\ . \ ^ f r^r* l • Ct 'ili i .i. w • , c ‘ ' * c‘&U Jufi f ■;;: AMERICAN BAPTIST MISSIONARY UNION REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON HOME EXPENSE APPOINTED BY BOARD OF MANAGERS AT OKLAHOMA, MAY 26, 1908 FORD BUILDING, BOSTON, MASS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Columbia University Libraries https://archive.org/details/reportofcommitte00amer_17 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOME EXPENSE Portland, Oregon, June 27, 1909. To the Board of Managers of the American Baptist Missionary Union: Your Committee appointed to “ consider the whole question of Home Expense, especially with reference to expenses at the Rooms,” respectfully reports: As soon as possible after receiving notice of our appointment an organization was effected by the choice of Charles C. Barry as Chairman and W. D. Chamberlin as Secretary. The task assigned to us was found to be so stupendous that it was decided by unanimous vote to engage the services of com¬ petent Public Accountants, accustomed to the examination of accounts, and of the details of Administrative Expenditures in organizations similar to the American Baptist Missionary Union, and report to us their findings. The Committee was very fortunate in securing the same Public Accountants and Auditors, Messrs. Harvey S. Chase & Com¬ pany, whom the Finance Committee of the Northern Baptist Con¬ vention had engaged to report to them on the Accounts and Investments of the Missionary Union preparatory to the adoption of the Budget for 1909-10. The Committee is also indebted to Mr. F. D. Phinney of our Mission Press in Rangoon, now at home on furlough, who prepared with great care and accuracy a tabulation and comparison of the expenditures of the Union with those of other Missionary Societies doing similar work. These reports covering the period of ten years from 1900 to 1909 inclusive, give an accurate statement of the affairs of the American Baptist Missionary Union, so far as Home Expense and management is concerned, and constitute a volume of admirably arranged facts, suggestions and recommendations which acted upon will promote greater economy and efficiency. We are of the opinion that the rents paid in Boston and the space occupied by the offices and clerical force are no greater than is required for economical service. We find that the removal of the offices from Tremont Temple was inevitable and unavoidable because the room needed by the Union could not be provided in the building and the rooms available made it necessary to use electric light in the daytime at great additional expense. The new lease 3 in the Ford Building is at a lower rental per square foot than in any other available location and we find that it can be re-leased or sub-let when desired at a bonus over the terms of the present lease. The reason for the increase in rented space is due chiefly to the necessity for accommodations for the shipping department, which for years was in such quarters that the business could not be attended to without creating a public nuisance by the unlawful use of the corridors and streets. We find that the clerical salaries are as low as such salaries ought in reason to be fixed and that careful scrutiny leads us to the conclusion that prompt, efficient and faithful service is being given. We find that the increase in Home Expense in the last five years is largely due to the purchase of equipment, half of which might reasonably be charged to material on hand as it is salable as well as usable. Our experts report that the office equipment is up to date and efficiently used. We find that the expenditures may be reduced in the Literature Department provided the proposed consolidation of the denomina¬ tional missionary magazines is effected, and in the District Secre¬ tary’s Department, provided there is a division of labor in speaking tours with the other Secretaries of our national societies. We find that the Missionary Union requires a larger force in its rooms than some other Missionary Societies so long as it deals directly with its individual Missions and Missionaries, and not, as in the case of The American Board, through independent Mission Stations managing and disbursing funds and having accounts and auditing agencies on the field. Our Treasurer has between 1500 and 1600 open accounts with Missions and Missionaries, as compared with 250 accounts of The American Board. We are glad to report that after the most careful search by our experts we are unable to find either waste or extravagance in any department of the Home Administration. The complete report of the Committee including the report covering the exhaustive examination of Expenses and Home Administration by Messrs. Harvey S. Chase & Company, with care¬ fully prepared tables and schedules covering the ten-year period, has been printed in pamphlet form and may be secured upon request by addressing The Literature Department, Ford Building Boston, Mass. Charles C. Barry William J. Hobbs D. G. Garabrant W. D. Chamberlin William H. Waite Committee. 