( 2 )
others have been found, while Dullunda is the only asylum as yet fully
investigated—and they are in the opinion of the Committee quite sufficient to
make it impossible to accept without examination even those figures which are
apparently correct.
In the report for 1876, paragraph 44, is the usual table showing the receipts
and expenditure of each asylum, the average cost per patient, and the average
cost per patient in relation to establishment, diet, bazar medicines, contingen-
cies, and clothing. In this table the total expenditure at Hazaribagh is put
at Rs. 10,099. Paragraph 45 says: " The average cost of each patient for the year
was Rs. 97 against Rs. 102 in 1875, and varied from Rs. 49 in the Hazaribagh
Asylum to Rs. 110 and Rs. 142 in the Dacca and Dullunda Asylums re-
spectively." Paragraph 47 says: '' The cost of diet per patient varied from
Rs. 16 at Hazaribagh to Rs. 54 at Dacca and Rs. 55 at Dullunda." Similar
comparisons are made as to other items, and the impression conveyed is that
a fair comparison is being made between similar sets of conditions. In-
vestigation, however, discloses the fact that the Harazibagh Asylum was
only opened on the 26th of May, and that the expenditure spread over a
year in the table and averages, was that of 220 instead of 366 days. This
mistake was noticed by the Government in the resolution on the report, and
it was further pointed out that the figure Rs. 10,099 should have been
Rs. 10,119. Assuming that the patients at Hazaribagh would have cost at the
same rate for the year as they did for 220 days, the total from which the
averages were struck should have been Rs. 16,801, and the cost per patient
Rs. 82 instead of Rs. 49.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Dacca ...
Dullunda ...
Cuttack ...
Berhampore
Moydapore
Patna ...
Hazaribagh
Profits.
Rs.
408
9,708
......
......
......
2,577
16
Net cost
per
patient.
Rs.
106
101
95
80
78
74
49
A.
12
14
10
12
6
14
6
Another important mistake occurs in the same table, and in the similar
table in the report for 1875. Column 4 professes to give the actual "profit" from
the Manufacture Department, and column 6 shows the net cost per patient after
deducting the profits from the total expenditure. Statements in the appendix,
however, give in some detail the manufacture accounts, and from these it
becomes apparent that the sums entered in the tables for 1875 and 1876 are not
profits, but the value of manufactured articles supplied from the workshops
for asylum use. This is a very different thing, as it includes the value of
raw material, and this cannot be deducted in calculating the net cost.
The averages in column 6 are thus vitiated throughout, some asylums getting
credit for more profits than they made, and others
being deprived of the credit due to them. Thus,
in the table for 1876, the figures given in the
margin are set down as profits and net cost.
This would appear at first sight unfavourable
to Dacca. The true figures are, however, contain-
ed in the appendix, and at once show that Dacca
had larger profits than either of the asylums which
were made to appear more successful.
Actual profits as per Statement No. XI, page 49:—
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Dullunda ...
Dacca
...
Cuttack ...
Hazaribagh
Patna ...
Moydapore
Berhampore
Profits.
Rs.
1,812
2,420
170
42
2,232
158
1,330
Net cost
per
patient.
Rs.
129
97
92
82
76
75
73
A.
1
1
10
2
estimate.
5
6
8
The correct figures are given in the margin and the effect of the correction
is to alter the relative position of every
asylum, except Cuttack, in the order of
costliness. Dacca and Dullunda change
places. Berhampore sinks from 4th to 7th,
and Hazaribagh rises from 7th to 4th.
Marked differences in the net cost per
patient in the different asylums and great
variation in earnings were thus shown, and
it might be assumed from the report that
Dullunda had earned Rs. 9,704 and Dacca only Rs. 408; whereas, according
to Statement XI, Dacca had made a profit of Rs. 15 per employed patient and
Dullunda of only Rs. 7-5. Even these inferences, however, would not be correct,
the profits to Government being very different to the relative profits of different
asylums compared with one another, as will be shown hereafter. The statement
given, though arithmetically true, is entirely fallacious. Differences and varia-
tions there were—and great ones—requiring explanation not contained in the
report, but they lie in other facts than those contained in the tables.
The Committee will presently attempt to show that the differences and
variations which undoubtedly exist are to a great extent susceptible of explan-