, affected by the temporal distribution of net migration throughout the period. In view of the minor magnitudes involved, all foreign-born are considered white and the tenn nonwhite is used as a consistent residual, irrespective of varying census terminology over the period. The county net migration estimates can be presented in two forms, each dictated by county boundary problems. By combining those counties with related boundary changes over the total period 1870 through 1930, a consistent grouping of eleven areas and twenty-two separate counties is obtainable.13 Though useful for perspective this method of combination requires a degree of spatial aggregation which seriously limits analysis, most especially in the areas of rapid growth and consequent subdivision. Therefore the estimates are presented in the fonn of county groupings which reconcile boundary changes only for the decennial periods. This permits considerable disaggregation; complete county disaggregation for those decennial periods in which no boundary changes occurred. These county net migration estimates are subject to all of the qualifications set forth by Lee, as well as those indicated herein. Lee spells them out in great detail and it would be redundant to repeat them here. The essential qualifioation--the summary qualifioation--is that the individual figures in these estimates have little virtue in 1 3Maclachl an pp. 5-6.

PAGE 358

themselves; it is only the revealed migratory patterns which have significance. 548 The county net migration estimates thus developed are presented in Reference Tables M-2 and M-5. Also presented in Reference Table M-6, is a percentage figure to correspond to each net migration figure. Thie percentage, when positive, represents that part of the ending population for the decennial period which consists of net migration during the period. Otherwise phrased, this percentage represents the minimum dilution of the native county population at the beginning of the period (plus natural increase in the county during the period) by the net migration during the period. Minimum, because in-migration exceeds net migration by the amount of out-migration. This percentage, when negative, represents the net migration lose of population during the period in relation to the ending population for the period. County Labor Force Estimates Demographic Procedure Labor force participation rates (hereafter LFPRs) at the county level are not available prior to 1930 because neither the U.S. Census nor the Florida Census provides county employment data prior to 1950. Apart from the intrinsic interest of county LFPRs, they are needed in this study because they provide an independent means of developing a county labor force control series which, potentially, can serve as a check on the sector labor force estimates which are partially developed at the county level in the next section. This section is thus concerned

PAGE 359

549 with the estimation of county LFPRs primarily by demographic disaggregation. The two major assumptions are that state LFPRa for specific age-sex-race categories are generally applicable to counties within the stateJ and that changes in population behavior over time are relatively gradual (as argued later). The U.S. Census provides, either directly or indirectly, a county population breakdown into four demographic categories, white male, white female, nonwhite male, and nonwhite female, for the censuses back to 1890. For 1880 and 1870 the breakdown was limited to a choice of male and female or of white and nonwhiteJ either was available, not both as in later censuses. The state rate for each category for each period was applied to the county population in each category in each period to provide county labor force estimates ad justed for the sex-race demographic structure of each county. 14 These county labor force estimates for 19~0 were then compared with the actual county labor force data as first enumerated in that year by the U.S. Census. Actual and percentage differences were computed. There were still manifold reasons for these differences, the sex-race adjustment has merely reduced them by two. One of the primary remain.mg reasons for a substantial portion of the difference is the age distribution of the population in each countyJ more specifically the portion of the population in the primary working age groups to the total population. 14 See Reference Table LS-2 for computed state rates and LS-1 for underlying cen3Us figures.

PAGE 360

350 During the period covered by this study the most useful approximation to such age distribution, with the census data available, appeared to be the use of the male population, twenty-one and over, as a measure of the size of the primary working age groups. This measure was then related to total male population as an equivalent measure of total population. Obviously it would have been preferable to start at a lower age (variable with social custom over the period) and cut off at some upper age level where LFPRs decline sharply. Even more prefer able would have been age distribution availability by both sex and race so that the previously described four-category breakdown could have been further disaggregated. Nevertheless, for this period, the male twenty-one and over category is a useful measure. Its principal weakness is failure to cover the some six or seven employable years prior to age twenty-one. To the extent that the twenty-one and over ratios apply to these earlier years this weakness is reduced.15 The application of the age distribution adjustment to the sex-race adjusted labor force, as previously computed, is based on the correlation of this age distribution measure, by counties, with the per cent difference between the computed and enumerated labor force values for each county in 1930 after adjustment for sex-race distribution. The age distribution adjustment is computed in the form of the 16 For 1920 and 1950 Hanna presents interstate rank correlation coefficients between the population variants of persons fifteen years and older and persons twenty years and older of .99. Frank A. Hanna, State Income Differentials, 1919-1954 (D\-ham: Duke University Press, !959), p. 199.

PAGE 361

per cent difference of the county distribution per cent from the state distribution per cent.16 551 These values, plotted on a scatter diagram, yielded an interesting picture. As could be intuitively expected, the slope of the regression line is negative; counties tended to have underestimation of the labor force when county employable ratios were higher than the state ratio and vice versa. A graphic linear regression line was negatively sloped, intersecting both the X and Y axes at about plus 1.4 per cent. It appeared that a curvi~inear regression line which was slightly con cave to the origin would provide a better fit but an unrewarding one in view of data deficiencies and other sources of error. The equation for the linear regression line, y a+ bx, was in numerical terms ya 1.4 .82x expressed in tenns of per cent, with z being the age distribution adjustment for each county and~ being the per cent difference of county computed and enumerated labor force after sex-race adjustment. In application, for example, Dade County which was somewhat above the regression line had an employable ratio of males 21 and over 11.1 per cent higher than the state ratio (66.0 vs. 59.4) in 1950. The computed labor force for Dade County, sex-race adjusted, was 56,310 and the enumerated labor force was 64,420 with an LFPR of 45.0 per cent. This represents a computed undereetimation of 8,110 (-14.4 per cent on the computed base), Using the regression 16suggested by Hanna's sensitivity index which reflects the average percentage change in one function associated with a unitary percentage in another function. Hanna, p. 64.

PAGE 362

552 equation we find that y 1.4 .82 (+11.1) or y -7.7. Applying thie age distribution adjustment to the estimated labor force, as adjusted by sex and race, the result is an estimated labor force, as adjusted by sex, race, and age of 60,650. This demographic adjustment thus leaves us about 3,770 (or 6.2 per cent) short of agreement with the enumerated labor force for Dade County. There are many other factors involved, both demographic and non-demographic. In effect, we have found, after the three principal demographic factors have been considered, as they relate to Dade County in 1930, and after the consequent ad justments have been made, that the remaining factors have balanced out within 6.2 per cent. It is interesting to note that the application of the undifferentiated state LFPR to Dade County would have produced a difference of only 6,020 (9.4 per cent) between computed and enumerated labor force; that adjustment for sex-race categories actually increased this. difference by 2,090 to 8,110 (14.4 per cent); but that further adjustment for age distribution reduced this cumulatjve effect to some 3,770 persons (6.2 per cent). In the foregoing it is assumed that any deviation of counties from the regression line is the result of specific forces that can only be fully analyzed county-by-county; that in the absence of such other forces all counties would be on the regression line, signifying that the age-sex-race adjustments took care of everything. But we know that LFPR changes over time "have been considerably greater than can be attributed to demographic factors" and that one must also look for "differences in population behavior ... at least as much as for differences in

PAGE 363

555 demographic struoture,nl7 It is clearly impractical to attempt to measure the specific non-demographic forces which affect LFPRs for each county for each time period. The net total of these forces for 1950 is reflected by the size of the 1950 regression line deviations for each county. If the "population behavior" forces could be demonstrated to have some per sistence over time it follows that the size of the 1930 deviations would provide some measure of the effect of these forces in earlier (or later) periods. As evidence of the persistence of these population behavior forces over time it has been demonstrated that when states are ranked by labor force participation rates in specific age-sex categories thats In every instance there is a high association between state ranks for each two contiguous dates. This finding can be used as a basis for [a conclusion that] the changes over time may have been drastic but they were also relatively gradual,18 In the context of this quotation the two contiguous dates are a decade apart. It is noted that this high association is present with only age-sex differentiation and that the present study further introduces a race differentiation which should tend to further strengthen the association. It is obvious that this high association between decades is subject to attenuation when carried further. An adjustment based on 17Kuznets, Analyses of Economic Change, pp. 9, 14. 18 K t K uzne s, p. 7. uznets writes that unfortunately his analysis of LFPRs lacks "a color classifi~tion for females--the ratio of white to Negro women in the population particularly has had a major effect," p. 12.

PAGE 364

354 1930 relationships may be reasonably applicable to the 1920 situation, but progressively leas so in 1910 and earlier decades. The Florida of 1870 to 1930 saw many changes but yet there were major constancies in some of the broad determinants of population behavior over the period. For example, one might cite the "weetward" movement to penin eular Florida during the major portion of this period. It seems further evident that there is no better assumption available in developing county LFPRs through this method for the over-all period. Leas confidence can be placed in the estimates for the early periods but this failing is not unique to this procedure. The quantitative structure in economic history has always dimmed with age. A partial check on this method of estimating LFPRs at the county level can be made by comparing the summations of the resulting county labor force estimates with the enumerated state labor force for equivalent periods. The size of the discrepancy may afford some indication of the attenuation effect in period-to-period comparisons. On the basis of the foregoing discussion the percentage deviation of counties from the regression line is assumed to represent behavioral and residual forces which are further assumed to be rather persistent within the individual counties over the time period of the study. This percentage deviation is computed as the difference in enumerated 1950 county labor force and estimated 1930 county labor force (age-l!lex-race adjusted) divided by the latter. The resulting percentages, one for each county are then applied to the estimated 1920 labor force for each county (age-sex-race adjusted) to yield the

PAGE 365

355 final county estimates.19 The same procedure is employed for 1910 and earlier decades to develop reasonable and consistent county labor force estimates for the period (with customary modification for new county fonnation and boundary changes). These estimates are presented in Reference Tables LC-1 and LC-2. Urbanization Aspects Cities or urbanized counties customarily have LFPRs well above the state rate. In 1950 with a state rate of 40.8 per cent the rates of Dade, Duval, and Hillsborough were respectively 45.0, 44.2, and 42.5 per cent. As another illustration, considering only the population ten years of age and over, the state LFPR in 1950 was 51.0 per cent and the rates for Miami, Jacksonville, and Tampa were respectively 55.5, 55.1, and 55.2 per cent. In view of these relationships an urbanization adjustment was computed for each county for each period on the same general basis as the age distribution adjustment. Similarly plotted in a scatter diagram against 1950 computed and enumerated differences, after sex-race adjustment, the association was apparent and a regression line could have been fitted. This was not done for two main reasons. First, the urbanization 19see otis D. Duncan and others, Statistical Geograthyz Problems in Analyzi~ Areal Data (Glencoez The Free Press,961), for a thorough critque of the several methods employable in developing labor force participation rates; notably their model 2 (pp. 75 ff.) which involves a multiple regression technique; the standardization technique of the demographers (pp. 115 ff.); and "the use of regression to estimate the influence of [age] composition on areal variation" in developing labor force participation rates (p. 120).

PAGE 366

356 adjustment on the basis of U.S. Census classification criteria (city population of 2,500 or more) was not precise or sensitive enough to differentiate the less urbanized counties in the state, especially for the early decades. Second, the age distribution adjustment, after sex-race adjustment, revealed that the "urbanization effect" closely paralleled this composite age-race-sex pattern.20 The scatter diagram which embodies the age-sex-race adjustment shows that the eight counties with a 1950 labor force in excess of 20,000 were rather unifonnly distributed in respect to the regression line. Dade (+6.2), Duval (+4.6), Orange (+4.1), Polk (-0.2), Escambia (+2.2), Hillsborough (+9.0), Palm Beach (0.0), and Pinellas (-3.4) Counties required the indicated adjustments to confonn to the regression line. Thus the regression line reflecting age-sex-race composition appears to be closely associated with any so-called urbanization effect. Explanation of such variations as Hillsborough and Pinellas counties seems intuitively apparent. Hillsborough (Tampa) in 1950 had a white female LFPR well in excess of the state rate of 14.2 per cent because of employment opportunities for women in the cigar industry. Furthennore, the LFPR for foreign-born whites, ten years and over, was 64.4 per cent in Tampa as compared with 56.2 per cent for the state (or 55.2 per cent in Miami). Tampa's labor force in 1950 included a proportion of foreign-born white well above the state average. 20A.pparently Hanna came to a similar conclusion in his income studies. He writes that the forces which detennine a city's income level appear to be "an agglomeration . As a consequence, an explanation of state differentials in tenns of city-sj ze composition would largely be a mechanical explanation." Hanna, p. 26.

PAGE 367

557 The explanation in the case of Pinellas is probably found largely in the inability of the age distribution adjustment (based only on males, twenty-one years and over) to reflect the disproportionate number of elderly males residing in and near St. Petersburg who were not actually employable though necessarily included in the best available state-wide age index. Thus we find Pinellas is well above the regression line. A similar explanation probably applies in lesser degree to Palm Beach which is on the regression line. Polk Collllty'a urbanization index was the lowest of the eight counties, just about at the state norm of 52 per cent for 1g30. Sector Labor Force Series, Collllty Level General This section will describe the procedure used to develop a degree of sectoral detail in county labor force estimates. Only the agricultural, mining, and manufacturing sectors will be disaggre gated to the collllty level for each decade of the period. An effort has been made to disaggregate the other sectors but the results, at this point, do not appear to be worth utilizing. It had been hoped that by disaggregation of each sector to the county level it would have been possible to sum the sector totals for each county to obtain a county labor force measure comparable with that estimated by demographic disaggregation, as described in the preceding section. It had further been hoped that the sector labor force figures thus developed would have been reliable enough to justify application of the shift technique,

PAGE 368

358 ae was done with state labor force data in Chapter III. These possibil ities are not excluded but are regretfully ruled to be beyond current solution in this dissertation. The following remarks thus pertain specifically to such sectoral disaggregation as was accomplished and are only potentially applicable to complete sectoral disaggregation. Reconstruction of sectoral detail in the manner hereafter described involves many personal judgments but the bases for these judgmente will be stated when possible. This reconstruction is analogous to solving a jig saw puzzle and the clues are comparableJ for example, the straight line border parameters represented by control data at the state level. And, internally, one depends on the color, form, design, and fit of the individual pieces, many missing. As another analogy the task of piecing together input-output tables may be similar in principle; likewise controlled by external parameters and internal consistency requirements. It is unlikely that any representation of the past is ever wholly accurate, whether statistical or literary in treatment. The quantitative reconstruction is only a means to an intermediate end; the intermediate end being a literary treatment, with a quantitative foundation; and the end being a deepened understanding of the period in relation to regional developnent. This statistical reconstruction is quite time-consuming. But assume that the desired datale?'e available directly, as is more and more the case in recent years. The analyeie of the data involves in large part the same basic knowledge and developed understanding as does the reconetruction of the data. A oonsaquen, by-product of the reconstruction of the data ie that, inherently contained in the process, one

PAGE 369

359 achieves part of an otherwise separate analysis. Working t o the data is somewhat comparable to working from the data. County employment data for the decennial periods prior to 1950 are not available. The question is whether they can be generated from other data and whether the results would have adequate validity for use, particularly in shift technique applications. Two points might be made. First, historical presentation of the past is always eelec tive and artificial. Reconstruction based upon census data of the per iod, tempered by sources in the literature, would not appear less valid than one primarily based on the literature with casual usage of census data. Second, to cite Hansen, "a purist should not pursue the science of economics.1121 The generation of county employment data for these early periods would involve a considerable degree of impurism. Rough and dirty would be the keynote but it can be argued that there is no other quantitative keynote and that useful results are still obtainable. Probably the most serious deficiency in reconstructing employ ment figures on a county basis by economic sectors is the lack of county employment totals for control purposes. The known state totals for each sector can be distributed among the counties on the basis of a priori hypotheses of data relationships tempered by external descrip tive information and some arbitrary allocation. But the surmnation of the county sector totals provides a figure which has no specific external control at the county level. An attempt has been made to 21 Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, p. 44. There is a pencilled annotation by an unlmown student in the library copy of this book: "Who's pursuing? I'm lost in the woods."