4 Harvey S. Chase & Company, Public Accountants & Auditors, 84 State St., Boston. May 27, 1909. Messrs. Charles C. Barry, William J. Hobbs, W. D. Chamberlin, D. G. Garabrant, William H. Waite.* Special Committee Appointed by the Board of Managers of the American Baptist Missionary Union on '"Home Expense." Gentlemen :— INTRODUCTION. While making the examination on which we based our recent report to the special Finance Committee of the Northern Baptist Convention, we constantly had in mind your instructions with reference to a report on Home Expense. We have since made a further examination of the available ma¬ terial relating specially to this subject, and can now report as follows:— The more we have studied the subject of Home Expense, the more we realize the difficulty of saying the last word in regard to it. An examination of the annual reports of the Missionary Union shows that the topic has frequently come up for discussion in the last ten years and, from various magazine articles that have been called to our attention, we learn that other missionary organizations have been actively discussing the same questions. While we realize the desirability from every point of view of reaching some definite conclusions, it seems to us that from the very nature of the topic, it is bound to be a recurring subject for discussion as long as the missionary societies continue with their work. Your committee is confronted with a three-fold difficulty in making any recommendation to your constituency on the subject of Home Expense. First, of course, you will recognize the impossibility of making any thoroughly satisfactory definition of the class of expenditure under discussion. Most of it is better described as administrative expense, and, as has been pointed out by officials of the American Board, as well as in the Missionary Union, is such an indispensable part of mission administration that there is little real meaning in setting it apart from numerous other outgoes which are ordinarily referred to as expenses of the mission field. Secondly, it is almost, if not quite, as impossible to establish to every¬ body’s satisfaction a standard by which the mission administration and expenses may be measured. The executive officers of an industrial plant, which is organized primarily to earn dividends for its stockholders, can justify almost any kind of expenses which they incur if, year after year, they show substantial profits as a result of their management, and no doubt there are many people who feel that successful prosecution of mission work including the business of raising funds and distributing them to the mission field, if carried on without financial embarrassment, might be taken as a complete justification of the policy of management which secured these Mesf^rs W. A. Grippin and W. S. Hubbell were also appointed bn this committee, but were unable to serve. 5 results. There are other people, however, who feel that standards of this kind are not applicable to a philanthropic enterprise and that expenses, which would of necessity be approved in the management of a purely com¬ mercial enterprise, cannot be approved in the case of the Missionary Union. We do not see how these fundamental differences of opinion can ever be completely reconciled, and it appears to us that any policy which may be adopted for the Union must, of necessity, represent something of a com¬ promise between these diverse views. The third difficulty arises when an attempt is made to compare the expenses of the Union with other foreign missionary organizations. Part of this difficulty results from diversity of organization in the different mission¬ ary societies. It has been pointed out by other critics that the Presbyterians, for example, exercise in their field organizations many functions which the Missionary Union discharges through its home office. The Foreign Missions Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, on the other hand, seems to make collections without any organization for district secretaries similar to that maintained by the Missionary Union, Finally, a comparison with other missionary societies is rendered extremely difficult and, except for certain large totals, completely impossible by the lack of uniformity in the several financial reports. We think it