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

apportioned from the general school
fund, s33o.6a 30 being RAISED by
the cities by local taxation. The
amount actually spent for rural
schools In 1895 was i,i26, 552.5 81.
The comparison, therefore, between
the money spent in 1905 and that
spent In 1898, must be made be-
tween sI,426, 552-5i and Sssi,-
l07.45. Thus 1t will be seen that
ex-Senstor's Buffers figures for
1895 are 1851 .4i7.46 too large, while
those for 1895 are So. 0s5.9s too
large.
1.-THE rural school expenditures In
1898 were Ss94.I0.745; In 1905
they were 81, 426, 500. 81, sn increase
of SJ32, 1868 for 1905 over 1898
JoYNEE MAKES MATTERS WORSE.
The above admissions of the State
superintendent are bad enough, for
he boldly admits that the Demo-
Gratis in 1905 spent S532, AS 90 more
for public schools than the Republi-
cans did In 1898.
The entire school fund in 1884
was only $3.50, 311 60, and the school
term in the State in 1854 was III
i weeks, yet the State Superinten-
dent admits that with the increase
of 1892, 1850. the Democrats have
increased the school term in the
State only fifteen days; but let US
see if they have not expended more
in 1905 than Superintendent JOyner
admits in the above quotation. He
states above that the total expendi-
ture for public schools in 1905 were
S1,955,776.90, and thereby contra
diets ex-senator Butler, who stated
that the public school fund for 1905
was S2,30s,O0O.
Now let us see who is correct.
The State Superintendent has not
published report of the receipts
and disbursements of the public
schools of the State since 1904, but
Prof. G. L. Coon has prepared Edu.
cational Bulletin No. VII, which
was issued from the office of the
State Superintendent in July, 1906,
and this bulletin furnishes us the
statistics for 1905.
On pages 5, II and 80 of said bull
letin the total school fund for 1904
and 1905 is stated to be $685.
I729.98, and while it is admitted
that this sum includes the amount
paid for city schools, yet the $685..
409.11, school fund in 1898, which
was not expended, also included the
amount paid for city schools, and
therefore, the difference between
the amount spent in 1898 and 1905,
instead of being S532,445.09 wa
l$1,32O,3l9.87, wnioh enormous in.
crease should nave given Us III 100,
at least six months school all over
the State, instead Of ejghty-five days
which we now have.
| With the above figures taken from
the official records, think we hav'
Sufficiently disposed of Superinten.
dent Joyner's "second error"
MORE OF THE SAME KIND.
We quote further from Superin-
tendent Joyner's interview, as fol-
lows:
"Ex-Senator Butler says that the
school term in 1898 was seventy
days; in 1905 eighty-five days. Su-
perintendent Mechanics report for
1898 gives seventy days as the rural
term for the white schools and sixty.
five days as the term for colored
schools. In 1905 the white rural
school term was eighty-seven days,
the colored rural school term was
eighty days. If, therefore, seventy
days is to be taken for the rural
term in 1898, it is but fair to take
eighty. seven days as the term in
1906"
It will be observed that Superin-
tendent Joyner claims that the
school term in 1905 should be given
at eighty.seven days instead of
eighty-five days, as quoted by ex.
Senator Butler, but when we turn
to page 70 Of Educational Bulletin
No. VII, we find this statement:
"Average term Of all rural schools
eighty-fve days." This bulletin was
issued from the Office of The Super
intendent and was given to the pub
lie the average term of the rura
schools for the year of 1905, ano
| the public Of course have every req
son to believe that he has stated tn,
number of days correctly.
But if the State Superintendent
wants to figure solely from the
length of the white schools and cal,
it eighty.seven days, then we have
the following results: In 1898 8 |
school fund of 1888, 40y.II CAV,
seventy days school at s14,120 per
DAY, in 1905 total school fund of |
81, 30S, 72S SO gave the State school
term of eighty-seven days at cost
of S26,567 par day. Superinten-i
dent Joyner embraces in his inter
view q table showing the compare
tive expenditures for rural schools
sor 1898 and 1905, and we think 1t |
very unfortunate for him and the
Democratic party that he should |
ba h1an franz anarDh 20