PAGE 370

360 provide such a control through the demographic procedures of the preceding section, with results as presented in Reference Tables LC-1 and LC-2. Thus an independent control figure is established. Sector totals could be considered suspect and the components could be reexam ined if county summations varied widely from this control. However the control itself is suspect and it is obvious that precise agreement could not be expected. The general procedure employed to develop county employment data by sector is analogous to the procedures used by the Southeastern Conference in county income estimation. County allocators are established and used to apportion state totals.22 .As an example, the allocation of lmown state agricultural employment among counties may take the following form. Agriculture Using the 1870 Census as an example, on the not entirely accurate assumption that the data provided in the following censuses are better, the procedure for allocating the lmown state labor force in agriculture among the counties may be described as follows. From the 1870 Census is lmown, by countyr the number of farms, categorized in five sizesJ the farm acreage, in four categories; the value of farms; the value of farm produotsJ the number of work animals, in three cate goriesJ and considerable data of lesser importance for our immediate example. 22 Isard, Methods, pp. 92-3.

PAGE 371

361 It is then assumed that the following rough relationships will tend to prevail; that relative agricultural employment will tend to be higher the larger the number of farms; the larger the number of work animals; the larger the improved acreage; the greater the farm valuation; and the greater the value of farm production. Other relationships can be introduced or these relationships can be refined or weighted. Taking these five relationships, it is mechanically simple to distribute the employment among counties on the basis of each separate relationship and then average them out. Columbia County, on the above assumptions, would have estimated agricultural employment of about 1800 in the year 1870. The separate estimates for each of the five components of this average listed in the preceding paragraph are, respectively, 1850, 1770, 1840, 1800, and 1760. But such consistency is abnormal. The relative figure for Gadsden County are 2170, 2910, 3800, 2580, and 2860 for an average figure of about 2860. The dispersion is even greater in many counties but is usually explainable in terms of such other information as the preponderant size of the farms, proportion of white to non-white population, degree of urbanization, or specific character of the produce. In the case of six counties the first approximation results in agricultural figures which exceed the total employ ment figure which would result from application of state employmentpopulation ratios to county population. The foregoing procedure is subject to considerable refinement. Use of the same five allocators for each county results in rather wide ranges for the estimates. Averaging these estimates gives a rough

PAGE 372

approximation. However an examination of the averaged results in comparison with the lmown agricultural labor force data for 1950 (obtainable from the census by counties for the first time) still rave.us frequent wide variation of the computed results from the 562 census enumerations. These variations, reproduced visually on the county subdivisions of a state map do reveal consistent patterns which appear quite logical in relation to other knowledge. Otherwise phrased, it was readily obvious that certain allocators ware not related to the underlying factors which governed the distribution of the agricultural labor force among the counties. Certain allocators were consistently more applicable than others but their specific applicability varied with specific counties. On the basis of this comparison for 1930 it was considered that a better first approximation to agricultural labor force estimates could be obtained with the use of selected allocators varying with each county and possibly shifting with structural change. Nonnally two or three selected allocators of those available were used and the results were averaged. Using this procedure the s\l11Ull8tion of county results can be expected to diverge somewhat from state totals as detennined in the control series. Reasonable divergence can be distributed to force agreement. Unreasonable divergence would indicate a need for reexamination of the selected allocators, and possibly the choice of new ones consequent upon major shifts in the structure of the agricultural economy. Here again the danger of circularity exists and must be avoidedas discussed in an earlier section.

PAGE 373

365 Based on the foregoing example and discussion, the following general procedure was used in distributing the state agricultural labor force among counties in 1920. Comparable procedures were used in the earlier decades, with minor variation related to census terminology and classification. The detailed results are presented in Refer ence Table LC-5. The procedure is presented in step by step form. 1. From the 1920 Census obtain the following figures by county. a. Number of farms (in 101s) b. Crop land (in 1000 acres) c. Farm value (in $100,000) d. Work animals (in 101s) Product value (in $10,000) 2. Divide the state agricultural labor force figure for 1920 (10,760) by the state figure for each of the above categories to get the allocator for each category. 3. Multiply each county figure for 1920 (from step one above) by the appropriate allocator for each category to get five approxima tions to the distribution among counties. 4. Sum the five resulting figures for each county and divide by five to get an average. s. Sum the resulting county averages as a check against the state total for agricultural labor force. 6. Using the provided table of selected allocators for eaoh county (two or three, based upon 1950 bench mark comparisons), l!um the selected approximations for each county and average.

PAGE 374

364 7. Introduce judgmental corrections where indicated. 8. Sum the resulting county averages. 9. Determine the percentage variation between the state total and the county sununation and apply this percentage to the selected average for each county to force agreement with the state total. Mining 1950.--The labor force in mining ranged from 2,500 in 1950 to a peak of 5,500 in 1910 and none in 1870. Allocation for 1950 was based on county census figures for mining as an industry group prorated to the state control figure (identical with the occupational total). The industry group total of 2,700 was thus forced to the control total of 2,500. 1920.--The allocation for 1820 was based on a breakdown of the major products of mines as to persons engaged in 1919, from the State Compendium, Florida Census,25 and the use of the same proportions in allocating the 1920 state labor force of 5,000 by product. On this basis some 2,100 were employed in phosphate mining. The 17th Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture provided the valuation of the phosphate shipments from each of nine counties in 1921.24 These county valuations were used to allocate the 2,100 employed in phosphate mining. Of the remaining 900, some 700 were engaged in fuller's earth production in Gadsden and Manatee Counties. The Florida Census of Manufactures lists 550 average wage earners in fuller's earth companies in Gadsden County 25u.s. Census, 1920 State Compendium, Florida Census, p. 121. 24Florida, The 17th Biennial Report of the Commissioner of of Agriculture, Part 2, p. 88,

PAGE 375

365 and 200 in Manatee County; figures of 500 and 200, respectively, were used to fit within control totals.25 This Census also listed 44 average wage earners in claymining in Lake County; 21 in "mining" in St. Johns County; and 150 in limerock mining in Marion County. These counties thus account for the remaining 200 within the 5,000 total. Recapitulating (in 101 s) I Fuller's County Phos:ehate Earth other Total Alachua 14 14 Citru!!I 13 13 Gadsden 50 50 Hillsborough 16 16 Lake 4 4 Manatee 20 20 Marion 9 13 22 Polle 158 158 St. Johns 2 2 Suwannee 1 1 Total 211 70 19 300 ~.--Allocation for 1910 was primarily based on a prorating of the average wage earner statistics in the 12th Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture on the basis of the state control totals. A stated figure of 130 wis accepted for mining of fuller's earth in Gadsden County and the remainder of 5,570 (of 5,500) was apportioned to phosphate mining counties.26 Recapitulating (in 101s)a 25Florida, Census of Manufactures, pp. 92 ff. 26Florida, The 12th Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, pp. 66,

PAGE 376

566 Fuller's County PhosE!:!ate Earth Total Alachua 27 27 Citrus 85 85 Columbia 17 17 Gadsden 15 15 Hillsborough 28 28 Marion 56 56 Polk 144 144 Total 557 15 550 ~.--Allocation for 1900 was based primarily on the type of phosphate produced. In 1900 the percentage distribution of marketed phosphate was: Land pebble Hard rock River pebble 14.8 (as per cent of total U.S. production) 28.5 4.0 From the descriptive literature on location of deposits in relation to 1900 exploitation it appears sufficiently accurate to consider that the first type was mined in Polk County, the second type in Alachua, Citrus, Hernando, and Marion Counties, and the third type in Marion County.27 Of the 1,500 labor force in mining in 1900 (state control series) 100 were considered to be engaged in mining limestone and 210 in mining clay and fuller's earth; on the assumption that the Census of Mining of 1902 figures were applicable. The remaining 1,190 were considered to be engaged in phosphate mining. From the descriptive literature we know that "Dade, Washington, and Marion Counties were the principal points of production in 1902" 27u.s. Census of Mining 1902, p. 194.

PAGE 377

367 for limestone.28 We also lmow that claymining "in 1902 was confined to the two counties Lake and Putnam." Using the foregoing info:nnation and figures as a basis, considering the prior and subsequent periode, and coming to some residual arbitrary judgments, the following tabular recapitulation is derived: Count;,: Phos:ehate Alachua 16 Citrus 56 Gadsden Hernando 4 Lake Marion 26 Polk 37 Putnam Total 119 Clay and Fuller's Earth Lime Total 16 56 15 15 4 4 4 10 :36 37 4 4 21 10 150 1890.--Allocation of the 300 labor force in mining in 1890 was based on the descriptive literature of the period. Phosphate mining started late in the 1880's and the mining labor force before that time was insignificant. 1880 and 1870.--Considered to be zero.29 Manufacturing 1950.--Allocation of the 145,800 state labor force in 1930 was based on the distribution to counties by industry groups, as contained in the 1930 Census of Population. Since the state control series total 28Ibid., p. 196. 29:netailed results for the mining sector are presented in Reference Table LC-4.

PAGE 378

368 was 1,200 lass than the industry group total of 147,000, the difference (less than 1 per cent) was prorated to the counties, Thus the 1930 county labor force distribution provides a relatively accurate b ench mark in relation to earlier years. 1920.--The 1920 Census of Manufactures provides a county breakdown of 74,400 state wage-earners. The state control figure for manufacturing labor force is 102,700; leaving a balance of 28,300 to be distributed among the counties, Lee's Florida figures on the proportion of labor force in manufacturing and in construction were then employed to provide a rough index as follows:30 Year Manufacturing Construction Total Manuf, % 1880 5,000 2,500 7,500 66.7 1900 22,000 11,500 55,300 66.1 1940 87,000 54,600 141, 600 61.4 1950 112,600 97,100 2 09,700 53,4 Interpolating between 1900 and 1940 (for 1920), 65 per cent of the undistributed balance of 28,500 was assumed to be in the manufacturing sector and 37 per cent in the construction sector; 17,800 and 10,500 respectively. Allocation to counties of the 10,500 in the construction sector was based on two factors, non-farm real estate valuation in 1920 and the change therein between 1919 and 1920. It was assumed that the construction labor force would be related to maintenance as a function of 50r.ee, p. 624.

PAGE 379

369 the valuation level and to expansion as a function of change in the valuation level. These allocators, based on data contained in the annual reports of the Florida Comptroller, have their deficiencies but do appear to provide a reasonable apportiomnent of the residual 10 per cent of the manufacturing labor force identified with construction and not allocated as wage-earners by the Census. Equal weight was assigned to these two valuation allocators. Allocation to counties of the 17,800 in the residual manufacturing sector was based upon the distribution of manufacturing wageearners among counties. Of the residual, some 8,600 are classified as proprietors and finn members, principal salaried officers of corporations, and other salaried officers and employees. The remaining residual is unclassified. It is obvious that the fonner bears a close relationship to wage-earner distribution (elsewhere in this study an example of .99 correlation is cited) and the latter is assumed to bear a similar relationship. To BUlllillarize, allocation of the 102,700 manufacturing labor force is accomplished as follows: Per cent Number Category Action Total 102,700 Labor force To be allocated 100.0 74,400 Wage earners Census based allocation 72.4 8,600 Other classified Wage earner correlated allocation 8.4 9,200 Unclassified Wage earner correlated allocation 9.0 6,250 Construction Valuation based allocation 5.1 5,250 Construction Valuation-change based allocation 5.1 of

PAGE 380

370 1910.--The 1910 Census of Manufactures, unlike those preceding and following, does not provide a county breakdown of the state wage earners. Consequently it was necessary to resort to an aggregative technique utilizing raw data from the Florida Census of Manufactures of 1909. The state control series provides the figure of 74,700 to be distributed among the counties. As a basis for this distribution and to provide comparability between national and state data it was considered necessary to reorganize the raw county data of the state census on the basis of the 23 category breakdown of the national census. Thie was a tedious method but it appeared to give useful results. The state census has many deficiencies but yet it is based on enumeration which has a very .f'undamental advantage over estimation. Aggregated state data could not be used because the Florida Census of Manufactures includes many non-m&nufacturing enterprises by national standards. Another deficiency was the omission of 11 counties in the 1909 census. The 1911 census provided data which covered 8 of these counties and interpolation was resorted to for the other 3 counties. The state control figure is 74,700. Allocation of 48,570 to 36 counties is based on state census data for 1909, keyed to the national census breakdown for 1910. Allocation of 9,390 to 8 counties is based on state census data for 1911, similarly keyed. Allocation of 2,530 to 3 countie3 is based on interpolation between the estimated totals and trends between 1900 and 1920. This leaves a balance of 14,610 which is further prorated to the 36 counties on the 1909 allocation ba sis; since the figures for the 8 and 3 county groups are

PAGE 381

probably overestimated in relation to the 56 county group. Recapitulating: State control figure 74,700 56 county allocation 48,570 8 county allocation 9,590 5 county allocation 2,550 Prorated to 56 counties 60,090 14,610 100.0% 64.8 12.5 5.1 19.6 571 1900.--Allocation of the 58,000 state labor force in 1900 was accomplished by procedures similar to those for 1920. The Census of Manufactures provided a wage earner distribution by counties for 54,250 of this total, leaving a balance of 5,770. Referring to the table under Manufactures ~; 66.1 per cent of this balance (or 2,490) were classified as other manufacturing and 1,280 were classified as other construction. This 2,490 figure was allocated to counties on the basis of the wage earner distribution. In view of the small number classified as other construction, only a valuation allocator was used (eliminating the valuation-change allocator used in 1920). The allocator used was the valuation of town or city lots--including the value of all improve ments thereon, as taken from the Florida Comptroller's Report for 1901. The labor force figure of 1,280 was divided by the total state valuation figure of $25,660,000 and the result was multiplied by the valuation figure for each county to provide the county distribution of this small residual labor force figure. The various components were then combined to obtain county labor force estimates for 1900.