would undoubtedly be very desirable, from every point of view, if the different missionary societies in this country, who are doing work similar in character, should agree to adopt a uniform method of accounting for income and outgo. Such a plan would have numerous advantages, aside from the matter of comparing and classifying Home Expense, and something of this kind is obviously necessary before there can be any satisfactory comparison of expense items for the different societies. This, it appears to us, is the most important conclusion reached by Mr. F. D. Phinney in his excellent report, which is referred to more at length in a succeeding paragraph. When the difficulty of making comparisons is fully realized, any com¬ ments on the subject of Home Expense, or other administrative work of the Union, must, we think, be based upon a direct observation of the particular work in hand, drawing conclusions from the facts as they appear in each case. This is the method we have followed in preparing the report for your committee. THE HOME OFFICE With this extended introduction, we may call attention to certain facts we have observed and the conclusions which we think may be based thereon. Considering first the home office of the Missionary Union, our observation leads us to the conclusion that, on the whole, it is well organized and effi¬ ciently administered. A proper departmental division is essential to good organization in business on a large scale, and we were pleased to find a successful application of this principle in the office of the Missionary Union. The Literature Department, the Stenographic Department, and the Filing Department are distinct units in the office, and, as organized, are in excellent shape to do efficient work. Looking beyond the outline of this organization, we found a force of intelligent employees, thoroughly familiar with their work. We examined the schedule of wages paid and found the rates in accord with the general average of this city, for work of this class among considerate employers. 6 We gave considerable attention to the actual equipment of the office in the way of filing cases and office furniture generally. In our opinion, the equipment has been wisely selected for the use of the Union, and is likely to continue in service for a long time to come. There are no extravagant furnishings in any of the rooms and all the equipment is in constant use. The filing system is a most important feature in an office of this kind, and the arrangements at the Union, in general, must be highly commended. Some of the officials still make use of press copy books in addition to carbon copies for letters. This makes some extra work, but is relatively unim¬ portant. We believe an expert study of the filing system would eliminate some of the abstracting now done in correspondence. The present methods, however, appear to reach satisfactory results, and could not be abandoned, except with loss of efficiency, until new methods had been installed. Indeed, we are open to conviction whether it would prove easier to continue the abstracting than to elaborate the present filing system. We understand that there has been criticism of the large outlay made each year for literature in various forms. The magazine especially is said to be too expensive, but, as plans are being made to cut down this expense by combining the magazine with other Baptist periodicals, it does not seem necessary for us to make further comment here. We note, in passing, that advertisements of patent medicines and other matters of questionable nature are rigidly excluded from the pages of the magazine. We commend this policy, which is the only one that a self-respecting periodical ought to follow, and mention it merely to point out one reason for diminished income when comparisons are made with other less conscientious periodicals. The Union spends several thousand dollars for other printing which cannot be criticised by any purely commercial standard. If it is to be done, there should be due care to get as favorable prices as possible, and we believe this detail is well looked after. A printing register is maintained in the office; at least two competitive bids are taken on nearly all jobs and usually three or more on any large order. The stock of pamphlets and other literature is kept in good order, and except for a few books that were on hand in rather large quantities, did not seem to be in excess of current needs. In reply to our suggestion that a more careful supervision of stocks would enable the literature department to run with a smaller investment in printed matter, we were informed that it had already been planned to place future