The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1879-07-01
were Of nature demanding full, ex.
pIicit and candid reply,

was sent to tile Governor and Snbsequen
ly published in our columns. We hay
looked through It in vain for either th
iulneSs ot officials who knew what the
were writing about, or the cIearneS {
business men, and We are sorry to say tbs
the caudor we expected from those con
posing tue Board Ia not apparent
The Board report the expenditures 10
all purposes during the year 1857 a
$20, 400 OS!. They also report the aYer
age number Of pupils for that year to lIav
been So, and the cost per pupil $e77 o.
The actual cost then for the support AM
education Of the pupils that year was. &C
cording to this last report OF June 10th
$23,54S 10. The balance, $5.Sjl 52l, mus
have been spent for some other purpose
for we are told that the whole SIC, 400 03
was spent that year.
Let us turn now to the report Of Octo
Der II, 1878, which processes to Civ,
an itemized account OF all expendi
lures for the year 1867. We there fint
that the items Of groceries, salaries ant
wages, clothing, books, fuel, lights. furni
ture make upa total Of S93,50S GA, which
is about the sum which, according to thu
report Of June 10th, was expended for thu
support and education Of IS pupils a
$277 04per pupil. But this omits entirely
the items OF music, medicines, proven
der, repairs, laundry, miscellaneous
&C., which foot up $3.50 0Sl. Dc
not these last items enter into the
current expense Of educating and support
ing these pupils, Of keeping up the institu
ton from year to year? Is there any
thing Of the nature Of permanent i'm
provement in the medicines administer
ed to the pupils when sick, IN the washing
Of their clothes, in the music provided tor
the blind, in the provender fed to the
stock, in the railway tickets purchased for
the pupils, to the Principal and to the
Board Of Regents? Why did not the
Board include these items in their report
as part OF the yearly expenses of the in
stitution? Was it because il they had so
included them the cost per pupil would
have been found to have been larger than
they wished to make public?
By estimating these little items Of cur.
rent expense, amounting to $3.50 9Sl,
from the expenditures of the year 1857,
or S45 G5 from the cost OF each Of the s.
pupils whom they claim attended school
during the whole 40 weeks Of the session,
they make it appear that the cost per
pupil for that year was SIT o. II these
items are included in the current ex-
penses, as they should be, we arrive at
the actual cost per pupil, viz: $277 Oh plus
$45 10, which is 1922 90, while the cost at
Raleigh, n. G., Columbus, Ohio, and In.
dianapolis, Ind, is respectively less than
800. Yet the Board Of Regents in their
report OF the 10Th inst. assert that the cost
at Romuey is not only not fifty to hun.
dred per cent more than at Raleigh but
is relatively" no more.
Again, the report OF June 10, in the
answer to question 1, states that "the
receipts for 1851 were $40,40l H."
exactly the amount as it appears on page
Of the report Of October IL, 1873. On
pages 95, 26, 81 and 2S Of the same report
we find the receipts for the years 1861
set down as s4O,7S4S6.
Which is right? the amount given in
the report Of June 10 and on page I Of the
report OF October IL, or that given on
pages % and 2S Of the last named report?
Which is wrong? or are both wrong?
Both evidently cannot be right. The dif.
ference between the two is small, only a
little over three hundred dollars, and
everybody's money; but it is such as no
competent bookkeeper would ever make,
and no investigating committee with half
an eye between them should ever over
look.
We have no doubt that the gentlemen
OF the Board intended to make thorough
investigation at their meeting ON the 10Th
inst, but is it not possible that they were
more anxious TO defend than to expose,
and so looked through other spectacles
than those resting on their own noses.