PAGE 382

372 ~.--Allocation of the 22,000 state labor force figure for 1890 was accomplished in two ways. The first method was similar to that used in 1900, The state wage earner total of 14,070 was available by counties from the Census of Manufactures. The residual of 7,930 was split; some 5,266 to other manufacturing and 2,664 to other construction. Distribution of these two residuals was made as previously. The second method, and the one finally accepted for this period, as well as for 1880 and 1870, was to distribute the residual of 7,950 on the basis of county population. For these three early decades it appeared that this residual was largely related to the "neighborhood industries" of the period. These were so small in scale and so localized by transport immobilities that they were spatially and incremen distributed in even sparsely populated areas. It seemed necessary to change from the first method to the second to better fit the manufacturing labor force structure of this early period, even though the figures for 1890 and 1900 thereby lose somewhat in comparability. 1880 and 1870,--The procedures for 1880 and 1870 are identical with those for 1890 above,51 51netailed results for the manufacturing sector are presented in Reference Table LC-5.

PAGE 383

APPENDIX

PAGE 384

574 REFERENCE TABLE G-1 COUNTY GROUP DESIGNATORS Serial No. Designator Period Decade Counties Included 68 Calhoun 55 1910-20 5 Bay Calhoun, and Washington 69 Dade 65 1910-20 5 Broward, Dade, Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie 70 Walton 55 1910-20 5 Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton 71 Volusia 55 1910-20 5 Flagler, St Johns, and Volusia 72 Orange 52 1880-90 2 Brevard, Lake, Orange, Osceola, and S\mlter 75 Manatee 71 1870-80 1 Brevard, Dade, Manatee, Orange, Polk, S'lmlter, and Volusia 74 Washington 51 1870-80 1 Calhoun, Jackson, and Washington 75 Duval 21 1870-80 1 Duval and St. Johns 76 Taylor 21 1870-80 1 Lafayette and Taylor 77 Marion 21 1870-80 1 Levy and Marion 78 Leon 21 1870-80 1 Jefferson and Leon Notes The first n'lmlber in the county designator is the n\mlber of counties in the group, as identified in the last column. The second number in the designator is the number of the dec ade which requires this grouping to provide comparability, because of significant boundary changes.

PAGE 385

575 REFERENCE TABLE P-1 FLORIDA POPULATION, BY COUNTIES, BY DECADES 1870 1950 (In hundreds) No. County 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1950 1 Alachua 175 165 229 525 545 517 344 2 Baker 15 25 55 45 48 56 65 5 Bay 114 121 4 Bradford '37 61 75 105 141 125 94 5 Brevard 15 15 54 52 47 85 155 6 Broward 51 201 7 Calhoun 10 16 17 51 75 88 75 8 Charlotte 40 9 Citrus 24 54 67 52 55 10 Clay 21 28 52 56 61 56 69 11 Collier 29 12 Colwnbia 75 96 129 171 177 145 146 15 Dade l 5 9 50 119 428 1450 14 DeSoto 49 81 142 254 78 15 Dixie 64 16 Duval 119 194 268 597 752 1155 1555 17 Escambia 78 122 202 285 580 499 556 18 Flagler 24 25 19 Franklin 15 18 55 49 52 55 65 20 Gadsden 98 122 119 155 222 255 299 21 Gilchrist 41 22 Glades 28 25 Gulf 52 24 Hamilton 58 68 85 119 118 99 95 25 Hardee 104 26 Hendry 55 27 Hernando 29 43 25 56 50 46 50 28 Highlands 92 29 Hillsborough 52 58 149 560 784 885 1555 50 Holmes 16 22 45 78 116 129 129 51 Indian River 67 52 Jackson 95 144 175 254 298 512 520 55 Jefferson 154 161 158 162 172 145 154 54 Lafayette 18 24 57 50 67 62 44 55 Lake 80 75 95 127 252 56 Lee 14 51 65 95 150 57 Leon 152 197 178 199 194 181 255

PAGE 386

376 REFERENCE TABLE P-1--Continued No. County 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1950 38 Levy 20 58 66 86 104 99 125 39 Liberty 11 14 15 50 47 50 41 40 Madison 111 148 145 155 169 165 156 41 Manatee 19 55 29 47 96 187 225 42 Marion 108 131 208 244 269 240 296 43 Martin 51 44 Monroe 57 109 188 180 216 196 136 45 Nassau 45 66 85 97 105 113 94 46 Okaloosa 94 99 47 Okeechobee 21 4:l. 48 Orange 22 66 126 114 191 199 497 49 Osceola 31 34 55 72 107 50 Palm Beach 56 187 518 51 Pasco 43 61 75 88 106 52 Pinellas 283 622 55 Polk 32 32 79 125 242 387 725 54 Putnam 38 65 112 116 131 146 181 55 St. Johns 26 45 87 92 132 131 187 56 St. Lucie 41 79 71 67 Santa Rosa 33 67 80 103 149 157 141 58 Sarasota 124 59 Seminole 110 187 60 Sumter 30 47 54 62 67 79 106 61 Suwannee 56 72 105 146 186 198 157 62 Taylor 15 25 21 40 71 112 131 65 Union 74 64 Volusia 17 53 85 100 165 234 428 65 Wakulla 25 27 51 52 48 51 55 66 Walton 30 42 48 94 165 121 146 67 Washington 25 41 64 102 164 ll8 122 68 Calhoun 35 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 36 71 Volusia 35 72 Orange 62 75 Manatee 71 74 Washington 31 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 State 1878 2695 3914 5285 7526 9685 14682 Total 1881 2699 5915 5292 7527 9691 14688 Source: U.S. Census of Population for each decennial period. Note: Difference between Total and State due to rounding errors.

PAGE 387

377 REFERENCE TABLE P-2 FLORIDA POPULATION, BY COMPARABLE SUBSTATE GROUPINGS, BY DECENNIAL PERIODS, 1870 1930 ( In hundreds) No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1 890 1900 1 Alachua 175 165 165 229 229 323 2 Baker 15 23 23 33 35 45 3 Bay 4 Bradford 37 61 61 75 75 103 5 Brevard 34 52 6 Broward 7 Calhoun 16 17 17 51 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus 24 54 10 Clay 21 28 28 52 52 56 11 Collier 12 Columbia 73 96 96 129 129 171 13 Dade 3 9 9 50 14 DeSoto 49 81 15 Dixie 16 Duval 194 268 268 397 17 Escambia 78 122 122 202 202 283 18 Flagler 19 Franklin 13 18 18 33 33 49 20 Gadsden 98 122 122 119 119 153 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 23 Gulf 24 Hamilton 58 68 68 85 85 119 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 29 43 43 91 25 36 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough 32 58 58 149 149 360 30 Holmes 16 22 22 43 43 78 31 Indian River 32 Jackson 144 175 175 234 33 Jefferson 161 158 158 162 54 Lafayette 24 37 37 50 35 Lake 80 75 36 Lee 14 31 37 Leon 197 178 178 199

PAGE 388

578 REFERENCE TABLE P-2--Continued No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 58 Levy 58 66 66 86 39 Liberty 11 14 14 15 15 50 40 Madison 111 148 148 145 1 4 5 155 41 Manatee 35 78 29 47 42 Marion 131 208 208 244 45 Martin 44 Monroe 57 109 109 202 188 180 45 Nassau 45 66 66 85 85 97 46 Okaloosa 47 Okeechobee 48 Orange 126 114 49 Osceola 51 54 so Palm Beach 51 Pasco 43 61 52 Pinellas 55 Polk 32 79 79 125 54 Putnam 58 65 63 112 112 116 55 St. Johns 45 87 87 92 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa 55 67 67 80 80 105 58 Sarasota 59 Seminole 60 Sumter 54 62 61 Suwannee 56 72 72 105 105 146 62 Taylor 25 21 21 40 65 Union 64 Volusia 55 85 85 100 65 Wakulla 25 27 27 31 51 52 66 Walton 50 42 42 48 48 94 67 Washington 41 64 64 102 68 Calhoun 55 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 55 71 Vo.lusia 35 72 Orange 52 128 525 75 Manatee 71 153 251 74 Washington 51 128 2 0 0 75 Duval 21 145 240 76 Taylor 21 52 47 77 Narion 21 128 188 78 Leon 21 286 557 State 1878 2695 2695 5914 3914 5285 Total 1877 2697 ~f2SS ~RJ ~JS 5292 Note: Difference between Total and State due to rounding errors.

PAGE 389

179 REFERENCE TABLE P-2--Continued No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1950 1 Alachua 325 545 1545 317 517 585 2 Baker 45 48 48 56 66 63 3 Bay 114 121 4 Bradford 103 141 141 125 125 168 5 BreTard 52 47 47 85 86 15S 6 Broward 61 201 7 Calhoun 51 75 88 106 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus 54 67 67 52 52 56 10 Clay 56 61 61 56 56 69 11 Collier 12 Columbia 171 177 177 143 145 146 13 Dade 50 119 428 14SO 14 DeSoto 81 142 142 254 254 Ml 16 Dixie 16 Duval 597 762 752 11&6 1116 1555 17 Escambia 283 380 580 494 ,14 518 18 Flagler 24 25 19 Franklin 44 52 52 55 5g 61 20 Gadsden 153 222 222 256 285 299 21 Gilchril!!t 22 Glade! 25 Oulf 24 Hamilton lJ.9 118 118 99 99 95 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 36 50 50 46 46 60 28 Highland! 29 Hillsborough 560 784 784 1165 885 1555 so Holmes 78 116 116 129 129 129 SJ. Indian River 52 Jackson 254 298 298 512 312 320 33 Jefferson 162 172 172 145 145 154 54 Lafayette 50 67 67 62 62 108 35 Lake 75 95 96 127 127 232 36 Lee 31 63 6S 95 96 214 57 Leon 199 194 194 181 181 286

PAGE 390

580 REFERENCE TABLE P-2--Continued No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1950 38 Levy 86 104 104 99 99 125 39 Liberty 30 47 47 so so 41 40 Madison 155 169 169 165 165 156 41 Manatee 47 96 96 187 187 349 42 Marion 244 269 269 2 4 0 240 296 43 Martin 44 Monroe 180 216 216 196 196 136 45 Nassau 97 105 105 115 113 94 46 Okaloosa 94 99 47 Okeechobee 21 41 48 Orange 114 191 191 509 199 497 49 Osceola 54 55 72 107 50 Palm Beach 265 707 51 Pasco 61 75 75 88 88 106 52 Pinellas 285 622 53 Polk 125 242 242 387 587 725 54 Putnam 116 151 131 1 4 6 146 181 55 St. Johns 92 132 131 187 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa 103 149 137 141 58 Sarasota 59 Seminole 110 187 60 Sumter 62 67 67 79 79 106 61 Suwannee 146 186 186 198 198 155 62 Taylor 40 71 71 112 112 151 63 Union 64 Volusia 100 165 234 428 65 Wakulla 52 48 48 51 51 55 66 Walton 94 165 121 146 67 Washington 102 164 118 122 68 Calhoun 55 259 320 69 Dade 65 271 858 70 Walton 35 514 552 71 Volusia 55 297 389 72 Orange 52 73 Manatee 71 74 Washington 51 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 State 5285 7526 7526 9685 9685 14682 Total 52G7 74 3 0 7 52 7 9685 9685 14683 Source: Reference Tables P-1 and G-1. Note: Difference between Total and State due to rounding errors.

PAGE 391

581 REFERENCE TABLE M-1 FLORIDA RA.TES OF NATURAL INCREASE, BY CATEGORY, 1870 19W (Population figures in lOO's) 1870188018901900 191019201880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1 Total End Population 2695 5914 5285 7526 9685 14682 2 Total Begin Pop. 1877 2695 3914 5285 7526 9686 5 Change (line 1 2) 818 1219 1571 2241 2169 4997 4 Net Migration (Lee 144 579 429 1204 1161 5577 5 Natural Increase 674 640 942 1057 1008 1620 { line 3 -line 4) 6 Sum of Pop. Totals 4572 6609 9199 12811 17211 24367 (line 1 + line 2) 7 Average Population 2286 5505 4600 6406 8606 12184 (l/2 of line 6) 8 Rate of Nat. Iner. .295 .194 .205 .162 .117 .153 (line 5 + line 7) 9 White End Population 1426 2250 2973 4456 6581 10352 10 White Begin Pop. 961 1426 2250 2975 4456 6381 11 Change (line 9 10) 465 824 725 1465 1945 5971 12 Net Migration (Lee) 125 388 153 700 1090 2752 13 Natural Increase 342 436 570 75,; 856 12159 (line 11 -line 12) 14 Sum of Pop. Totals 2387 3576 5225 7409 10817 16733 (line 9 + line 10) 16 Average Population 1194 1858 2612 5705 6409 8567 ( 1/2 of line 14) 16 Rate of Nat. Iner. .286 .257 .218 .206 .158 .148 (line 13 line 15) 17 Non-white End Pop. 1267 1665 2312 ro90 5ro4 4550 18 Non-white Begin Pop. 917 1267 1665 2512 3090 3304 19 Change (line 17 18) 550 598 647 778 214 1026 20 Net Migration (Lee) 22 191 281 514 61 641 21 Natural Increase 528 207 366 264 153 385 (line 19 20) 22 Sum of Pop. Totals 2184 2932 (line 17 + 18) '6977 5402 6394 76154 25 Average Population 1092 1466 ( 1/2 of line 22) 1989 2701 5187 3817 24 Rate of Nat. Iner. .500 .141 .184 .102 .048 .101 (line 21 + 25)

PAGE 392

582 REFERENCE TABLE M-1--Continued Notes1 Non-white foreign-born migration was negligible during this period and is disregarded except as included in white foreignborn. The rates of natural increase appear to vary quite radically from decade to decade and may be subject to some doubt. However. a comparison with some independently developed figures by Warrens. Thompson, Population Problems (New Yorks McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962), demonstrates that, for non-white population, the national rates of natural increase were similar in magnitude and identical in trend. Period 1870-80 1880-90 1890-00 1900-10 1910-20 1920-50 Florida Non-white Rate (Computed herein} .300 .141 .184 .102 .048 .101 National Non-white Rate (From Thompson) .220 .158 .180 .112 .065 .156 The difference in magnitude in 1870-80 may be partly the result of the frequently cited under-enumeration of the negro in the U.S. Census of 1870. Sourcesa Lines 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 are from U.S. Census of Population for the respective decennial periods. All net migration figures aN from Everetts. Lee and others, Po ulation Rediatribution and Economic Growth United States, 1870-1950. o. o o o ca e erenee a es (Philadelphiaa The American osop ca oc e y, e s rom Table P-1, p. 127, adjusted for ages 0 -9 from Table 1.11, pp. 74-6, f'or native white, and from Table 1.14, pp. 87-9, for non-white. Line 12 is from Table P-1, pp. 127-8, for native white and foreign-born white, adjusted for ages 0 -9 for native white as cited above. Line 20 is from Table P-1, pp. 128-9, for non-white (negro), adjusted for ages 0 -9 for non-white as cited above. All other lines are computed figures as indicated in each case.