orders for similar goods on a different basis, that was expected to keep the stock at a minimum. We suggest further that literature which is uniformly sold, and never given away, should be put in a class by itself called “ sale goods,” and a simple account kept for it, entirely distinct from the general stock (that is generally given away or distributed at cost and almost never handled at a profit). Much of the present practice in the Secretaries’ offices has been developed, so we were informed, within the last few years, and is probably responsible for much of the increased expense in the offices. Beyond the small details we have referred to, we do not see where there is much room for curtailment unless, as a matter of policy, the Union will give up some of the things it is now doing. We do not have any comment to offer in this connection except that for every detail of work now conducted in the office, one could find abundant precedent in other well-managed business offices. We have suggested to the Home Secretary that some further analysis of clerical wages be undertaken during the coming year, and should this be done, there will probably be more details of cost available for criticism in the future. 7 In our report to the Finance Committee of the Northern Baptist Con¬ vention on the finances of the Union and related matters, we pointed out several opportunities for revision and improvement in the accounting practice in the Treasurer’s office. It is not to be expected, however, that the volume of work in this department could be greatly decreased by the proposed reforms, which would be in the direction of better and more efficient work rather than immediate economy. DISTRICT SECRETARIES Outside the home office the Union spent last year $44,576.65 for the District Secretaries and their organization. Our attention has been called to criticisms of these expenses, but as the extension or curtailment of this work must be settled as a matter of policy, we do not see any reason for repeating here the arguments we have heard pro and con on this subject. One comment has occurred to us, however, which we have not heard advanced by others, namely, that since the Union stands committed to extensive expenditures on the mission field, it is only sound and prudent business management to maintain an efficient collecting agency at home which shall provide a continuous supply of funds to meet these obligations. If the needed funds cannot be obtained without persistent solicitation, it would be equally logical to restrict the field of operations of the Union to what the unsolicited contributions will pay for. Any intelligent criticism in this direction must take account of the character of the Union’s field work. It cannot be effectively curtailed at short notice, as it costs about as much to bring a missionary home as to maintain him in the field the same year. This phase of the society’s business illustrates the difficulty of applying a rigid standard that will satisfy everybody, and the obvious need of compromise in arriving at conclusions. r OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE In the course of our inquiries about administrative expense, our atten¬ tion was called to the recent appointments of general missionaries to travel and supervise or inspect the actual work on the mission fields. We have also heard criticism of the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to the mission fields. We have no opinion to express about the direct purpose of either of these undertakings, but we have no hesitation in saying that similar broad, supervisory work is generally approved in large business enterprises with scattered interests, and, prima facie, ought to be of great advantage to the Missionary Union. COMPARISON WITH OTHER SOCIETIES In our letter of instructions, special reference was made to the report of Mr. F. D. Phinney, comparing the expenses of the Missionary Union with other societies. We have made a careful study of this report, and, as stated in our introduction, we must conclude that its principal importance consists in showing the difficulty of comparing one missionary society with another, except in the most general way. This difficulty is stated very clearly by Mr. Phinney, when he says: " It would be instructive, if it were possible, to tabulate all these reports, setting similar items to similar items for every dollar of expenditure; but this is utterly impossible * * xhe only plan possible to follow is to gather 8 groups of items together along main lines, making these groups so large that they can be determined from almost all of the reports.” We cannot escape the conclusion, after our review of