The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1917-03-29
Expenditures for Extension Work
for the Same Period

Expenditures for Extension Work
for the Same Period
From state millage. ..S15,O15.54
Special state appropriation. 1S,4S1. 90
U. S. Smith-Lever fund. 80. $685.. 80
S72,SS4.44
Note: The extension service, as with
Experiment station, bears no share of
general overhead expense.
Certified correct:
VIM. c. Kreugel, Auditor,
State College of Washington
The above figures from the auditor
show that the experiment stations at
Puyallup, at Pullman, at Lind and at
Waterville have had from state funds
exclusively in the last two years an
amount vastly in excess of the "three
per cent" originally stated as their
expenditures by Mr.. Moores. Further
that amount does not include any in
direct appropriations for overhead, or
for salaries of men like Professor Me-
lander, who spend part of their time
on experimental work.
F. Mr.. Moores, in your issue of March
22nd, refers to page "a of the Survey
Commission report. On that page is
found a table wherein an item of $10,-
114.85 is listed against the experiment
station under the heading Overhead"
Mr.. Moores seems to have the impress
sion that this item of overhead is the
only expenditure made by the state
college from state funds for expert
mental purposes. As a matter of fact,
this item of overhead as explained by
the auditor of the state college, whom
l quote, "is only the pro rata share
of general overhead expenses such as
heat, light, water, power, janitor SER
vice and so forth, which the expert
ment station should bear were any
regular charges made for the same.
In other words, when an appropria-
ton, by the Board of Regents, is made
for experiment station purposes, this
appropriation is NET and does not
include any of the above charges"
That is what the auditor has to say
concerning this item on page "a; yet,
by quoting that item (for heat, light,
janitor service, etc. Mr.. Moores naive
ly declares he proves true everything
in his original letter and proves untrue
everything / said in answer thereto!
"Think of i'll" "Think Of It'll"
/ wonder who really is the person
trying to befuddle the public!
Mr.. Moores refers to pages 81 and
81 of Bulletin 1876 from the experiment
station. The table on page 81 deals
with amounts appropriated from state
funds for agricultural investigation
per 100000 of assessed valuation,
which has nothing whatever to do
with the controversy. The figures
there, further, deal with an average
for an extended period, which was not
a part of the original controversy.
Page 81 deals with the average an
nual (not biennial) appropriations
from state funds covering period of
six years. Furthermore, those figures
do not include the Puyallup expert
ment station. Neither Mr.. Moores'
original article, nor any of the dis
cussion since its appearance, has dealt
with averages, so it seems that when
Mr.. Moores is defeated at one point
he turns to something new and trusts
that no one will discover that he is
not sticking to his text. "Think of it!'
"Think of it,"
Mr.. Moores further refers to a
table on page So, and says that that
table, in connection with his other
references, shows that the state col
lege has spent more money in gradu-
ating two students in architecture and
forestry than it has on experimental
or investigation work for the benefit
of the farmers of the state. The table
on page "a Of the report shows that
the departments Of architecture and
forestry, for the years 1914-15, spent
for the former $6,825.33, and for the
latter $3,334.63, or a total Of $10,-
1896 expended for departments with
student clock hours" aggregating
1923 hours. He asks the people to
believe that that amount is greater
than the $4,000 appropriated from
state funds for experimental purposes
in 1857. Even leaving out alto
gether the appropriation for the Puy-
allup experiment station, the figures
of the auditor indicate that Mr.. Moores
is very far from the facts. AS mat
ter of fact, the department Of archi-
lecture is an economy to the state
college and not a net expense. The
last building constructed at the col.
lege was a 100000 building. The
usual architects fees of five per cent
of the cost of the building would
amount to $4,000, an amount equal
to the cost of both the department OF
architecture and the department of
forestry for the years 1914-15. That
amount was saved to the state col
lege by its department of architecture
which did the work for which other
wise an architect would have been
paid $4,000. N. s. LEWIS.