OCR Text |
Show I GRAND LEADS IN I IHESPEB HEAD Weber County Conies Six teenth With SI 391 for Each Person III The distinction of the highest ns- (tossed . -.luatlon per CADita Of POPU-I POPU-I lotion In the state In held l ilr.in.l county on th. eaatftTQ borders of l.tnh. The total population, according to the I'nitcl Sti.tt? c-nsus, divided j Into the total aesjd valuation of I the county in i r . an reported iy the ! county auditor, wlun all tax work baa I been completed, gives a result, of J2S91M9 pur Capita, i 'f bar county In shown sixteenth on j list with a xii-s.se. I valuation per capita of 1391.53. Tooele county rank second, with 12660.28. It. by the way. ha u area of desert land also. Davis in , I thin), wjtb 12670.90 per capital; Mr- Ran fourth, with 62291.66 per capita, i Mid Klch fifth, with 62274.97 for each person (ound by the census taker. llox Blfler ranks sixth witli 12110.91. while Millard county. In seventh place. just passes the 92000 mark, with 62202.64 ah the above, wiih it... exception of Pavil and .Morgan, are livestock conn- in--., and they owe their hijrii figures la Ipnrl to a combination of a comparatively compara-tively thinly settled area with a large j ' livestock ownership However, tiie controlling factor Is probably to bo H' i found in the largv mileage of railroad I ' in most of i he counties, combined with a oorreapondlng paucity of population. j This Is particular!) -the caae in: Grand county. K'hare many nules of Hlo Grande main lln.- help to con-tribute con-tribute to the count v expenses, while the population r.f the county Is found to be only 1S0S. Tooele county hns the main line or the Western Pacific and a ronsldorohl'- portion of the Salt lake Route. Box Bldor county has aj large share of the Southern Phi Ifii and of the Oregon short Line, Ifoi -I UB the I'nion Pacific, ami Davis! h three main lines, two steam and one' electric, trnvcrslnc the narrow strip of j richly fertile and highly cultivated H farming lands. K ; While .Millard county has many 1 miles oi Salt Lake Kootc track. It also, has some lilchly prodli. tt.- I nula am: i livestock Interests. RIcS depends for' ; Its valuation largely on its cattle In-1 I dustry, though Several miles of I'nion; H'j I'acltlc main line arc within its imun. ! j Washington county officials have to. struggle along on asaeseed ralua- j tlon per capita of 5 t T s 7 4 . or not much more than one-sixth that of Grant. Hl Garfield county residents are aasesaed on an average at SGI.'.. 09 a head. thost of Wayne at 1626.74 and those of ' Duchesne at (705.94 per capita. In j San Juan the asarscd valuation Is S8J9.87 per capita, though that county i the neighbor of. more thickly popu- lated and more widely productive of I agricultural products, than llntah. also without a railroad, has an ' assessed value per capita of 9961.49, H while Sanpete, with some branch lines of the IMo Grande, Is assessed at I 999 39 per capita. Millard county, as shove noted, be- big seventh, the other counties wifTi j assessed valuation between $1000 and 1200 per capita, rank as follows: i S-'H U-ike, eighth, 11646.61; Sum mil ninth. 11694.65; Daggett, tenth, I'I790 Rj .luiih. eleventh. JIOI'J n; Heaver, twelfth. $l.",j.' v, - 1 1 . Ii, thirteenth. 61502,99; Iron, fourteenth. 9 1 466.67; Utah, fifteenth, 9 1 3 Weber, sixteenth. 11191.52; Cache i '"th, 91390.87; Cathon, eighteenth ! 91316.60. Sevier, nineteenth, 11268.53 ! Kane, twentieth SU'31.36; Knierv, twenty-first. I 1 1 n 7. ami Piute twenty -second, 9 1 009.30. Bj The average assessed valuation for 1; the state, j,,r Is i.-.,:t bbbV; 00 |