The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1906-10-11

further shows that the Amouni ex-I
pended IN ises for administration
Of the schools was 1884 IS, while
in 1905 there was expended for the
same purpose the sum Of $780,
9os.34, and his table further shows
after eliminating the expenses OF
the city schools that the average cost
per day 10 run the school In 1905
was s3,624.is more than II was In
1898.
PUPTIs INCREASE SIX rER CENT.
He further states In his table that
the number Of children enrolled ia
the public schools in 1895 were s97,-
3so. and the number enrolled In
1905 were 422.52s. This Is 80 iu-
crease Of only about 6 per cent. In
the enrolment Of the children, but
according TO his own figures the cost
per day to run the schools Il in
creased from Sl2,772 80 in 1898 To
SO, 397.l5 in 1905, an increase cost
per day OF % per cent; bat we
have shown above that by taking
the total school fund Of 1905 and
and the total school fund of 1898,
including city schools for both years,
We find that the cost per day in 1898
was 81 4,120, and In 1905, S26,537.
Disregsrding these figures entirely
which we have taken from the OH.
cial record, and taking Superiuten-
dent Joyner's own figures, which he
published in the newspapers, wherein
he admits that the Democrats in
1905 spent S532, 1896 more in the
rural schools alone than the Fusion
lists did in 1898, and that :his in
creased expenditure gave only seven
teen days more school. then we have
this startling disclosure that each
one of these seventeen days increase
in the school term cost the tax-pay-
ers of this State S31, $50, as against
$4,000 per day spent by the Flu
sionists in 1898, according to his
own figures.
He says, however, that the num-
Der of school children had increased
in the State, but taking his own
figures, the increase in the number
of school children since ! S9s is only
six per cent, yet the increase in the
amount of money spent is sixty
per cent.
Again he says there were more
teachers employed in 1906 than in
1898, but this does not explain what
became of the school fund, because
according to his own figures the
number of teachers have increased
only eight per cept.
BUTLER's FIGURES CORRECT.
1t will be noticed from Superin-
tendent Joyner's interview that he
attempts to criticise ex-senator But.
Ter for the school statistics which he
has furnished to the public In his
speeches, but Mr.. Buffers figures
will be found absolutely correct, if
the public will take the trouble to
examine the pages of the official re-
ports of the State Superintendent,
which we have herein given.
Mr.. Joyner, however, has con-
fused the public by Issuing two diff.
ferent reports for the year 1904.
The first report of Superintendent
Joyner for the year Of 1904 were
furnished to the members of the
Legislature in January, 1905, copy
of which was laid upon the desk of
each member. Soon thereafterwards
this writer, who was a member Of
the legislature, published an article
in the State papers criticising the
enormous expenditure in the school
fund as shown by Mr. Joyner's re-
port. AS soon as these criticisms
appeared in the State press, the dis
tribution Of the State Superinten.
dent reports was held up and page
% was cut out of his report, and a
new leaf printed and pasted therein,
which changed very materially the
amount Of disbursements which
were first published.
HAS BOTH REPORTS.
This writer has In his possession
a copy of his first report given out
by the State Superintendent in 1905, |
and also copy Of the same report |
which was issued a few days later
showing that page 25 in the first re-
port had been removed and a new
leaf printed and pasted In, and we
observe the following changes made |
on page 20: His first report shows
the amount raised by local taxation
in 1904 to be s33s.s19.57. His sec
ond report changed these figures TO
1877, 1925. His first report gives
the public school fund for 1904 at
81, 901, $500. His second report
local taxes entirely and
gives this fund at S1,777,624.
We do not undertake to assign
any improper motive to the State
Superintendent In Withdrawing his
first report already partially circula-
ted and leprinting page IS. and max
Ing these changes, because we do not
know what his motive was, and We
cite this incident only to say that
the State Superintendent should not Il