The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1913-07-17
GEORGE MURRAY
At It AGAIN
BERTHOLD FARMER HAS BEEN
READING BIENNIAL REPORT
WHICH GIVES HIM FIGURES
FOR SOME INTERESTING COM.
PARSONS.


WHICH GIVES HIM FIGURES
FOR SOME INTERESTING COM.
PARSONS.
il Berthold, N. D., July IL.
Editor Independent:
:, l received the twelfth biennial re.
port of the Superintendent. of Public
Instruction on the same day posted
my last article, hence had but q few
minutes in which to revise my article
| have been figuring on the eleventh
biennial report and find after q careful
Examination chat my figures are un-
fair in Mr.. Warren's favor. Exam
pie: Mr.. Warren reports $4,000 for
field deputy. No other county ex-
ponds more than $1,000 per annum for
this deputy. So here is an item of
$24OO.OO excessive expense which add
ed to the $7724 of 1911-12 makes the
surprising total of $lO124.
The "A out of As counties reporting
in 1911-12 reported an aggregate ex-
pense account of $1913O. In order to
be fair to Mr.. Warren in my last ar
ticle / figured the excess expense to
the state on the Ward county basis
would be 100000. But a more care
full examination shows that the excess
over the present expense would be on
the Warren basis $436, 45O. Bear in
mind this is not the total but the ex-
cess. Hence it it is seen that this
question presents an issue of impor-
lance to the entire state. The aver
age annual expense account of "A
counties was $436. Ward county's
expense account, as reported by Mr..
Warren, for each of the four years
ending June 80, up to 1912, was $6268,
1881, $6849, $7724. Ward county's
average for the four years was $7O48.
The four years average of the next
largest expense account of other
counties is as follows: Barnes, 798;
Stutsman, $658; Richland, 5000:
Stark, $546. All other counties have
smaller average.
Comparing Counties.
Comparing counties which have q
comparative size in number of town
ships to Ward county on expense ac-
count for 1911-12. Mountrail 1907,
Williams (1910-1I 1895, Mckenzie,
1924; Stutsman (1910-11), 1904; Bill
lings, $3.50; Mclean, $796; Norton,
1904; Total, $5289, which is only |
about half what Ward county spent in
191l-12. Twelfth biennial report, PIP. |
1850.
Visits Compared.
The number of visits made by the
county superintendent of schools of |
different counties are as follows:
Barnes $40, Grand Forks 525, Stuts-
man 1874, Ward 474 (12th biennial re-
port, page 1881. 1t is not fair deal
to compare number of visits as the
difference in size of the counties would
make different average distance to
each school, hence different cost. It
will be recalled that just prior to the
election 1912, Mr.. Warren
tried to justify his expense account
by q comparison of number Of visits,
hence the reason show this relation.
Number Schools Compared.
The number of schools in the coun-
ties compared shows Mclean lao,
Stutsman 1873, Richland 1877. Morton
1913, Ward 178. 18th biennial report
page 2s1).
The Fair Way.
The only fair comparison is to take
into consideration both size of county
and number of schools. On this basis
Morton county should be compared
with Ward county. Morton is. one
third larger and has Is more schools
than Ward county. But every time it
requires an expense of 81 in Morton
county it takes SIS in Ward county.
Exceeds Expense of 285.
There are about 1856 school officers,
clerks, treasurers, and trustees in
Ward county. The combined expense
Of all this number in 1912 was
$5771, (see 18th biennial report page
1897, or $2O07 less than Warren re-
ported for himself and deputy-the
law reads in the singular number. In
fact if we consider the excess paid to
deputy, of $240O, then the difference
increases to $4407. This comparison
exhibits the issue so clearly that it
naturally raises the question "Can q
blind man see?"
Others Fault.
The commissioners from 1908 to
1912 owe it to the public to investi-
gate and compare the superintendent
Of schools expense account Of the var
i0us counties-from 18th and 18th BIZ
ennial. reports of the state superinten-
dent of public instruction-and con-
Tess their honest oversight in audit
ing, or the reason for such allowance,
as the case may be.
On Dec. 26, 1912, / published an ar
ticle in the Independent over my sig
nature calling the attention Of the !
then coming legislature to some
Needed Laws" made use Of the |
following: "Mr. Voter. did you not !
take cognizance Of the fact, during
the recent campaign, that superinten-
dents, both state and county, have
been lobbying before the legislature
for school laws? Is it not easily UNI
derstood why we have such lame