PAGE 393

385 REFERENCE TABLE M-2 FLORIDA Tm'AL NET MIGRATION, BY COUNTIES, BY DECADES, 1870 19 50 (In hundreds) No. County 1870-188018901900191019201880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1 Alachua 58 + 29 + 56 33 65 ++21 2 Baker + 5 + 5 + 4 -5 + 2 -1 3 Bay +107 -9 4 Bradford + 10 + 1 + 10 + 18 32 + 23 5 Brevard -1 + 14 + 9 15 + 30 + 54 6 Broward + 48 +153 7 Calhoun + 2 2 + 27 + 14 + 3 + 4 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus + 22 + 22 + 5 22 -4 10 Clay 0 + 16 -7 -5 -12 + 5 11 Collier 12 Columbia 2 + ll + ll 22 55 -16 13 Dade + 1 + 5 + 55 + 55 +277 +878 14 DeSoto + 44 + 18 + 44 + 89 + 46 15 Dixie 16 Duval + 29 + 29 + 61 +262 +275 +241 17 Escambia + 14 + 49 + 51 + 45 + 63 26 18 Flagler + 21 2 19 Franklin 0 + 10 + 8 -5 -5 + 2 20 Gadsden -8 26 + 6 + 39 14 + 28 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 25 Gulf 24 Hamilton -8 + 4 + 15 20 52 17 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando + 2 -24 + 5 + 7 -11 2 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough + 13 + 71 +159 +551 + 2 +491 30 Holmes 0 + 15 + 22 + 24 -1 17 !l Indian River 52 Jackson + 14 0 + 17 + 21 22 54 55 Jefferson 17 54 29 17 48 ro 54 Lafayette 0 + 7 + 4 + 7 13 + 55 35 Lake + 72 21 + 6 + 19 + 81 56 Lee + 15 + 12 + 24 + 23 + 98 57 Leon -7 55 18 57 55 + 26

PAGE 394

584 REFERENCE TABLE M-2--Continued No. County 18701880-189019001910-19201880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1950 58 Levy + 26 -4 + 4 + 5 17 + 11 39 Liberty -1 2 + 10 + 11 3 15 40 Madison -1 55 19 11 -24 50 41 Manatee + 8 12 + 10 + '37 + 74 +126 42 Marion 15 + 45 10 17 -59 + 20 43 Martin 44 Monroe + 28 + 50 46 + 4 44 82 45 Nassau + 8 + 2 -4 -8 -5 33 46 Okaloosa + 89 -8 47 Okeechobee + 20 + 16 48 Orange + 31 + 41 37 + 52 15 +252 49 Osceola + 28 5 + 1 4 + 10 + 25 50 Palm Beach + 5 1 +117 +284 51 Pasco + 58 + 8 + 3 + 5 + 5 52 Pinellas +266 +278 55 Polk 9 + 36 + 25 + 86 +109 +262 54 Putnam + 10 + 32 19 5 + 1 + 13 55 St. Johns + 26 + 6 -13 + 22 16 + 35 56 St. Lucie + 38 + 31 + 92 57 Santa Rosa 0 + 23 + 4 + 26 -29 14 58 Sarasota 59 Seminole + 104 + 58 60 Sumter + 5 3 -4 6 + 5 + 15 61 Suwannee + 20 + 16 + 15 + 13 10 -65 62 Taylor + 2 6 + 13 + 22 + 50 + 5 63 Union 64 Volusia + 9 + 41 -4 + 43 + 46 +150 65 Wakulla 6 2 + 12 11 5 3 66 Walton + 1 5 + 50 + 51 -61 + 7 67 Washington + 9 + 13 + 21 + 40 62 12 68 Calhoun 55 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 35 71 Volusia 55 72 Orange 52 73 Manatee 71 74 Washington 51 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 Total +142 +582 + 4 26 +1199 +1149 +'3576 Source: C o mputations based on proce dures described in Chapter XII, and on Referen ce Table M-1.

PAGE 395

585 REFERENCE TABLE M-3 FLORIDA NET MIGRATION, BY CCMPARABLE SUBSTA.TE GROUPINGS, BY DECADES, 1870 1950 (In hundreds) No. County 1870188018901900-19101920 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1 Alachua -58 + 29 + 56 33 -65 + 21 2 Baker + 5 + 5 + 4 -5 + 2 -1 3 Bay -9 4 Bradford + 10 + 1 + 10 + 18 32 + 25 5 Brevard + 9 + 25 + 30 + 54 6 Broward +155 7 Calhoun 2 + 27 + 14 + 4 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus + 22 + 3 22 -4 10 Clay 0 + 16 -7 -5 12 + 5 11 Collier 12 Columbia 2 + 11 + 11 22 53 16 15 Dade + 5 + 55 +106 +878 14 DeSoto + 18 + 44 + 89 + 46 15 Dixi.e I 16 Duval + 29 + 61 +262 +273 +241 17 Escambia + 14 + 49 + 31 + 43 + 63 26 18 Flagler 2 19 Franklin 0 + 10 + 8 -5 -5 + 2 20 Gadsden -8 26 + 6 + 39 -14 + 28 21 Gilchrist !2 Glades 23 Gulf 24 Hamilton -8 + 4 + 13 20 32 -17 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando + 2 + 36 + 5 + 7 -11 2 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough + 13 + 71 +159 +331 +268 +491 30 Holmes 0 + 15 + 22 + 24 -1 17 31 Indian River 52 Jackson 0 + 17 + 21 22 -54 33 Jefferson 34 29 -17 46 30 54 Lafayette + 7 + 4 + 7 13 + 35 35 Lake 21 + 6 + 19 + 81 36 Lee + 12 + 24 + 23 + 98 37 Leon -55 18 57 35 + 26

PAGE 396

386 REFERENCE TABLE M-3--Continued No. County 18701880189019001910-19201880 1890 1900 1910 1920 19SO 38 Levy 4 + 4 + 5 17 + 11 39 Liberty -1 2 + 10 + 11 5 15 40 Madison -l 53 19 -11 24 30 41 Manatee + 52 + 10 + 37 + 74 +126 42 Marion + 45 10 17 -59 + 20 43 Martin 44 Monroe + 28 + 65 46 + 4 44 82 45 Nassau + 8 + 2 -4 -8 -6 315 46 Okaloosa -8 47 Okeechobee + 16 48 Orange 37 + 52 + 89 +252 49 Osceola -5 + 14 + 23 50 Palm Beach +284 51 Pasco + 8 + 3 + 3 + 5 62 Pinellas +278 515 Polle + 56 + 25 + 86 +109 +282 54 Putnam + 10 + 32 19 -5 + 1 + 125 55 St. Johns + 6 15 + 22 + 35 56 St. Lucie + 92 57 Santa Rosa 0 + 25 + 4 + 26 14 58 Sara21ota 59 Seminole + 58 60 Sumter 4 -6 + 5 + 15 61 Suwannee + 20 + 16 + 15 + 15 -10 65 62 Taylor -6 + 15 + 22 + 30 + 3 63 Union 64 Volu!lia + 41 -4 + 43 +150 65 Wakulla -6 2 + 12 -11 3 5 66 Walton + 1 3 + 50 + 51 + 7 67 Washington + 15 + 21 + 40 -12 68 Calhoun 35 + 49 69 Dade 65 +502 70 Walton 35 -1 71 Volusia 55 + 51 72 Orange 52 +152 75 Manatee 71 + 44 74 Washington 31 + 25 76 Duval 21 + 65 76 Taylor 21 + 2 77 Marion 21 + us 78 Leon 21 24 Total +142 +582 +426 +1199 +1149 +251576 Sources Reference Tables M-2 and G-1.

PAGE 397

587 REFERENCE TABLE M-4 SUMMATION OF COUNTY NET MIGRATION, BY CATEGORY, 1870 1930 Period 1 2 4 5 6 7 Total PoEulation 1870-80 273 -131 142 144 2 404 181 1880-90 788 -206 582 579 5 994 72 1890-00 662 -236 426 429 5 898 109 1900-10 1414 -215 1199 1204 -5 1629 35 1910-20 1860 -711 1149 1151 2 2571 123 1920-30 5796 -420 5576 5577 -1 4216 25 White PoEulation 1870-80 178 -57 121 125 2 255 91 1880-90 455 -75 580 588 -8 530 57 1890-00 548 -208 140 155 -15 556 265 1900-10 801 -101 700 700 0 902 29 1910-20 1279 -184 1095 1090 5 1465 54 1920-50 2925 -195 2752 2752 0 S118 14 Non-white PoEulation 1870-80 125 -104 19 22 3 227 951 1880-90 296 -106 191 191 0 401 110 1890-00 561 82 279 281 2 445 58 1900-10 610 -103 507 514 -7 715 59 1910-20 489 -454 55 61 -6 925 1415 1920-50 901 -249 652 641 11 1150 79

PAGE 398

Period Summary Total Population 1870-1950 White Population 1870-1930 REFERENCE TABLE M-4--Continued 1 2 5 4 8793 -1919 6874 6884 5986 818 5168 5186 588 5 6 7 -10 10712 56 -18 6804 31 Non-white Population 1870-1950 2780 -1077 1705 1710 -7 5857 125 Notes& Column 1 County Summation of Net In-Migration (computed) 2 County Summation of Net Out-Migration (computed) 3 County Summation of Net Net-Migration (line 1 2) 4 State Net Migration (Reference Table M-1) 5 Rounding errors (line 3 line 4) 6 County Summation of Net In-and Out-Migration (non-algebraic, line 1 + line 2) 7 Inter-County Total Net Migration as Per Cent of State Net Migration (line 6 line 4 x 100 100) All columns in lOO's, except column 7.

PAGE 399

gag REFERENCE TABLE M-5 NET MIGRATION A.S PERCENTAGE OF END POPULATION, BO!H EXTERNAL A.ND INTERNAL, BY DECADES 1870 1950 Net External Net Internal Decade Migration State End Migration No. Population Ne 1870's 144 5.5 2696 15.0 404 1880's 579 14.9 3914 25.S 994 18901s 429 8.1 5285 17.0 898 1900's 1204 16.9 7526 21.7 1629 19101s 1151 11.9 9785 26.6 2571 19201s 5577 25.0 14682 28.7 4ll6 Swnmation 79.1 154.5 Average 15.2 22.4 Noter All figures in 1001s except for percentages. Sources Reference Tables P-1 and M-4.

PAGE 400

590 REFERENCE TABLE M-6 NET MIGRATION AS PERCENI'A.GE OF END POPULATION, BY COMPARABLE SUBSTATE GROUPINGS, BY DECADES, 1870 1930 No. County 1870-1880189019001910-19201880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1 Alachua -55.2 +12.6 +11.2 -9.6 -20.5 + 5.5 2 Baker +21.7 +15.0 + 8.8 -10.4 + 3.5 -1.6 5 Bay -7.4 4 Bradford +16.4 + 1.3 + 9.7 +12.8 -26.6 +13.7 6 Brevard +17.4 +28.4 +36.2 +25.6 6 Broward +66.0 7 Calhoun -1L9 +52.6 +18.7 + 3.8 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus +40.8 + 4.5 -42.1 7.2 10 Clay oo.o +31.0 -12.4 8.2 -21.5 + 7.5 11 Collier 12 Columbia -2.1 + 8.5 + 6.4 -12.4 -'57 .1 -10.9 15 Dade +58.1 +70.5 +60.5 +61.4 14 DeSoto +22.4 +31.0 +35.0 +13.5 15 Dixie 16 Duval +10.8 +15.'5 +54.9 +24.0 +15.5 17 Escambia +11.5 +24.3 +11.0 +ll. 3 +12.7 -4.9 18 Flagler -8.1 19 Franklin 00.0 +30.2 +16.3 -9.6 -9.4 + 3.2 20 Gadsden -6.6 -21.9 + 3.9 +17.6 -5.9 + 9.4 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 23 Gulf 24 Hamilton -11.8 + 4.7 +10.9 -16.9 -52.4 -18.0 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando + 4.7 +59.5 +15. 7 +14.0 -24.2 -4.0 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough +22.4 +47.5 +44.1 +42.2 +30.3 +32.0 l50 Holmes oo.o +:34.6 +28.5 +20.8 .8 -13.1 31 Indian River 32 Jackson -14.9 .8 -8.9 -18.9 -10.6 33 Jef'f'erson -21.6 -17.9 9.9 -151..7 -22.4 M Lafayette +19.0 + 8.0 +10.4 -20.8 +52.5 35 Lake -28.1 + 6.3 +14.9 +55.0 36 Lee +39.1 +38.l +24.1 +46.9 37 Leon -6.1 + 4.7 + 2.9 -17.l + 8.8

PAGE 401

591 REFERENCE TABLE M-6--Continued No. County 1870188018901900191019201880 1890 1900 1910 1920 19SO 58 Levy -6.1 + 4.7 + 2.9 -17.1 + 8.8 59 Liberty 7.5 -13.8 +35.8 +23.4 s.o -156.9 40 Madison -6.7 -23.0 -12.3 -6.5 -14.5 -19 .2 41 Manatee +40.8 +21.5 +58. 7 +39 .5 +56.l 42 Marion +21.6 -4.1 6.3 -24.6 + 6.8 45 Martin 44 Monroe +25.6 +51.2 -25.5 + 1.9 -22.5 -60.2 45 Nassau +12.0 + 2.4 -4.1 -7,6 -4.4 -55.2 46 Okaloosa -8.1 47 Okeechobee +58. 7 48 Orange -52.5 +27.2 +44.7 +50.7 49 Osceola -14.5 +25.4 +21.5 60 Palm Beach +40.2 51 Pasco +115.2 + 4,o + 3.4 + 4.7 52 Pinellas +44.7 53 Polk +45.5 +20.0 +55,6 +28.1 +36.2 54 Putnam +16.0 +28.6 -16.5 5.8 + .7 + 7.2 55 st. Johns + 6.9 -14.1 +16.7 +18.7 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa oo.o +28.9 + 5.9 +17.4 -9,9 58 Sarasota 69 Seminole +30.9 60. Sumter -6.5 -8.9 + 5.8 +14.1 61 Suwannee +27.9 +15.2 +10.3 + 7.0 -5.1 -41.3 62 Taylor -28.15 +52.5 +51.0 +26.7 + 2.5 65 Union 64 Volusia +48.4 -4.0 +26.0 +35.1 65 Wakulla -22.1 -6.4 +25.5 -22.9 -6.8 -5.5 66 Walton + 2.4 6,2 +52.0 +50.8 + 4.8 67 Washington +20.2 +20.7 +24.4 -9.9 68 Calhoun 35 +15.3 69 Dade 65 +59.9 70 Walton 35 .5 71 Volusia 55 +13.1 72 Orange 52 +46.8 75 Manatee 71 +19.1 74 Washington 31 +12.5 75 Duval 21 +18.8 76 Taylor 21 + 4.2 77 Marion 21 + 6.9 78 Leon 21 -9. 15 State + 5.3 +14.9 + 8.1 +15.9 +11.9 +23,0 Notes Plus sign indicates net in-migration and minus sign indicates net out-migration. Source: Reference Tables P-2 and M-5.

PAGE 402

Year 1950LF 1930P 1920LF 1920P 1910LF 1910 1900LF 1900P 1890LF 1890P 1880LF 1880P 1870LF 1870P Notes REFERENCE TABLE LS-1 LABOR FORCE A.ND POPULATION, BY CATEGORIES, BY DECADES, 1870 1950 Male Female Non-White White Non-White White 1409 3077 772 732 2151 5225 2167 5137 1082 1919 504 549 1672 15282 16215 5108 1073 1416 502 230 1614 2328 1475 2111 745 895 268 107 1202 1550 1105 1428 465 639 191 73 842 1178 823 1072 738 178 1564 1330 544 98 945 952 592 Male, Total 21 and over 5990 14682 4388 5855 9685 2806 3221 7526 2142 2016 5285 11596 11588 !5914 961 915 2695 617 6415 1877 399 Ater each year, LF means labor force and P means population. Totals may not check because of rounding figures to lOO's. All figures in lOO's. Sources United States Census of Population for each decennial period.

