The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1879-05-22

r Der ot teachers (four) Is raised 10 five h,
8 the appointment OF one Of the Superin
tendents family. This has the anpear
ance o. sacrificing tho economical inter
esH Of the State and the intellectual wei
: iare Of thepupils for the benefit OF mem
Der OF the Superintendent own family.
have written thus plainly to you tina
you may have an opportunity before In,
bill comes up In the House 10 explair
. these apparent discrepancies, as Wiihon
some explanation I fear that there may bt
some difficulty in getting the bill through
the House, and that the confidence Of n,
legislature and the people in the truthful
ness and honesty OF your Superintendent
may be shaken. Very respectfully,
ANDREW WILSON.
1nasmuch as the Board of Regents Of til,
Asylum will meet in few days at Rom
ney 1t Is proper that we should again call
their attention to this letter, and for the
purpose Of doing so more.fully til an in
our previous article we viii refer to some
statements and figures set forth in the re.
ports Of the Superintendent the Asylum
to the President of the Board, rs furnished
in their reports to the Governor for the
last three or four years.
1tappearsb by the report Of the Principal
(see PIP. 10, II, ,l2) that there were s5 pu.
pills at school during the session 1857,
and % during the session 1878, and that
on the 18th OF September, 1873, there were
los pupils ION the roll," the names Of
whom are given at the end of the report.
This is all that is said on tAe subject of
numbers. But on the 24th page the fact
Of there being los already enrolled is
given as one OF the reasons why the ap-
preparation OF S2S,0O0 should be continu-
ed, the other reasons being the regular
annual increase and the probable in
creased cost Of living.
This report, whether intentionally or
not, misled the Board of Regents and the
Governor. The Governor evidently
thought, as did everybody else who read
the report, that the number of pupils had
increased from IS in 1867 to 95 in ls77.S,
and lO5 in 1889; and he speaks thus in
his message: Notwithstanding The iacrdase
cfue number Of tte pupils the Directors do not
ask for an increased appropriation"
Now It turns out that the numbers had
not increased, except on paper aud for
the apparent purpose Of making report
and obtaining an appropriation; but, on
the contrary, had actually diminished from
95 to IS.
The cost per pupil for the year 1867
appears by the report to have been SSls.
80, and for '77-S se0l so, and for the year
'7s,9 (had there been 1O5 pupils in school,
as stated by the report, and had the whole
amount Of money been expended) would
be sSO4Ol. If the appropriation asked
for had been obtained, and with the bal
ance on hand expended on the IS pupils
really atschool, the cost per pupil would
have been SS76 65. II the appropriation
actually made (s25, 5,4OO with the balance
on hand e, MS 75) has all been expended
this year on the IS pupils at school, the
cost per pupil for this year has been $S42-
50.
Now the cost per pupil at the Philadel-
phia institution is $40; at the Western
Pennsylvania institution in 1867, s2lS Al,
and in 1878 $2l2 10; at the North Caro-
lima institution, in Raleigh, from 1872 to
1877, S225, and in 1878 Sl9S; at the vir-
ginia institution, in staunton, S27O IS; at
the Maryland institution, in Frederick,
$240; at the Indiana institution, in In
dianapolls, sl92 90, and at the American
Asylum, Hartford, Ct, S2S9 0S.
Now, assuming that the report of the
number Of pupils at school at Romney in
1907 is correct, OF which We cannot help
entertaining some doubt in view Of the
disclosures that "lO5 on the rolls" means
only S5 at school, and the cost of support
ling and educating a deaf and dumb
or blind person at Romney was SiS 50
more than at Philadelphia; 500 4s more
than at West Penna. Institution; SIPS 80
more than at Raleigh; $4S II more than at
slaunton; Sl26 SS more than at Indiana
pols, aud $50 SO more.than at Hartford.
And making the same assumption forthe
year 1878 the cost at Romney was $294
per pupil, which was $24 more than at
Philadelphia and staunton; sa more than
at Frederick; SlOl more than at Raleigh
slO2 more than at indianapolis, and s62
more than at Hartford.
But what assurance have We that there
is not the same error in the rolls Of 1881
and 1s77.s. as in that ofls7s,o? All three
appear in the same report and come from
the same hand. II Jos in 1880 means
az arc we to make the same deduction lin
order to arrive at the truth from the mum.
Iber reported as present in 1851 and
Ils77.s? II SO, the cost per pupil Is very
much greater than what We have given
labovc.
We notice in the Hartford report tol
,s77-s that "the whols number OF pupils
In attendance within the year" was 27l
\ ttthe greatest number ut any one time
oss. ~ and pthe average attendance during
II tISe I yearn ale. We should like to know
what sithe average attendance" at Rom
nav @ was during the years '7e-I Us
and the present year. Tho report from
!. pomnev does not contain that IniorRlg
tion, but gives, we suppose, "the who'll
number in attendance within the year
Assuming that the proportion betweel
j ,bs ,ml,ols number and the "areagc mum
/. Ssr,, & the saae in both institutions, ",
: Snd @ that Tho average RpRbeF' at Rom