But if a quantitive standard of the intensity of county administration is applied, the relative positions are somewhat different. Judged by the per capita rate of expenditure, the county is of much the greatest importance in the States from the Rocky Mountains westward. Second rank is taken by the populous Middle Atlantic and North Central States, where indeed the largest aggregate county expenditures are made. By this standard of per capita expenditure the Southern States fall in the third rank. Of the New England States — in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine, county finances are of some importance, but in the others they are negligible.
Until recently county finances were compara tively unimportant, but have notably increased since 1900. County taxation hardly doubled in the 30 years from 1870 to 1902, but in the next decade to 1913, had again doubled; and during this period county revenues and expenditures gained at about the same rate as those of the central State governments.
Nearly half of the total county receipts and expenditures are trust and agency funds, mostly taxes collected for the State and for other local authorities. County revenues and expenditures are about the same as those of the State govern ments; but both State and county finances are on a much smaller scale than those of the National government or cities.
The main source of county revenue is from the general property tax. There are numerous fees, which yield a considerable sum, as do also State subventions for schools and roads; and loans for roads and public buildings are be coming more important.
Next to general expenses, county payments for schools are the most important,— made up largely in the Southern and far Western States; in other States school expenses are mainly borne by other local districts. Next in import ance are expenses for highways and for public charities, — the latter being the largest item in the Middle Atlantic and some of the North Central States. In the New England States, the expenses of judicial administration are rela tively of most importance.
County Organization.— No well-defined principle seems to have been followed in the organization of county administration, except that popular election has been extended to all classes of county officials indiscriminately. There is no authority with important powers of local legislation corresponding to the councils general of France, the county councils of Eng land or the local diets in Prussia. In all but two
States (Rhode Island and Georgia) there is a county board which usually levies local taxes and has general supervision over the local ad ministration, though by no means an effective control over the elective officials. In two-thirds of the States these county boards are composed of three to five members, usually called com missioners and elected at large. In some States, however, the county boards are larger and in clude from 15 to 50 members elected by the townships and cities. Such boards of super visors are found in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois; and there are somewhat similar bodies in Louisiana under the title of police juries. In some States there are intermediate types. In a few of the South ern States (Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas) the fiscal and administrative business of the county is still performed by the local justices of the peace sitting as a County Court, these justices being now elected in subdivisions of the county. But these larger bodies have, as a rule, but little more legislative power than the small boards of commissioners; and their size make them unwieldy for administrative busi ness. An important exception is found in the recent legislation of Michigan, where the boards of supervisors have been given a. broad and general grant of local legislative powers.
In a few States the powers of taxation and appropriations are placed in a body distinct from the county board, as in Indiana, where there has been established (in 1899) in each county a county council of seven members in addition to the board of three county commis sioners; while somewhat similar results have been secured in other ways in some of the smaller New England States. In Cook County, Illinois, and some New Jersey counties the presi dent or chairman of the county board has some special powers. In Georgia the ordinary is the chief county officer. But this separation of powers is as yet exceptional.
Besides the county board there are a consid erable number of other county officials, most of them chosen by popular election. These elective officers are largely independent within their own sphere; and there is no effective supervision either by the county board or by any one of the officials being clearly recognized as the chief executive officer of the county.