PAGE 403

595 REFERENCE T ABLE LS-2 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES, BY C ATEGORIES, BY DECADES, 1870 1950 Male Female Male Year Non-White White Non-White White Total 21 and over 1930 65.5 58.9 55.6 14.2 40.8 59.4 Change 0.8 0.4 4.5 3.0 1.0 2.7 1920 64. 7 58.5 31.1 11.2 39.8 56.7 Change -1.8 -2.3 -3.0 0.3 -3.0 2.4 1910 66.5 60.8 34.1 1 0.9 42.8 54.3 Change 3.5 5.1 9.8 5.4 4.7 3.6 1900 62.0 57.7 24.3 7.5 38.1 50.7 Change 6.8 3 5 1.1 0.7 3.1 3.1 1890 55.2 54.2 25.2 6.8 35.0 47.6 54.7 14.0 Change 0.6 0,6 1.0 2.4 1880 54.1 13.4 34.0 45.2 Change -5.5 2.9 1. 7 3.0 1870 57.6 10.5 32.3 42.2 Total 9.5 4.7 12.4 7.4 8.5 17.2 Change -2.9 3.5 Average 2.3 1.2 3.1 1.9 1.4 2.9 Change -1.5 1.8 Note: The last column shows the percentage of male, 21 and over, to total male. Source: Computed from Reference Table L S-1. All figures are percentages or percentage differences.

PAGE 404

394 REFERENCE TABLE LS-3 FLORIDA LABOR FORCE CONTROL SERIES, BY INDUSTRIAL SECTORS, BY DECADES, 1870 1930 Sector 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1915() Agrioultural 456 648 717 920 1178 1075 1536 Fishing 2 5 10 18 30 43 61 Forestry 5 10 20 106 190 122 67 Mining 00 0 3 16 35 30 23 Manufacturing 40 84 220 380 747 1027 1458 Trade-Transport 35 78 182 286 482 754 1486 Services-others 69 92 216 291 558 801 1559 Total 607 915 1368 2015 5220 5852 5990 Nonagricultural Subt~tal 151 267 651 1095 2042 2777 4555 Extractive Subtotal 46S 661 750 1068 1453 1270 1487 Notes All figures in lOO's. Extractive equals first four sectors. Sources Table 57.

PAGE 405

395 REFERENCE TABLE LS-4 SECTOR PERCENT.A.GE CHANGE, BY DECADES, 1870 19SO Sector 1870-80 1880-90 1890-00 1900-10 1910-20 1920-SO % s Agriculture 42.l 10.6 28.3 28.0 -8.8 24.2 Fishing so.a 253.3 so.a 66.7 45.5 41.8 Forestry 100.0 100.0 425.0 80.9 -55.8 -45.1 Mining o.o Infinite 400.0 135.5 -14.S -25.4 Manufactures 110.0 161.9 72.7 96.5 57.4 41.9 Trade and Transport 122.8 133.3 57.1 68.5 56.4 97.0 Services 33.3 lM.7 54.7 91.7 45.5 94.6 Total 60.7 49.5 47.2 59.8 19 .e 55.5 Sources Computed from Reference Table LS-5. REFERENCE TABLE LS-5 SECTOR PERCENTAGE OF FLORIDA LABOR FORCE, BY DECADE, 1870 19SO Sector 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 Agriculture 75.1 70.8 52.4 45.7 36.6 27.9 22.5 Fishing 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 Forestry 0.8 1.1 1.5 5.2 5.9 3.2 1.1 M:tning o.o o.o 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.4 Manufactures 6.6 9.2 16.1 18.9 23.2 28.7 24.3 Trade-Transport 5.8 8.5 13.3 14.2 15.0 19.6 24.8 Services 11.4 10.1 15.8 14.4 17.5 20.8 26.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 99 ,.9 Sources Computed from Reference Table LS-5.

PAGE 406

396 REFERENCE TABLE LS-6 DISTRIBUTION COMPARISONS FOR SECTOR LABOR FORCE IN 1930 Sector Occupa-Indus-Control Ind. vs. tional trial Series cs. Source Total 5989 5990 5990 0 Agriculture 1335 1336 1336 0 Fishing 61 61 0 Forestry 72 67 -5 Fishing and Floresty 128 (133) (128) Mining 23 27 25 -4 Manufacture 1420 1470 1458 -12 Trade 796 Transport 479 Trade and Transport ( 1275) 1466 1486 20 Public Service (nee) 125 Professional Service 377 Domestic and Personal Ser. 997 Total Service (1499) 1557 1559 2 Clerical Occupations 309 Add Total 5989 5989 5990 1 (for rounding error) Notes: The last column of the table shows the minor differences between the industrial and the control series distribution. Advantage of this fact is taken in establishing a county bench mark series for 1930. The 55 group industrial breakdown for both state and county is aggregated into the 7 groups which can be matched to the state control series. The aggregaton is not entirely clearcut but appears reasonable. The mo8t doubtful item is the allocation of the "industry not sepcified" total to the sector of manufacturing. otherwise the 7 primary sectors accord closely in their composition with their respective definitions; exactly so, if considered defined by their composition. The detailed assignment of components to sectors is as tollowss

PAGE 407

*riculture shing Forestry Mining REFERENCE TABLE LS-6--Continued unambiguous unambiguous unambiguous unambiguous 397 Manufactures includesz building industry; chemical and allied industries; cigar and tobacco factories; bakeries; slaughter and packing houses; other food and allied industries; automobile factories and repair shops; iron and steel industries; saw and planing mills; other woodworking and furniture industries; paper, printing, and allied industries; independent hand trades; other manufacturing induetrieeJ and industry not specified. Trade and Transport includes construction and maintenance of streets, etc.J garages, greasing stations, etc.; postal service; steam and street railroads; telegraph and telephone; other transportation and communication; banking and brokerage; insurance and real estate; automobile agencies and filling stations; wholesale and retail trade except automobiles; and other trade industries Services includes: public service (not elsewhere classified); recreation and amusement; other professional and semiprofessiona l service; hotels, restaurants, boarding houses, etc.J laundries and cleaning and pressing shops; other domestic and personal service. All figures in 1001s. Sources1 Occu~tional distribution from Table 3. "Gainful Workers 10 Years Old an Over, by General Divisions of Occupations 1930." U.S. Census of Population, 1950, p. 338. Industrial distribution f'rom Table 20. "Persons 10 Years Old and Over Engaged in Gainful Occupations, by Industry Groupe, for Counties .. 1950. 11 U.S. Census of Population, 1930, p. 426. State Control Series distribution from Reference Table LS-5. The primary difference from occupational distribution, in 1930 only, is the allocation of clerical occupations as presented in Table 56.

PAGE 408

598 REFERENCE TABLE LC-1 FLORIDA LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES, BY COMPARABLE SUBSTATE GROUPINGS, BY DECADES, 1870 1950 (In tens) No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 1 Alachua 494 541 541 714 714 1248 2 Baker 44 72 72 89 89 149 5 Bay 4 Bradford 121 208 208 209 209 596 5 Brevard 135 211 6 Broward 7 Calhoun 46 43 45 196 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus 81 263 10 Clay 52 80 80 146 146 161 11 Collier 12 Columbia 220 287 287 401 401 587 15 Dade 12 51 51 258 14 DeSoto 149 266 15 Dixie 16 Duval 781 1044 1044 1771 17 Escambia 315 463 463 731 731 1140 18 Flagler 19 Franklin 42 65 65 115 115 191 20 Gadsden 309 335 355 332 332 478 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 23 Gulf 24 Hamilton 181 233 233 286 286 479 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 87 122 122 279 73 158 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough 118 206 206 592 592 1535 30 Holmes 54 62 62 116 116 255 31 Indian River 32 Jackson 435 549 549 773 33 Jefferson 502 487 487 536 34 Lafayette 88 100 100 176 35 Lake 310 249 36 Lee 57 126 37 Leon 650 604 604 738

PAGE 409

399 REFERENCE TABLE LC-1--Continued No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 38 Levy 197 192 192 509 39 Liberty 54 43 43 44 44 115 40 Madison 374 463 465 431 431 527 41 Manatee 120 236 87 184 42 Marion 403 687 687 956 43 Martin 44 Monroe 244 386 586 706 6 4 9 652 45 Nassau 145 222 222 264 264 558 46 Okaloosa 47 Okeechobee 48 Orange 510 462 49 Osceola 96 95 50 Palm Beach 51 Pasco 125 215 52 Pinellas 55 Polk 89 274 274 482 54 Putnam 158 224 224 422 422 462 55 St. Johns 163 5:34 534 578 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa 100 206 206 251 231 528 58 Sarasota 59 Seminole 60 Sumter 165 228 61 Suwannee 117 255 255 355 335 511 62 Taylor 67 470 470 115 63 Union 64 Volusia 120 309 309 307 65 Wakulla 70 78 78 84 84 166 66 Walton 107 147 147 1 4 2 1 4 2 344 67 Washington 121 168 168 346 68 Calhoun 35 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 35 71 Volusia 35 72 Orange 52 494 1216 73 Manatee 71 429 835 74 Washington 31 429 600 75 Duval 21 539 944 76 Taylor 21 113 155 77 Marion 21 4 08 600 78 Leon 21 983 1152 Sum 6265 8982 8982 13 455 13453 19 8 58 Control Tot a l 6070 9150 9 150 13680 13680 20150 Variation +195 -168 168 -247 -247 -292 % Variation +3.2% -1.8% -1.8% -1.8 % -1.8% -1.5%

PAGE 410

400 REFERENCE TABLE LS-1--Continued 1950 No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1950 Resid-ual 1 Alachua 1248 1449 1449 1170 1170 1502 0.0 2 Baker 149 156 156 181 181 212 2.5 5 Bay 419 454 2.0 4 Bradford 596 557 557 461 461 566 + 7.9 5 Brevard 211 576 207 546 546 559 -4.1 6 Broward 211 859 2.1 7 Calhoun 196 265 295 570 + 2.1 8 Charlotte + 5.5 9 Citrus 265 518 518 215 215 208 -4.1 10 Clay 161 208 208 178 178 ?25 -18.2 11 Collier +18.3 12 Columbia 587 643 643 491 4 91 526 5,0 13 Dade 258 914 2016 6442 + 6.2 14 DeSoto 266 552 552 1000 1000 1506 -1.7 15 Dixie -12.8 16 Duval 1771 5879 3879 5189 5189 6886 + 4.6 17 Escambia 1140 1616 1616 2045 2045 2144 -+-2.2 18 Flagler 117 105 + 1.0 19 Franklin 191 218 218 205 203 239 -9.5 20 Gadsden 478 775 775 789 789 1091 -11.4 21 Gilchrist -9. 3 22 Glades -5.1 23 Gulf + 3.3 24 Hamilton 479 491 491 575 375 382 +11.4 25 Hardee 0.3 26 Hendry + 1.2 27 Hernando 138 220 220 172 172 185 -8.9 28 Highlands -6.4 29 Hillsborough 1535 3619 3619 5053 5884 6522 + 9.0 50 Holmes 255 380 580 389 389 599 + 5.5 51 Indian River + 1.4 52 Jackson 775 1075 1075 1027 1027 1261 + 1.8 33 Jefferson 556 662 662 510 510 511 -1.4 54 Lafayette 176 245 245 219 219 418 + 5.9 35 Lake 249 390 390 481 481 885 -6.4 36 Lee 126 282 282 383 383 964 + 2.8 57 Leon 738 954 954 690 690 1066 + 1. 7

PAGE 411

401 REFERENCE TABLE LC-1--Continued 1950 No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1950 Resid-ual 58 Levy 509 414 414 558 558 456 7.5 59 Liberty 115 192 192 194 194 149 + 0.7 40 Madison 527 650 650 571 571 588 + 1.9 41 Manatee 184 453 455 844 844 1480 + 5.6 42 Marion 956 1138 1158 917 917 1182 5.3 45 Martin -5.4 44 Monroe 652 872 872 710 710 525 -4.4 45 Nassau 358 424 424 406 406 547 8.2 46 Okaloosa 525 554 + 5.1 47 Okeechobee 85 179 + 7.8 48 Orange 462 895 895 1361 861 2085 + 4.1 49 Osceola 95 215 271 410 -10.5 50 Palm Beach 1160 3117 -o.o 51 Pasco 215 299 299 555 553 588 -9.6 52 Pinellas 1149 2468 3.4 53 Polk 482 1070 1070 1551 1551 2818 -0.2 54 Putnam 462 591 591 599 599 745 2.2 55 St. Johns 578 621 551 778 + 5.0 56 St. Lucie -4.8 57 Santa Rosa 528 555 455 456 1.3 58 Sarasota + 0.2 59 Seminole 500 819 + 3.7 60 Sumter 228 253 253 260 260 588 -7.4 61 Suwannee 511 687 678 689 689 585 + 4.1 62 Taylor 115 282 282 432 452 524 -7.7 65 Union -41.6 64 Volusia 307 729 956 1707 5. 7 65 Wakulla 166 159 159 151 151 180 -13.0 66 Walton 544 686 429 555 +10.5 67 Washington 546 615 372 399 + 0.8 68 Calhoun 55 880 1084 69 Dade 65 1296 5741 70 Walton 55 1241 1189 71 Volusia 35 1550 1624 72 Orange 52 73 Manatee 71 74 Washington 51 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 Sum 19858 5196)2 51962 58561 58561 59905 Control Total 20150 52200 52200 58520 58520 59901 Variation -292 -238 -258 + 41 + 41 00 % Variation -1.5% -0.7f. -0.7% +0.1% +0.1%

PAGE 412

402 REFERENCE TABLE LC-1--Continued Note: The column headed 111950 Residual" refers to the percentage of difference between enumerated 1950 county labor force and 1930 county labor force as estimated from age-sex-race disaggregation, with the latter as a base. Sources Computations based on demographic disaggregation as described in Chapter XII. Reference Tables LS-1 and LS-2 provide the underly:1.ng data.