Mr. Phinney’s tables and text, that he reached the further conclusion that the attempted comparisons with other missionary societies were for one reason or another of little value to the Missionary Union. In every case the report calls attention to differences in conditions in accounting practice which render exact comparison between the societies impossible. This is shown very clearly in Mr. Phinney’s conclusion (Paragraph C), which reads as follows: ” C. With reference to the Societies which appear to be more econom¬ ically managed than the Union, it is true of all that their figures do not represent the full cost of management, either because certain collecting work is done for them without expense in ways in which it is not possible for the Union to follow their procedure, or a great apparent saving in cost of man¬ agement is apparent but not actual, since much administrative work is done on the foreign field instead of in the home offices, and no account of its true cost appears in the financial reports of such societies.” We heartily concur with the two recommendations with which Mr. Phinney closes his report (Paragraphs D and E). First, that a carefully considered classification of expenses should be adopted and followed in fu¬ ture accounts of the Union. If administrative expenses are transferred from the home office to the foreign field, we fully agree with Mr. Phinney, it should not be lost sight of by merging with the so-called “ general foreign work supposedly missionary in its character and not administrative.” Secondly, it would be a great advance for all missionary societies if a uniform system could be adopted for their several accounts. This principle is finding wider and wider application every year. Railroads, banks and municipal enterprises can be considered intelligently only when substantially uniform reports are rendered to the public and similar items have the same meaning in all cases. This critical, definite knowledge will, we believe, be demanded by denominational constituencies in the not distant future and every society that now has any active interest in the subject seems to have an excellent opportunity to serve its own interest by giving hearty support to the movement. COMPARATIVE STATISTICS FOR THE UNION Accepting, then, the impossibility of making any really satisfactory or conclusive comparison with other societies, as their accounts are now stated, we turn to a study of the Union’s figures over a series of years. Here we think there is something to be gained by making a comparison slightly different and more extended than the one Mr. Phinney set up between the year 1900 and the year 1908. Such a comparison between two years widely separated does not show what the trend has been during the interval, or what it is today. One must see the figures for a series of years, we think, to draw any safe conclusions. We have therefore prepared several summaries relat¬ ing to Income and Outgo for ten years, 1900 to 1909 inclusive. The figures in these schedules have been copied from the Treasurer’s annual reports, following an arrangement of our own. Schedule A shows classified income for the ten years, and has been arranged to show the main streams of revenue, and to throw the smaller unclassified items each year into a miscellaneous account which we have called " Other Income.” Schedule B shows this revenue in one lump sum each year and, in com- 9 parison, classified outgo for each year. We arranged this schedule to show very clearly the distinction between the actual running expense and the disbursements to annuitants, sometimes erroneously included in Adminis¬ trative or Home Expense. Mr. Phinney very properly insisted on this distinction, but we can hardly concur in his comment that it is therefore proper to omit the income derived from investing the principal of these conditional gifts from the “ Total Income ” in making comparative state¬ ments and percentage calculations of the Union’s business from year to year- We cannot see any important distinction between this income and that received from investing permanent funds It is easy to see how the wrong impression was obtained from the practice at the Union of accounting for income on every fund or bond separately. As we pointed out in our report to the Finance Committee of the Northern Baptist Convention, this account¬ ing practice puts the emphasis in the wrong place, in our judgment, and the futility of attempting this kind of a classification will at once be apparent when the simpler, more direct practice we have recommended is set up at the Union. There was a similar error, we think, in excluding disbursements to annuitants from the “ Total Expenditure,” as set up on Mr. Phinney’s table. While no direct comparison can be made between disbursements to different classes of persons, it seems obvious that paying these annuitants regularly and accurately is quite an important part of the total disbursing business in the Treasurer’s office. Total Income and Total Outgo, on our schedule, therefore, may be taken in the strict sense of the words. These totals do not include the gifts to increase permanent funds or in consideration for annuity payments. These amounts are properly excluded as they are not current revenues and cannot properly be used to pay for current missionary work or current administration expenses. Schedule C. Having explained how the totals are made up, we ask your attention to the comparison of ratios for the various items from year to year. The percentages we have calculated are, in each case, intended to answer the different kinds of inquiry or criticism that are directed at the administrative expense of the Union. First, this item is compared with the total volume of the Union’s business. The ratio of expense to total income and total outgo is shown in the first and second rows of figures. As there may be some relation between systematic education of pros¬ pective donors and the actual donations received (reflected in greater admin¬ istrative expense) we have next compared the expenses with the annual totals of Donations, Legacies and the miscellaneous ” Other Income.” In one sense, the main concern of the Union is to inspire gifts (of money and men) for missions. It maintains secretaries, distributes literature, and incurs other expenses with this end in view. The effectiveness of this work as shown by the recruits of devoted missionaries cannot be measured by statistics alone, but the receipts of money can be compared one year with another, and with the running expenses of the business. The results are set down in the third row of percentages. But obviously, much weight must be given to the view that the main business of the Union is, after all, missions, for which all the machinery is run and for which ultimately all the expenditure is made. The percentage of home or administrative expense to the appropriations for missions is shown in the fourth row of figures. We believe that any one interested in the work of the Union will find it 10 worth while to study these cost percentages carefully. Looking from the ratios to the figures from which they are made up, the factors in each fluctua¬ tion can be traced, and one can see the reasons for the variation from year to year. Varying degrees of importance will be attached to the different calculations, according as one puts emphasis on one point of view or another. It is interesting to note the high ratios of the year 1905 when the expense increased $13,000, while income fell off slightly and work appropriations remained practically stationary. In making comparative ratios when the fluctuations are within such narrow limits, the calculations should always be carried to four decimal places. Calculations in less detail are not nearly so serviceable in showing the actual trend of the various factors from year to year. Returning to the specific subject of this report, it must be observed that the total administrative or home expense has steadily increased since 1900. The burden of interest on borrowed money shows up with striking effect at the end of the decade as the increasing deficits had to be financed each year. Of the four main items, the notable increase has been for “General Expense.” As the size of this item and the variety of sub-accounts seemed to justify a more complete analysis, we have prepared Schedule D, which exhibits the details for ten years. A similar analysis might well be made for the other items, but the value of the comparison depends largely upon the classification of the accounts and the possibility of tracing each class of expense from year to year. GENERAL COMMENTS Some general considerations may properly be brought out at the close of this report. Quality of Work First, as to the explanations that may be given for the increased admin¬ istrative expenses. It seems to us that there is abundant evidence to show how greatly the quality of the office work has been improved in recent years. We have no personal knowledge of actual conditions of the past, but if, as we are informed, much of the present practice is entirely new, we cannot escape the conclusion that the standard has been notably improved in several important particulars. It appears to us that the Union is now in a position to handle largely increased business with but slightly increased expense. If income