e large disproportion in the distribution of the population between
city and country, in the interior, will be lessened, so that, instead
of being, as now, only one to five or six, they will rapidly approach
the proportion of one to two or three? Here, then, are the sources of
superior increase so obviously true, as to need only to be stated to
insure conviction.

Let us now compare the growth, for the thirty years since 1830, of the
five largest Atlantic cities, with the five largest cities of the
plain, and, by its side, extend the comparison to 10, 15, and 20 of
the largest city of each section:

1830. 1860 Est.

New York and accessories 235,000 1,170,000
Philadelphia " 170,000 700,000
Baltimore " 83,000 250,000
Charleston " 31,000 60,000

599,000 2,380,000
Increase 4 times.

1830. 1860 Est.
Cincinnati and suburbs 28,000 250,000
New Orleans " 47,000 270,000
St. Louis " 6,000 170,000
Chicago " 100 150,000
Pittsburg " 17,000 145,000

98,000 2,885,000
Increase 9 times.

Let us now compare the _ten_ largest of each section.

_Atlantic._
1830. 1860 Est.
The aggregate of the five
largest as above 579,000 2,370,000
Providence 17,000 55,000
Lowell 6,500 40,000
Washington 19,000 60,000
Albany 24,000 65,000
Richmond 16,000 35,000
------- ---------
661,000 2,625,000
Increase 4 times.

_Interior._
1839. 1860 Est.
Aggregate as above 98,000 885,000
Buffalo 9,000 100,000
Louisville 10,500 80,000
Milwaukee 50 75,000
Detroit 2,000 80,000
Cleveland 1,000 70,000
------- ---------