PAGE 413

403 REFERENCE TABLE LC-2 FLORIDA LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE ESTIMATES, BY COMPARABLE SUBSTATE GROUPINGS, BY DECADES, 1870 1950 ( Percentage a) No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 1 Alachua 28.5 52.9 32.9 51.1 51.1 58.7 2 Baker 35.1 31.5 51.5 26.7 26.7 33.0 5 Bay 4 Bradford 53.0 M.O M.O 27.8 27.8 58.4 5 Brevard 59. 7 40.9 6 Broward 7 Calhoun 29.1 25.6 25.6 58.2 8 Charlotte 9 Citrue 55.9 48.8 10 Clay 24.8 28.2 28.2 28.5 28.5 28.5 11 Collier 12 Colmnbia so.o 29.9 29.9 51.1 51.1 34.5 13 Dade 46.1 59.5 59.5 52.0 14 DeSoto 50.2 53.0 16 Dirl.e 16 Dl.i.val 40.2 38.9 58.9 44.6 17 Escambia 40.0 58.1 38.1 56.2 36.2 40.3 18 Flagler 19 Franklin 33.5 36.5 36.3 M.7 54.7 59 .1 20 Gadsden 51.5 27.5 27.5 27.9 27.9 51.3 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 25 Ou.l.f 24 Hamilton 31.5 M.3 54.5 35.6 55.6 40.3 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 29 .6 28.7 28.7 29.4 29.4 57.9 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough 56.6 55.5 35,5 59. 6 59 .6 42.6 30 Holmes 54.4 28.6 28.6 26.7 26.7 32.9 51 Indian River 82 Jackson 30.1 31.3 51.5 35.1 153 Jefferson 51.2 30.9 50.9 35.1 34 Lafayette 56.l 27.1 27 .1. 35.3 55 Lake 38.6 35.3 38 Lee 40.4 41.0 157 Leon 53.1 34.0 54.0 37.1

PAGE 414

404 REFERENCE TA13LE LC-2--Continued No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 38 Levy 34.1 29 .1 29.1 55.9 39 Liberty 52.4 51.6 31.6 50.5 50.5 58.9 40 Madieon 35.6 31.5 31.5 30.1 50.1 34.1 41 Manatee 35.9 50.0 50.0 59 .5 42 Marion 30.9 53.0 35.0 59 .2 43 Martin 44 Monroe 45.1 36.3 55.5 54.5 34.5 58.2 46 Naseau 54.1 55.4 53.4 51.8 51.8 57.1 46 Okaloosa 47 Okeechobee 48 Orange 40.5 40.6 49 Osceola 30.7 27.6 50 Palm Beach 51 Pasco 29.4 55.5 52 Pinellas 55 Polle 28.0 34.6 34.6 58.7 54 Putnam 56.1 55.8 35.8 57.7 57. 7 39. 7 55 St. Johne 55.9 58.5 58.5 41.2 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa 50.2 51.0 31.0 29 .o 29 .o 31.9 68 Sarasota 59 Seminole 60 Sumter 50.8 36.8 61 Suwannee 52.9 55.3 35.5 51.8 31.8 56.1 62 Taylor 29 .4 22.2 22.2 28.5 63 Union 64 Volueia 36.5 56.5 56.5 50.7 65 Wakulla 27.9 28.7 28.7 26.9 26.9 32.2 .66 Walton 55.2 55.0 55.0 29 .5 29 .6 36.8 67 Washington 29.6 26.1 26.1 54.1 68 Calhoun 35 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 55 71 Voluaia 55 72 Orange 52 58.6 57.4 75 Manatee 71 32.5 36.2 74 Washington 51 35.4 29 .9 75 Duval 21 37.1 39.4 76 Taylor 21 55.0 32.8 77 Marion 21 31.8 51.9 78 Leon 21 34.3 32.2 State 52.3 54.0 54.0 55.0 35.0 58.1

PAGE 415

405 REFERENCE TABLE LC-2--Continued No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1930 1 Alachua 38. 7 42.2 42.2 56.9 56.9 39.0 2 Baker 35.0 52.4 32.4 32.2 32.2 525.8 3 Bay 36.7 36.8 4 Bradford 38.4 38.1 58.1 36.8 36.8 53.6 5 Brevard 40.9 43.8 43.8 40.7 40.7 40.6 6 Broward 41.1 42,7 7 Calhoun 58.2 35.5 33.4 36.5 8 Charlotte 43,2 9 Citrue 48.B 47.3 47.3 31.2 4.12 2'>9.8 10 Clay 28.5 34.0 54.0 31.7 31.7 &2.8 11 Collier 53.8 12 Columbia 54.5 36.3 36.5 54.5 34.Z 16.8 125 Dade 52.0 43.2 47.l 4S.O 14 DeSoto 33.0 57.5 57.6 39 .5 39.3 58.5 15 Dixie 40.5 16 Duval 44.6 51.6 51.6 45.7 45.7 44.2 17 Eacambia 40.3 42.7 42.7 41.4 41.4 40.0 18 Flagler 47.9 41,7 19 Franklin 59.1 41.9 41.9 38.1 58.1 58.l 20 Gadsden 31.5 34.9 54.9 33.5 35.5 36.5 21 Gilchrist 33.1 22 Glade 40.2 25 Oulf' 39,6 24 Hamilton 40.3 31.5 41.5 38.0 38.0 40.5 25 Hardee 55.0 26 Hendry 50.2 27 Hernando 37.9 44.0 44.0 37.8 57.8 37,4 28 Highlands 59 ,9 29 Hillsborough 42.6 46.2 46.2 44.0 44.0 42.6 l50 Holllles 32.9 32.9 32.9 30.5 30.5 30.8 31 Indian Riber 41.8 32 Jackson 33.1 36.0 36.0 32.9 32.9 39.5 33 Jefferson 33.l 38.5 58.5 55.2 55.2 38.1 54 Lafayette 35.5 36.6 36.5 35.1 36.1 58.8 35 Lake 35.5 41.0 41.0 57.7 57.7 38.l 36 Lea 41.0 44.8 44.8 40.1 40.l 45.1 37 Leon 37.1 48.1 48.1 38.2 38.2 46.5 ~/ 38 Levy 35.9 40.0 40.0 56.1 36.l 36.6 , .. .. : _-.~ 39 Liberty 38.9 40.9 40.9 38.7 38.7 16.6 l ~\ :-:-.:.~ .. 40 Madil!lon 54.1 38.4 38.4 54.6 54.6 37.6 41 Manatee 39 .s 45.3 45.5 46.1 45.l, 42.IS 42 Marion 39.2 42.2 42.2 58.3 38.S 40.0 45 Martin 44.7 44 Monroe 36.2 40.4 40.4 36.3 36.1 38.5 45 Nassau 57.1 40.3 40.3 35.8 35.8 57.0 46 Okalooea 34.7 55.7 47 Okeechobee 159 .o 48.4 48 Orange 40.6 46.8 46.8 43.5 43.3 42.0

PAGE 416

406 REFERENCE TABLE LC-2--Continued No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1950 49 Osceola 27.8 58.7 37.6 38.3 50 Palm Beach 45.9 44.1 51 Paeco 35.5 59.9 59 .9 57.8 37.8 36.7 52 Pinellas 40.6 59.8 55 Polle 58.7 44.5 44.5 40.1 40.l 39.0 54 Pu.tnam 59.7 45.l 45.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 65 St. Johns 41.2 47.0 42.2 41.6 56 St. Lucie 59.3 57 Santa Rosa 51.9 57.2 51.8 52.4 58 Sarasota 42.1 59 Seminole 45.5 45.6 60 Sumter 36.8 37.8 57.8 55.1 33.1 36.4 61 Suwannee 35.1 36.9 36.9 34.8 54.8 37.0 62 Taylor 28. 5 39. 7 39. 7 38.6 38.5 39.8 65 Union 28.2 64 Volueia 30.7 44.1 40.9 59.9 66 Wakulla 52.2 33.1 55.1 29.4 29 .4 52.9 66 Walton 56.8 41.7 36.4 38.0 67 Washington 54.1 57.5 51.4 32.7 68 Calhoun 55 56.9 53.8 69 Dade 65 47.8 44.7 70 Walton 55 59 .6 53.8 71 Volusia 35 45.4 41.8 72 Orange 52 73 Manatee 71 74 Washmgton 31 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 State 38.1 42.8 42.8 59.8 59. 8 40.8 Notez Participation rates were also listed for all counties in 1930 even.though they did not have comparable rates for 1920. For example, Gilchrist County had a participation rate of 33.1 for 19!50 but the participation rate ot 39.0 !or Alachua County in 19!50 is for the two counties combined, to make it comparable with the 1.9:20 rate when Gilchrist was part of Alachua County. It is also noted that the 1950 rates are bench mark rates based directly on census enumerations. Sourcez Computed from population figures in Reference Table P-2 and labor force estimates in Reference Table LC-1.

PAGE 417

407 REFERENCE TABLE LC-5 AGRICULTURAL LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES, BY COMPARABLE SUBSTATE GROUPINGS, BY DECADES, 1870 1930 (In tens) No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 l Alachua 407 450 430 470 470 6815 2 Baker 22 56 56 60 60 97 5 Bay 4 Bradford 88 170 170 151 151 253 5 Brevard 41 96 6 Broward 7 Calhoun 54 27 27 86 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus 43 59 10 Clay 38 62 62 43 43 63 11 Collier 12 Columbia 195 281 281 551 531 363 15 Dade 0 72 72 198 14 DeSoto 56 158 15 Dixie 16 Duval 292 110 110 232 17 Escambia 16 20 20 28 28 72 18 Flagler 19 Franklin 5 14 14 4 4 10 20 Gadsden 1510 383 383 253 235 374 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 23 Oul.f 24 Hamilton 100 188 188 226 226 256 26 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 155 148 148 198 57 50 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough 124 195 195 231 231 451 30 Holmes 54 82 82 101 101 156 51 Indian River 52 Jackson 468 526 526 670 53 Jefferson 594 348 548 444 34 Lafayette 50 109 109 121 55 Lake 208 162 56 Lee 18 73 57 Leon 618 524 524 603

PAGE 418

408 REFERENCE TABLE LC-5--Continued No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 58 Levy e 152 115 115 150 59 Liberty 29 40 40 10 10 48 40 Madison 175 407 407 594 394 467 41 Manatee e 92 128 72 242 42 Marion e 401 459 459 490 45 Martin 44 Monroe 2 25 25 19 1 34 45 Nassau 53 54 54 60 60 59 46 Okaloosa 47 Okeechobee 48 Orange 435 227 49 Osceola e 16 77 50 Palm Beach 51 Pasco 118 110 52 Pinellas 55 Polk 106 171 171 246 54 Putnam 75 139 159 197 197 149 55 St. Johns 165 129 129 64 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa 52 54 54 85 85 75 58 Sarasota 59 Seminole 60 Sumter e e 181 157 61 Suwannee 86 220 220 250 250 545 62 Taylor e 82 57 57 109 63 Union 64 Volusia 64 251 251 95 65 Wakulla 64 68 68 47 47 81 66 Walton 82 88 88 61 61 120 67 Washington 89 86 86 157 68 Calhoun 55 69 Dade 65 7 0 Walton 55 71 Volusia 35 72 Orange 52 570 879 75 Manatee 71 534 652 74 Washington 51 519 591 75 Duval 21 265 455 76 Taylor 21 121 132 77 Marion 21 604 555 78 Leon 21 593 1012 Sum (101 s) 4560 6479 6479 7170 7170 9200 Control (1001s) 456 648 648 717 717 920

PAGE 419

409 REFERENCE TABLE LC-5--Continued No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1950 1 Alachua 685 621 621 445 445 549 2 Baker 97 100 100 75 75 89 5 Bay 16 55 4 Bradford 253 544 344 257 257 :341 5 Brevard 96 315 96 119 119 140 6 Broward 77 504 7 Calhoun 86 118 107 124 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus 59 57 57 53 55 49 10 Clay 63 57 57 78 78 90 11 Collier 12 Columbia 565 592 592 266 266 241 13 Dade 198 520 419 461 14 DeSoto 158 272 272 311 511 455 15 Dixie 16 Duval 252 289 289 162 162 226 17 Escambia 72 115 113 99 99 181 18 Flagler 56 55 19 Franklin 10 5 5 2 2 5 20 Gadsden 374 555 555 509 509 518 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 25 Gulf 24 Hamilton 256 267 267 209 209 205 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 50 50 50 65 65 75 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough 451 567 567 443 540 572 50 Holmes 156 288 288 255 255 275 51 Indian River 52 Jackson 670 939 959 796 796 839 53 Jefferson 444 429 429 368 568 299 54 Lafayette 121 155 135 105 105 110 35 Lake 152 189 189 152 152 299 56 Lee 73 114 114 114 114 241 37 Leon 605 567 567 376 576 582 38 Levy 150 173 175 143 145 169 39 Liberty 48 61 61 40 40 4 5 40 Madison 467 442 442 360 560 570 41 Manatee 242 435 435 409 409 471 42 Marion 490 526 526 599 399 485 43 Martin 44 Monroe 34 21 21 19 19 11 45 Nassau 59 71 71 77 77 84 46 Okaloosa 108 158 47 Okeechobee 16 57 48 Orange 227 584 584 554 511 594 49 Osceola 77 46 47 72

PAGE 420

REFERENCE T ABLE L C-3--Continued No. County 50 Palm Beach 51 Pasco 52 Pinellas 53 Polk 54 Putnam 55 St. Johns 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa 58 Sarasota 59 Sem:inole 60 Sumter 61 Suwannee 62 Taylor 63 Union 64 Volusia 65 Wakulla 66 Walton 67 Washington 68 Calhoun 35 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 35 71 Volusia 35 72 Orange 52 73 Manatee 71 74 Washington 31 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 1900 1910 llO 246 149 64 75 157 343 109 95 81 120 137 113 253 183 156 192 182 476 105 203 61 197 222 Sum (101s) 9200 11781 Control (1001s) 9 2 0 1178 1910 1920 113 124 253 540 183 1 6 8 182 234 476 367 103 74 e 61 73 340 2 8 8 785 11 07 389 386 359 352 11781 1 0 749 1178 1 0 7 5 410 192 0 1930 548 125 103 340 168 124 116 243 234 367 7 4 191 73 162 165 7 4 9 122 171 701 198 14 0 201 359 197 337 7 4 2 4 7 59 219 18 0 1 0749 1536 4 1075 1336 Note: The symbol (s) indicates that these counties for these decennial periods are combined with other s into the s ubstate g r o u ping s a t the bottom of the table. Reference Table G-1 identifies the composition of each substate grouping. Source: Estimated in accord ance with the procedures stated in Chapter XII. Control totals are from Reference Table L S-3.

PAGE 421

411 REFERENCE TABLE LC-4 MINING LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES, BY COMPARABLE SUBSTA.TE GROUPINGS, BY DECADES, 1870 19150 No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1930 1 Alachua 0 27 27 15 15 5 2 Baker 3 Bay 4 Bradford 5 Brevard 6 Broward 7 Calhoun 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus 19 85 85 14 14 10 Clay 11 Collier 12 Columbia 0 17 17 0 0 2 13 Dade 3 0 0 8 14 DeSoto 15 Dixie 16 Duval 0 4 17 Escambia 0 15 18 Flagler 19 Franklin 20 Gadsden 13 13 13 60 80 26 21 Gilchril!lt 22 Glades 25 Oul.f 24 Hamilton 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 19 0 0 6 28 Highlands 29 Hilleborough 0 28 28 18 18 18 30 Holmel!I 31 Indian River 32 Jackson 0 1 33 Jefferson 54 Lafayette 35 Lake 4 0 0 3 56 Lee 37 Leon 0 1 158 Levy 0 3 39 Liberty 40 Madil!lon 41 Manatee 0 10 10 4 42 Marion 31 36 56 10 10 8 45 Martin 44 Monroe 0 1 45 Nassau 46 Okaloosa

PAGE 422

412 REFERENCE TABLE LC-4--Continued No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1930 47 Okeechobee 48 Orange 49 Osceola 50 Palm Beach 51 Paeco 52 Pinellas 55 Polle 54 Putnam 55 St. Johns 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa 58 Sarasota 59 Seminole 60 Sumter 61 Suwannee 62 Taylor 65 Union 64 Volusia 65 Wakulla 66 Walton 67 Washington 68 Calhoun 35 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 35 71 Volusia 35 72 Orange 52 73 Manatee 71 74 Washington 31 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 Sum (10' s) Control (lOO's) 54 4 150 15 144 0 0 350 55 144 0 350 35 172 1 300 50 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 2 117 6 1 1 2 251 21 Note: The period 1870-1900 is not included in tabular form since the state control series shows negligible numbers in mining for 1870, 1880, and 1890 and only 500 for 1900. These may be ascribed to Marion County. As noted in the textual discussion, these early census figures for mining are undoubtedly deficient; with some miners probably listed as laborers, not specified, and in other principal occupations . Source, Estimated in accordance with the procedures stated in Chapter XII. Control totals are from Reference Table LS-3.

