The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-03-23

The above are the opening para
graphs of a pamphlet which is to be
placed on the desks of each member
of the legislature within a few days.
The booklet contains an exhaustive
analysis of the financial report of the
state board of control recently issued
1t is prepared to show that the board
OF control has not made the saving it
claims to have effected in it's manage
ment of state institutions.
The pamphlet contains the following
comment:
ION page 81 of this report the state
ment is made that gross saving of
$169,459.31 was made by this board in
the year ending July 81, 1902, over the
preceding year, or net saving, de-
Quoting the expenses of the board of
control ($22,0S94D of $147,369.9O. In
other words, had the old boards been
in existence these state institutions
would have cost the state for main
tenance during 1902 nearly $15O,OOO
more than they did. On page % of the
same report the board says: Were we
to follow the precedent established by
the board of Corrections and Charities
and take credit for the twenty-five eX-
ira deportatiOnS made at $1,000 each,
1t would increase the total savings to
$172, 5000. We think, however, that the
propriety of such a claim is somewhat
doubtful, and therefore decline to fol-
low the precedent SO established. What
a spirit of self-denial must have come
over the board when it made this state
ment. Why mention it if it is some
what doubtful" and they decline to
follow the precedent so established
Three Methods Used.
ITO make the enormous savings
claimed nv tho rd Of
specific methods have been employed,
viz: The per capita method, the if
method and the inventory method. The
system Of computing is undoubtedly
original ingenious, far reaching and
most effective in showing desired re-
suits. The extreme modesty of the
board in declining to accept $172,369. 80
as the real saving by the board in one
year is the most astonishing thing in
the entire repOrt-eXcept the alleged
gains. By the method employed these
figures in the hands of a skilled stats.
tician under the immediate direction of
this board could just as we'll have
shown net saving of 100000 as any
less sum.
This in view of the fact that this
board of control drew from the state
treasury in 1902 only $6,28733 less than
did the boards the previous year for
managing the same institutions, ac-
cording to the board of controls own
report.
Figures Are Misleading.
at is not the purpose of this article
to diScredit entirely the board of con-
troll. The law may be a good one, but
the figures of net savings as presented
by the board in its first report are mis-
leading, incorrect and gross eXaggera-
lions. That there is ample proof of
h Ctn ont n-il he 6nfn
mined by making a careful analysis of
the methods used and the figures given
by the board
The board of control has laid down
this mathematical law: That if it costs
$45 to care for one individual a GER
tain length of time 1t VIII cost five
times as much to care for five indi-
viduals the same length of time. This
is an erroneous assumption which is
not based upon fact, and which is dis
proven by the records of the several
state institutions, as will be shown lat
er. 1t is a we'll known fact that it will
cost no more to heat hotel and pro-
vide the necessary clerk hire, janitors
servants, etc, when it is occupied by
fifty guests than when it is occupied
by forty-five. The law of increase of
cost according to the increase of per
capita is not constant and cannot be
maintained. The board of control has
seen fit to use this as an Interchangeable
law, and, of course, we will assume
the same method of computation to
disprove the boards excessive claims
1t is readily apparent to any reason
able minded person who examines the
reports that the increased cost of any
one of the institutions does not nee
essarily keep pace with the increased
inmates. If this statement can be
proved it does away with the hypo-
thetical increase of savings from $69,-
1923 to sos, 615.S5.
JuggIes With Salaries.
1.-THE amount paid for salaries and
wages in 1902 (page S9) was $685.
006.62, while the amount paid in 1901
was $407,96510, a decrease in salaries
paid in favor of 1902 of $19,958.48 1t
is hard to reconcile this statement with
the statement made on page "a, where
the board says: 1t is also a source of
qualification that little has been saved
by the reduction of salaries, and that,
principally, in carrying out that pro-
vision of the law which requires us to
make salaries uniform The desire to
make the year 1902 appear more favor
ably than 1901 to the taxpayers forces
the conviction that facts have been