South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1879-07-04


comparison.
10th. If the reduction OF the number
Of classes from five TO four resulted in
the more rapid advancement Of the pu.
pills, why. with a smaller number Of pu-
pills. was the number OF classes raised
again TO five2
Answer. At the beginning OF the ses-
sion OF lS77-S the Board found that
they could dispense with the services Of
a teacher whom they were paying salary
OF 5000 and board, and the school was
taught that session by four teachers In
the deaf-mute department. At the be-
ginning OF the session OF 1883. upon q
reclsssification ofthe pupils. Il was found
necessary to employ an additional teach.
er at the small salary of $3.50 without
board.
III. Is it customary To place upon the
rolls of the school, and publish i'm the
report the names of persons who have
never been admitted within the walls2
Ii so, whyp
cation has been regularly made (see last
report for terms OF admission Of pupi!s)
and accepted by the Principal. the name
of The pupil is enrolled as one entitled
to enter the Institution.
18th. Why does it cost from fifty to
one hundred per cent. more to educate
a deaf and dumb. or a blind person at
Romney than it does at Raleigh, n. c.,
Oh Stanton, Va?
Answer. The cost per capita relative
ly is not greater at Romney than eth er
at Stanton or Raleigh.
18th. Why did not the Principal in his
report state that the "l05 pupils on the
rolls" were not all present but were ex.
pected to be present?
Answer. He did so state. Soc report,
page 24, lines 4 and 5.
l4th. Is it not true that heretofore the
number who have actually attended
school has always fallen considerably
short of the number who at the begin
ming of the year were expected to attend?
Answer Yes.
18th. How many applications were
made for admission for the year 1867 ?
How many for the year 1878?
Answer. Seventeen new applicants in
addition to the regular pupils for year
1867 and 81 new applicants for 1878.
10th. Did they all come to SCHOOL,
Answer. No.
10th bid the Principal really expect
that the whole OF the 'l05 on the rolls"
would come
Answer. The applications having been
regularly made, the Principal had no
right to expect any to fail to come and it
was his duty t. provide for all.
18th. Did the Principal not expect
that the Governor and Legislature would
understand from the report that there
were los pupils at school?
Answer. No. See report, page "a.
Your committee would further state
that when it was ascertained IN February
last that the number Of pupils reached
only 81, Mr.. Peerce and Doct. Lupton,
two OF the three members of the Execu.
tive Committee, held conference with
Mai. Covell, the Principal, and IT was a.
greed that, in view of the fact that the
number of the pupils was not as large az
expected, an appropriation of $4,000
would be sufficient to meet the expenses
of tho Institution, and these facts were
communicated TO members OF the Legis.
lature by letter and those letters were
laid before the Finance Committee of
the two Houses.
We think this fact, together with the
facts contained in the report, sufficiently
answer the charge oil Misrepresentation.
A copy Ieste,
II. Il. GLKEsoN, Secretary.
RoMNEY, June 4, 1879.
To Mo Bodrd Of Regents:
Your Executive Committee, in addi
ton to its financial report, begs leave to
submit the following:
Having seen and heard sundry charges
and reflections against the managers and
management of this Institution, we deem
cd it not only privilege but duty that
we owed TO the Institution and to our
State 60 mike a thorough inve sti CATION
and find, if possible, what foundation. if
any. such charges and reflections rested
upon.
We met on the 2nd lust. and entered
at once upon the work before US aud la
bored assiduously till the 4th.
During our sitting VIC examined sepa-
rate and apart from each other seven
witnesses-three ladies and four gentle.
men-whO were selected by US for their
ample opportunities Of possessing the de-
sired information aud noted for their in
telllgence and integrity, and it affords us
much pleasure to say that such frank.
ness, unrescrvedness in communicating
aud uniformity of testimony it has never
been our privilege 10 witness, all 10 the
same end. viz that in all the depart-
ments Of the Institution during the past
two years a reasonable and practical sys-
tenn of economy has been rigidly adber-
ed TO.
The charge Of misrepresentation for
the purpose of obtaining an appropria.
ton, &c, is so utterly groumllo3s that il
merits but little attention.
The Principal and Board are not re.
sponsible for the typographical errors in
the printed report Ola pages $685., which
may mIslead the casual reader, bat whom
compared With the language used g. dates
given on pages 10 g. II IL becomes plain