PAGE 423

413 REFERENCE TABLE LC-5 MANUFACTURING LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES, BY COMPARABLE SUBSTATE GROUPINGS, BY DECADES, 1870 1930 ~In tens~ No. County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 l Alachua 39 28 28 86 86 129 2 Baker 2 3 5 15 13 40 5 Bay 4 Bradford 6 7 7 19 19 58 5 Brevard 9 12 6 Broward 7 Calhoun 2 5 5 64 8 Charlotte 9 Citrua 17 64 10 Clay 5 3 5 25 25 46 11 Collier 12 Columbia 9 19 19 79 79 99 15 Dade 0 4 4 10 14 DeSoto 24 25 15 Dixie 18 Duval 68 255 253 272 17 Eacambia 53 63 65 158 158 161 18 Flagler 19 Franklin 4 2 2 55 55 62 20 Gadsden 13 15 15 28 28 47 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 25 Oul.f 24 Hamilton 7 8 8 50 92 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 4 5 6 40 9 62 28 Highlands 29 Hilla borough 9 7 7 162 162 625 so Holmea 2 3 5 19 19 61 31 Indian River 52 Jackaon 17 52 52 93 33 Jefferson 19 35 55 25 M Lafayette 3 11 11 49 36 Lake 30 82 36 Lee 5 3 '67 Leon 24 57 57 107

PAGE 424

414 REFERENCE TABLE LC-5--Continued No, County 1870 1880 1880 1890 1890 1900 58 Levy 21 51 51 89 59 Liberty 1 2 2 5 5 24 40 Madison 22 44 44 96 96 41 41 Manatee 4 52 8 5 42 Marion 16 76 76 154 45 Martin 44 Monroe 55 254 254 416 415 218 45 Nassau 12 44 44 52 52 89 46 Okaloosa 47 Okeechobee 48 Orange 62 71 49 Osceola 6 4 50 Palm Beach 51 Pasco 14 95 52 Pinellas 55 Polk 4 51 31 52 54 Putnam 6 8 8 46 46 102 55 St, Johns 5 46 46 115 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa Rosa 15 41 41 22 22 75 58 Sarasota 59 Seminole 60 Sumter 20 49 61 Suwannee 6 59 59 52 32 81 62 Taylor 5 4 4 9 65 Union 64 Volusia 4 50 30 60 65 Wakulla 5 3 5 10 10 70 66 Walton 6 5 5 12 12 64 67 Washington 11 27 27 75 68 Calhoun 35 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 35 71 Volusia 35 72 Orange 52 16 127 75 Manatee ul 17 28 74 Washington 31 15 30 75 Duval 21 65 73 76 Taylor 21 4 6 77 Marion 21 18 37 78 Leon 21 48 43 Sum (101 s) 4 00 8 4 0 8 4 0 2200 2200 3802 Control (1001a) 40 84 84 220 220 580

PAGE 425

415 REFERENCE TABLE LC-5--Continued No. County 1900 1910 1910 1920 1920 1930 1 Alachua 129 189 189 209 209 297 2 Baker 40 39 39 33 33 74 3 Bay 205 177 4 Bradford 58 136 136 45 45 97 5 Brevard 12 35 27 so so 90 6 Broward 13 147 7 Calhoun 64 72 112 123 8 Charlotte 9 Citrus 64 78 78 73 73 43 10 Clay 46 92 92 75 75 52 11 Collier 12 Columbia 99 103 103 112 112 90 13 Dade 10 125 361 1522 14 DeSoto 23 189 189 214 214 282 15 Dixie 16 Duval 272 752 752 1799 1799 1693 17 Escambia 161 188 188 808 808 565 18 Flagler 26 29 19 Franklin 62 175 175 104 104 103 20 Gadsden 47 35 35 111 111 231 21 Gilchrist 22 Glades 23 Gulf 24 Hamilton 92 87 87 54 54 95 25 Hardee 26 Hendry 27 Hernando 62 51 51 66 66 36 28 Highlands 29 Hillsborough 623 1 3 20 1320 2033 1909 2513 30 Holmes 61 122 122 86 86 53 31 Indian River 32 Jackson 93 ll9 119 115 115 143 33 Jefferson 25 172 172 36 36 97 34 Lafayette 49 140 1 4 0 63 63 197 35 Lake 62 51 51 78 78 157 36 Lee 3 56 56 43 43 229 37 Leon 107 87 87 94 94 192 38 Levy 89 272 272 151 151 136 39 Liberty 24 146 146 112 112 69 40 Madison 41 135 135 67 67 90 41 Manatee 5 72 72 113 113 283 42 Marion 154 322 322 169 169 215 43 Martin 44 Monroe 218 271 271 296 296 156 45 Massau 89 86 86 95 95 98 4 6 Okaloosa 91 69 47 Okeechobee 3 49 48 Orange 71 80 80 198 112 400

PAGE 426

REFERENCE TABLE LC-5--Continued No. County 49 Osceola 50 Palm Beach 51 Pasco 52 Pinellas 55 Polk 54 Putnam 55 St. Johns 56 St. Lucie 57 Santa R.osa 58 Sarasota 59 Seminole 60 Sumter 61 Suwannee 62 Taylor 65 Union 64 Volusia 65 Wakulla 66 Walton 67 Washington 68 Calhoun 55 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 55 71 Volusia 55 72 Orange 52 75 Manatee 71 74 Washington 51 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 1900 1910 4 93 52 102 115 75 49 81 9 60 70 64 75 16 111 51 145 150 282 24 119 115 114 46 222 279 Sum (101s) 5802 7470 Control (1001s) 380 747 1910 1920 Ee 111 51 145 24 119 115 46 551 149 5 0 5 264 107 187 188 51 67 516 9 66 439 508 466 571 7 47 0 10268 747 1027 416 1920 1950 28 1 0 3 107 124 187 188 152 205 86 51 67 516 215 66 172 122 159 686 97 560 561 194 174 115 104 49 81 229 569 66 141 107 10268 14582 1027 1458 Note: The symbols() indicate tha t these counties for these decennial periods are combined with others into the substate groupings at the bottom of the table. Reference Table G-1 identifies the composition of each substate grouping. Source: Estimated in accordance with the procedures stated in Chapter XII. Control totals are from Reference Table LS-3.

PAGE 427

417 REFERENCE TABLE LC-6 SECTOR DISTP IBUTION OF FLORIDA'S LABOR FORCE, 1930 (In 101 s) No. County Agri. Fish. For. Min. Manu. TradeServ. Total Trans. 1 Alachua + 549 4 13 3 297 264 369 1500 2 Baker 89 12 74 20 18 214 3 Bay 33 38 12 177 81 94 436 4 Bradford + 341 5 97 58 61 562 5 Brevard 140 21 4 90 154 151 559 6 Broward 304 2 1 1 147 197 209 859 7 Calhoun + 124 10 25 123 46 44 372 8 Charlotte 14 9 Citrus 49 19 7 43 39 48 208 10 Clay 90 5 8 52 55 34 224 11 Collier 36 12 Columbia 241 6 2 90 78 99 516 13 Dade 461 19 1 8 1522 2138 2307 6441 14 DeSoto + 435 29 21 282 283 263 1312 15 Dixie 34 16 Duval 226 30 25 4 1693 2680 2245 6883 17 Escambia 181 35 18 5 565 610 737 2144 18 Flagler 35 3 29 19 16 102 19 Franklin 5 40 12 103 38 40 240 20 Gadsden 518 12 26 231 114 181 1090 21 Gilchrist 1 22 Glades 14 23 Gulf 7 24 Hamilton 205 6 95 28 48 383 25 Hardee 14 26 Hendry 36 27 Hernando 75 1 2 6 36 34 51 184 28 Highlands 14 29 Hillsborough 572 15 19 18 2515 1795 1586 6517 50 Holmes 275 8 55 32 30 398 31 Indian River 50 32 Jackson 859 5 1 143 111 154 1254 33 Jefferson 299 1 6 97 52 56 511 34 Lafayette + 110 6 52 197 59 38 425 35 Lake 299 2 22 3 157 198 205 885 56 Lee + 241 32 16 229 252 218 968 37 Leon 582 8 1 192 157 527 1067 38 Levy 169 22 26 5 156 51 47 457 39 Liberty 45 3 4 69 10 19 148 40 Madison 370 19 90 49 58 587 41 Manatee + 471 24 5 4 283 512 386 1485 42 Marion 485 1 25 8 215 207 245 1186 43 Martin 50 44 Monroe 11 55 1 156 157 159 518 45 Nassau 84 26 8 98 65 67 549 46 Okaloosa 158 9 10 69 46 41 335

PAGE 428

418 REFERENCE TABLE LC-6--Continued No. County Agri. Fish. For. Min. Manu. Trade- Trans. Serv. Total 47 Okeechobee 37 4 13 49 38 36 178 48 Orange 594 5 17 5 400 576 695 2085 49 Osceola 72 5 11 159 87 76 411 60 Palm Beach + 749 52 3 1 686 720 920 3118 51 Pasco 122 4 8 1 97 84 73 588 52 Pinellas 171 27 4 2 560 776 935 2469 5& Polk 701 8 59 117 561 752 640 2820 54 Putnam 198 18 19 6 194 142 167 745 55 St. Johns 140 11 4 1 174 202 248 778 56 St. Lucie 50 57 Santa Rosa 201 5 22 113 68 50 468 58 Sarasota 41 59 Seminole 559 4 5 104 195 147 812 60 Sumter 197 1 13 1 49 78 48 587 61 Suwannee 557 8 2 81 70 85 582 62 Taylor 74 6 52 229 79 80 524 63 Union 4 64 Volusia 247 19 17 3 569 451 622 1707 66 Wakulla 59 15 8 66 14 17 180 6~ Walton 219 1 14 141 110 71 557 67 Washington 180 1 13 107 49 50 401 68 Calhoun 35 69 Dade 65 70 Walton 155 71 Volusia 35 7t Orange 52 75 Manatee 71 74 Washington 51 75 Duval 21 76 Taylor 21 77 Marion 21 78 Leon 21 Sum (101 s) 15364 609 672 232 14582 14858 15585 69897 Control ( 1001 s) 1556 61 67 25 1458 1486 1569 5990 Notes The number in the column headed by the symbol() relates to the county with which combined (for comparative purposes with 1920). The plus sign refers to those counties which have other counties included in their totals. See Reference Table 0-1. Sources Adjusted U.S. Census Data. See Reference Tables LS-5 and LS-6.

PAGE 429

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PAGE 430

BIBLIOGRA.PHY Public Docmnents Dubeater, Henry J. Catalog of United States Census Publications, 1790-1945. Washington1 Government Printing Office, 1950. Edwards, Alba M. Com rative Ocou tion Statistics for the United States 187n to een ment ~inting Office, 1945. Florida. Floridaa An Advancing State. 1907-1917-1927: An Industrial Survey. Tallahassee, 1928 Census Report of the State of Florida for the Year 1895. ---Tallahassee1 Floridian Printing Company, l897. _____ Commissioner of Lands and Immigration. Sixth Annual Report ?or the Year Ending December 311 1874. Tallahassee, Charles H. Walton, 1874 The Fourth Census of the State of Florida, 1916. Tallahasseea ----state Printer, 1915 House Journal (Assembly Journal prior to 1887). Annual from ----1868 to l875 and thereartert>lennial Senate Journal. Annual from 1868 to 1875 and thereafter ---~biennial. ____ Re~ort of the Commissioner of Agriculture. l889-90 to date. ____ Report of the Comptroller. Annual Biennial from The Sixth Cen8US of the State of Florida, 1955. Tallahassee1 ---state Prliiter, 1935. 420

PAGE 431

421 The Third Census of the State of Florida, 1905. Tallahassees State Printer, 1906. United States. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Bankinf and Monetaf. Statistics. Washingtons The National Capita Press, l94 Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States. ---"Manufacturess 1929. Vol. I. General Report. Statistics by Subjects. Washingtons Govermnent Printing Office, 1933 Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States. ---"Manufacturess 1929. Vol. III. Reports by States. Washingtons Govermnent Printing Office, 1933 Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States1 ---..... 1930. Population. Vol. V. General Report on Occupations. Washington: Oovermnent Printing Office, 1935 Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States. ----1930. A_&!:iculture. Vol. II. ReP9rts by States. Pt. 2. The Southern States. Washington, Govermnent Printing Office, 1952 Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States. ---.. Mines and Quarries 1 1929. Washingtons Government Printing Office, 1935 Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census of the United States1 ----1920. Poeulation. Vol. IV. Occupations. Washingtons Government Printing Office, 1923 Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census of the United States ----taken in the ar 1920. Vol. VIII. Manufactures, 1919. General rt an Anal ica Tables. Washington: Govermnent Printing ce, 192 Bureau of the CensUB. Historical Statistics of the United ----states, 1789-1945. Washington, Govermnent Printing Of'fice, 1949 Bureau of the Census. Special Rep0rts. Occupations at the ----Twelfth Census. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1904. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. (Annual). Washington, Government Printing Office Bureau of the Census. Thirteenth Census of the United Statesa ---. Population. Vol. IV. Occupation Statistics. Waehingtona Government Printing Office, 1914.

PAGE 432

422 United States. Bureau of the Census. Thirteenth Census of the United States taken in the year 1910. Vol. VITI. Manufactures in l909. General Ret3rt and Analysis. Washington: Government Pr ting Office, 19 Census Office. Ninth Census. Population of the United States. bffice, 1872 Vol. I. The Statistics of the Washington, Government Printing Census Office. Ninth Census. Vol. III. ----the Wealth and Industry of the United States. Govermnent Printing Office, 1872 The Statistics of Washington: Census Office. R.eport on Manufacturing Industries in the ----united States at the Eleventh Census, 1890. Part I. Totals ?or States and Industries. Washington: Government Printing Office, 189 5 Census Office. Report on the Manufactures of the United States at the Tenth Census Embracin General Statistics. ashington: r t g Census Office. Report on Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census. Vol. I. Part I. Washington: Govern ment and Printing Office, 1895. Census Office. Statistics of the Population of the United States at the Tenth Census. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1883. Census Office. Twelfth Census of the United States taken in the year 1900. Manufactures. Part II. States and Territories. Vol. VIII. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1902. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. Annual Report of the Chief of En ineers: Part I Commercial Statistics Water-gton: vernment

PAGE 433

Books Abbey, Kathryn Trimmer. Florida, Land of Change. Chapel Hillt The University of North Carolina Press, 1941. 423 Campbell, A, Stuart. The Cigar Industry of Tampa, Florida. Director, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, 1959, Studies in Forestry Resources in Florida. 3 vols. University -----of Florida Economic Series. Gainesville, University of Florida, 1932-515, Christenaen, David E. Rural Occupance in Transi tiom Lee and Sumter Counties, Georgia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Copeland, Morrie A. Trends in Government Financing. Princetons Princeton University Press, 1961. Covington, James Warren. The Story of Southwestern Florida. New Yorks Lewie Historical PublishingCo., 1957. Dabney, Virginiua. Liberalism in the South. Chapel Hills The University of North Carolina Press, l932. Dacy, George H. Four Centuries of Florida Ranching. St. Louisa Britt Printing Co,, l940. Dau, Frederick W, Florida, Old and New. New Yorks G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1954, Doyle, Wilson K., and others. The Government and Administration of Florida. New Yorkt Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1954. Duncan, otis D., and Other11. Analyzing Areal Data. Statistical GeograP};: Problems in 01.encoes The Free ess, 1961. Fisher, Jane. Fabulous Hoosier. A Story of American Achievement. New Yorks Robert M. McBride and Co,, 1947. Fite, Gilbert C, and Reeee, Jim E, An Economic Histo?s' of the United States. Bostons Houghton Mi.lliin Company, 19 9.

PAGE 434

424 Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Liberal Hour. Bol!ltons Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960. Gardiner, Patrick (ed.). Theoriel!I of History. Glencoea The Free Press, 1969. Garraghan, Gilbert J. A Guide to Historical Method. New Yorks Ford ham University Presa, 1946. Goodrich, Carter, and others. Mi ration and Economic rtunit. The Report of the Study o Population Redil!ltribution. Philadelphiaa The Univerl!lity of Pennsylvania Prees, 1936. Gordon, Margaret S. Employment Exrnsion and Population Growth. Berkeley1 University of Ca ifornia Press, 1954. Greenhut, Melvin L. and Jackson, Frank H. Intennediate Income and Orowth Theory. Englewood Cliffe a Prentice-Hall, Inc., l961. j Hanna, Frank A. State Income Differentials, 1919-1954. Durhams University Prees, l959. Hansen, Alvin H. Business Cyclel!I and National Income. New Yorks w. W. Norton and Co., ~c., l951. Duke Harrie, Seymour E. (ed.). International and Interregional Economics. New Yorks McGraw-Hill, l957. HaUBer, Philip M. and Duncan, Otie Dudley (eds.). The Study of Population. Chicagoa The University of Chicago Press, 1969. Higgin, Benjamin. Economic Develoffoenta Principles, Probleme and Policies. New Yorks W.W. orton and Co., Inc., 1969 Hirl!lohllan, Albert O. The Stratas of Economic Developnent. Yale University Press, 19 8. New Havens Hobba, s. Huntington, Jr. North Carolinas An Economic and Social Prof'ile. Chapel Hilla Univerl!lity of North Carolina Press, 1958. Hoover, Edgar M. The Location of Economic Activity. New Yorks McGrawHill Book Company, Inc. 1'148. Hopkins, James T. Fitty Years of' Citrus. The Florida Citrus Exchaye1 1909-1969. Oaineml.le1 Univeraity of Florida Presa, l960. Hoselitz, Bert F. Sociological Aa19cta of Economic Growth. The Free Press o? Glencoe, 60. Glencoe, Hoselitz, Bert F., and others. Theories of Economic Growth. Gl.enooe1 The Free Preas, 1960.

PAGE 435

Isard, Walter. Location and Space-Economy. New Yorks John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956 Methode of Regional Analysis. New Yorks Jolm Wiley and ----Sons, Ino., 1960. 426 James, Marquis. Alfred I. DuPont. The Family Rebel. New York, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1941. Johnson, John L. Ineane in Kentucky. University of Kentucky Prees, 1955. Joubert, William H. Southern Freight Rates in Traneition. University of Florida Presa, 1949. Gainesville a Kendrick, John W. Productivity Trends in the United States. Princeton University Press, l96l. Prineeton1 J Kennedy, Stetson. Palmetto Country. New Yorks Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1942. Knight, Frank H. On the History and Method of Economics. The University of Chicago Prese, 1956. Chieago1 Knox, John Jay. A History of Ba~ in the United States. Bradford Rhodes and Company,903. New Yorks Kuznets, Simon, and others. Analyses of Economic Chan5e Vol. II of Pot4ation Redistribution and Eoonomio Oroffi{ nited Statee, l8 O-l950. Lee, Everetts., and Others. adelphia1 American Philosophical Society, 1960. Kuznet1, Simon. Capital in the American Economya Its Formation and Finaneing, Prfiicetons Princeton University Press, 1961 Six Lectures on Economic Growth. Glencoe1 The Free Press, ---1959 Lancaster, John Littlepage. Count~ Income Estimates for Seven Southeastern States. A report o the Conference on the Meal5Uremant of County Income. Charlottesville: Bureau of Population and Economic Research, University of Virginia, 1952. Lee, Everetts., and Others. Po,ulation Redistribution and Economic Growth1 United States, l8 0-1950. Vol. I. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1957. Leontie.f'f', Wassily, and others. Studiee in the Structure of the American Economy. New Yorks Oxford University Press, 1955.

PAGE 436

426 McLaughlin, Glenn E. and Hobock, Stefan. Why Industry Moves South. Kingsport: Kingsport Press, Inc., 1929. Martin, Sidney Walter. Florida's Flagler. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1949. Mookerjee, Subirnal. Factor Endowments and International Trade. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1958. Maunder, W. F. Employment in an Underdeveloped Area. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960. Moore, Geoffrey H. (ed.). Business Cycle Indicators. 2 vols. Princetonz Princeton University Press, 1961. Mukherjee, P. K. E conomic Surveys in Under-Developed Countries: A Study in Methodology. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1960. National Bureau of E conomic Research. Studies in Income and Wealth. Press, 1957. R~ional Income. Vol. XXI of Pr ceton: Princeton University Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century. Vol. XXIV of Studies in Income and Wealth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. National Industrial Conference Board. A Graphic Anal ysis of the Census of Manufactures or the United States 1849 to 1919. National Industrial Conference Board, 1925. Nelson, Eastin (ed.). E conomic Growth. on Economic Develonent. Austin: Proceedings of the Conference University of Texas Press, 1960. Nelson, Lowry. The Minnesota Community. County a nd Town in Transition. Minneapolisz The University of Minnesota Press 1960. Nicholls, William H. Southern Tradition and Regional Progress. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 196 0 North, Henry Ringling and Hatch Alden. T he Circus Kings. Garden City: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1960. Odum, Howard W. Southern Regions of the United States. Chapel Hill: University o f N orth Carolina Press, 1936. Pares, Richard. T he Historian's Business and Other Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19 61. Patrick, R embert W F l orida Under Five Flags. Rev. ed. Gainesville: Univ e r sity o f Florida Press, 195 5

PAGE 437

427 Perloff, Harvey S., Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., Lampard, Eric E., and Muth, Richard F. Regions, Resources, and Economic Growth. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1960. Price, H. D. The Negro and Southern Politics. New York: New York University Press, 1957. Ratchford, Benjamin U, American State Debts. Durham: Duke University Press, 1941. Roberts, Merrill S, and Bigham, Truman C. Citrus Fruit Rates, Devel Fiment and Economic Appraisal. Gainesville: University of orida Press, 1950. Salter, Leonard A., Jr. ics. :Minneapolis: A Critical Review of Research in Land EconomThe University of Minnesota Press, 1948. Smyth, G, Hutchinson. The Life of Henry Bradley Plant. New Yorki G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1898, Stanbery, Van Beuren. Some New Techniques for Area Population Projections Los Angeles: Citizen Print Shop, 1960 Stephenson, Wendell Holmes. The South Lives Its History. Southern Historians and Their Legacy. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1955. Stigler, George J. Domestic Servants in the United States: 19001940. National Bureau of Economic Research Occasional Paper 24. New York: 1 946. Stockbridge, Frank Parker and Perry, John Holliday. Florida in the Making. New York: The deBower Publishing Co., 1926. So This Is Florida. Jacksonville: John H. Perry Publishing Company, 1938. Thompson, Warren S. Population Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953. Tostlebe, Alvin S. Capital in Agriculture: Its Formation and Financing since 1870. Turner, Robert C. Lectures on E conomic Growth. School of Business Administration, Tulane University, 1960. Vance, Rupert B. of the South: A Stud in Resources and Human Adequacy. 2d ed. Chapel Hill: versity of North Carolina Press, 1935.

PAGE 438

428 Williamson, Harold F. and Buttrick, John A. (eds.). Economic Devel opnent. Principles and Patterns. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall Inc., 1954. Wolff, Reinhold Paul. Miami: Economic Pattern of a Resort Area. Coral Gables: University of Miami, 1945. Woodward, C. Vann, Origins of the New South, 1877-1915. Vol, IX of A History of the South. Louisiana State University Press, 1951. Woolfolk, George Ruble. The Cotton Regency: The Northern Merchants and Reconstruction, l865-l880. New York: Bookman Associates, 1958. Yoder, Lowell C. The Consumer Finance Industry in Florida, Gainesville University of Florida Press, 1957. Articles and Periodicals Ames, Edward. "Research, Invention, Development and Innovation," The American Economic Review, LI (June, 1961), 580 ff. Balassa, Bela. "Patterns of Industrial Growth: Comment," The American Economic Review, LI (June, 1961), 394-97. Baughn, W. H. "Capital Formation and Entrepreneurship in the South," The Southern Economic Journal, XVI, No. 2 (October, 1949), 161 ff. Dodd, William E. "Economic Interpretation of American History," The Journal of Political Economy, XXIV (May, 1916), 489-95. Dovell, J. E. "The Develonent of Florida I s Highways," Economic Leaflets, XI, No. 11 (October, 1952). A publication of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. Galbraith, John Kenneth. "A Positive Approach to Economic Aid," Foreign Affairs, XXXIX, No. 3 (April, 1961), 444 ff. Goodrich, Carter. "Internal Migration and Economic Opportunity," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 188 (November, 19S6). Harville, R. A. Economy "The Economy of the South," (February, 1940), 53 ff. The Journal of Political

PAGE 439

429 Heeseltine, William Beat. "Four American Traditions," The Journal of Southern Hietory, XXVII, No. l (February, 1961), 3 ff. Higgins, Benjamin. "The 'Dualistic Theory' of Underdeveloped Areas," Economie Developnent and Cultural Change, IV, No. 2 (January, 1956), 99 "In Memoriams Francis Philip Fleming," Florida Historical Quarterly, II, No. l (April, 1909), 3-8. Knaues, James Owen. "The Growth of Florida's Election Laws," Florida Historical Quarterly, V, No. 1 (July, 1926), 3-17. Knight, Frank H. "Schumpeter's History of Economics," (A Review Article), The Journal of Economic History, XXI, No. 3 (January, 1954), 261 ff. Kuznets, Simon. "Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations. III. Industrial Distribution of Income and Labor Force by States, United States, 1919-21 to 1955," Economic Developnent and Cultural Change, VI, No. 4, ?t. 2 (July, 1958), 1 ff. Matilla, John M. and Thompson, Wilbur R. "The Role of the Product Market In State Industrial Development," PsEere and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, VI (19 ), 87-96. Neale, Walter C. "Book Review," The Journal of Economic History, XII, No. 1 (March, 1961), 107-8. "Notes on Reconstruction in Tallahassee and Leon County, 1866-1876," Florida Historical Quarterly, V, No. 3 (January, 1927), 152-58. Okun, Bernard and Richardson, Richard W. "Regional Income Inequality and Internal Population Migration," Economic Developnent and Cultural Change, IX, No. 2 (January, 1961), 128 fl. Pauuw, Douglas S. "Some Frontiers of Einpirical Research in Economic Develot211ent," Economic Development and Cultural Change, II, No. 2 (January, 1961), 180 ff. Ratchford, B. U. "Patterns of Economic Development," The Southern Economic Journal, XX, No. 3 (January, 1964), 217 ff. Robock, Stefan H. "Industrialism and Economic Progress in the Southeast," The Southern Economic Journal, XX, No. 4 (April, 1954), 307 ff. Saville, Lloyd. "Sectional Developments in Italy and the United States," The . S9uthern F;oono111i.c Jol1Tflal, XXIII, No. 1 (July, 1956) 39 ff.

PAGE 440

430 Williamson, Edward C. ''William D. Chipley, West Florida's Mr. Railroad," Florida Historical Quarterly, llV (1946-47), 555-55. Unpublished Material Fenlon, Paul E. "The Struggle for Control of the Florida Central Railroad (1867-1882)." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1955. Haimowitz, Morris L. "Population Trends in Florida." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Florida, 1942. Kafoglis, Madelyn L. "An Analysis of Methodology of County Income Estimation." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1961. Lloyd, Dorothy G. "Official Publications of Florida, 1821-1941." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Illinois, 1943. Schellings, William J. "The Role of Florida in the Spanish American War, 1898." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1958. Tattersall, James Neville. Northwest to 1920.11 of Washington, 1960. "The Economic Development of the Pacific Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University Young, Robert James. "Administering Florida's Natural Resources." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Florida, 1952.

PAGE 441

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Wallace Martin Nelson was born March 30, 1912, at Crookston, Minnesota. In June, 1929, he was graduated from Central High School, Grand Forks, North Dakota. He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1929, and retired therefrom in 1959, in the rank of colonel. In June, 19:35, he received the degree of Bachelor of Science from the United States Naval Academy. In June, 1957, he received the degree of Master of Engineering Administration from T"ne George Washington University. In 1959 he enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida. He worked as a graduate assistant during the academic year 1960-1961 under a project funded by Resources for the Future, Incorporated. He was designated a graduate fellow of the Inter-University Committee for Economic Research on the South for one year during 1961-1962 to work full-time on his doctoral dissertation. He resigned the academic year portion of this fellowship to accept an appointment to the faculty of the Department of Social Sciences, University College, for the academic year 1961-1962. Concurrently, he has pursued his work toward the degree Doctor of Philosophy. He has accepted an appointment to the faculty of Rollins College for the academic year 1962-1965. Wallace Martin Nelson is married to the former Jean Smith MacDonald and is the father of three children. He is a member of the American Economic Association, the Southern Economic Association, the Economic History Association, the Regional Science Association, and the Florida Historical Society.

PAGE 442

T'nis dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Business Administration and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfil]Jnent of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June ll, 19 62 Dean, Co~Administrati Dean, Graduate School Supervisory Committee:

PAGE 443

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA II I II IIIIII Ill Ill lllll lllll II IIIIII IIII IIII Ill Ill 111111111111111 3 1262 08554 2685 (