be taken as a basis of comparison, it is evident that the Union has made a favorable showing this year in comparison with other years. Women’s Societies Finally, we cannot leave this subject without noting that operating as the Union does with large revenues from the affiliated women’s societies, any complete consideration of its administrative expense should properly include the women’s societies also. They collect their great total of con¬ tributions which are included in the Union’s annual report and incur con¬ siderable expense for their secretaries and assistants, who administer the women’s work. Therefore, when any comparison is made of expense against the total work appropriation, or the total outgo of the Union, it must be borne in mind that, in addition to the expense on the Union’s books, there is also the expense of the women’s societies to be taken into consideration. While the statements of expense based solely on the Union’s accounts are, to this extent, misleading because the women’s expenses are omitted, 11 the comparative statistics for the Union are significant and reliable so long as the proportion of income from the women’s societies remains about constant. As a matter of fact, we find that the contributions throughout the ten-year period have about kept pace with the other income of the society, the fluctua¬ tions being sometimes in one direction and sometimes in the other. The ratio of women’s pledges to total outgo and mission appropriations is shown— year by year on Schedule C. It is highly desirable, we think, in future annual reports, to include a complete statement of the expenses of the women’s societies, and their full income, as well as the amount which they contribute to the work that is carried on in connection with the Union. Very respectfully, Harvey S. Chase & Company, Public Accountants and Auditors. 12 Ameeican Baptist Missionary Union. Schedule CO T3f( HO CO ■HH HO l-H I—t CD p P p p HO l-H l-H l> d 00 d d • »o t- oo' ho' o' (X' t-' oi HO ■I'H Ob o HO rH 00 00 ■rj' d 00 d cd d o O HO CO o o o t- 00 o Ob CO CO^ l-H Hh ' go' i>' Ob «5 «0 l-H t> l—H o z l—H Ob oo- »o l-H t- Ob CO Hi Ob lo 00 ®i o< i> rH CO 1>' of l-H oo' co' cd' oo' i> 00 *o o O^ l-H r-H Ob «©• m- lo CO GO 00 i> l—H o Tfl o GO p HO GO o< Tft CO to J> oi HO 00 (X cd cd d o Ob "If CO 00 ■ Ob r-H CO Ob co^ o Ob c» Ob' oo' go' oo' of d s ?-H Ob HO GO l-H t- o €©• U (X CO CO l> o< p Ob p CO l-H P 5 l-H oo’ HO cd rH rH cd HO CO l-H o< l-H 00 00 o 00 CJi O Oi Ob o^ oo" o^ co' co' O Q k HO l> CO d l-H d cd c£ hH Peh o Ob Ob CO o CD o< r-H Ob T~i ®1 ho" co^ co' o oo' 00 o 00 #k HO p^ r-H p hJh" HH 00 CO l-H O^ CO CO l-H CO CO CO- Ob l> Ob HO M l-H p l-H 00 P rH u Ob cd ' oo' co' CO pH Tf< rH ■rJH CO l-H l-H CO m- Oi (X CO Hj< l-H Ob HO l-H HO Cb 00 00 GO d 00 00 o o Ob Ob CO ■hJH Ob co^ co^ p l-H p p^ o' co' of l-H of co' . HO CO rH 'Tf* CO €©■ l-H ■e §• Ph (h o «HH .a o 4- ) -S3 .a -C cd X) 0) ’o o Q T? P Vi a P ;o d w p n o cy 441 P p * Vi p Vi o C ) p d a o cn P p p i2 M H 1 • -4 4.4 tn a VI .<-> a 0) O PQ a o ptH «h-h • rH o p o -M 8 p O P np o . ^ ■*^ d a ■ 4-> ’3 fH «+H c/5 -4-J 4.J t-l (V cu o ‘o 0) S' '.3 1—I OJ -p '•--a H * o Q a l-H < • r-H o pH a m fH 4.4 o o f-H *o o Of *o Of X X fO *fS o CO lO q q q X q q q m ;d l-^ cd w x X p P rH P * CO o< X i- X X X J> X c:> Cs CD^ l> *-o I—1 a lO mh x^ x^ >p 05 ‘O CO*" p X P x" cd p x" X 3 r— ^ Tf« X Of X p lO X X *0 1-^ 1-H X X MM 1-^ 09 €©^ €©• 43 u C/3 I-O Of X X X Of Hf X *0 ‘-0 CO lO CO X q X X q q q q q o6 oi o’ x’ x’ GO cd X *d P P P d ■rt' o o^ X i> X CO X o X o o X nO 05 *£© o^ o q^ t~ q^ ■q ■q X X^ l> •o' x" of p P x" P P o" P x" O X Of 1-H Of s ‘-0 a 1-H X €©■ o©- 09 i> CO X Of X X o X X X X X 0 i> o 't X q X q X q q MM • CO cd o’ cd Of Of p P P P d P P *o o 05 b- X Of X rH *0 X o l—H o^ *o^ co^ X q^ X^ rH q -q q q 05 >X«J go' go" cd 1-H o" cd X P 1-H P x" x" rH X X Of 1-H Of Tfl Of X X X Oi €©- 1-H 1-H X X «©• €©• o J> Of X X X Of X I-O X X CO o^ cq Of q 1-H q 1-H q X q q , o’ p p p d Of *d cd GO d x GO P CO CO o 05 Of X X o X rfi Of X X o r^ co^ o^ o^ x^ X x^ X q X 05 >WJ CO co" p x' x' x" 1-H P x" X X X Of o Of X X I-H X 00 1-H 1-H X •s©- o 05 *o 05 o fO X *o X Of X X Of 1-H X q '^. q q X X q X q X t> , cd t=h d x’ 1-H P d cd d rH P X GO ‘C) i> o o »o X Of X Of X c X 1-H X o (O co_^ 05^ *o Of q X X x_ q X O Oi »> cd x" 05 p •o" p' d" p x" rH CO 1—< X Of 1-H o Of X 1-H I-H o H P I-H X t- €©• m- €©■ 09 O Oi *-o CO 05 »o X X X X X X o 05 o^ t-H q X q q X q q X O *o r-^ d x’ *d d d 1— i GO d X *d P • rv. cc ‘O 05 05 f> o mH 1-4 Of f q; X X *0 PS P o Oi o Oi nP Ci o cc"' of x^ p cc p t> x" p q_ P l> *d x^ x" q P x" q * 0 " P CO X Of 1-H X Of 1-H o Of rH 6©- o H 1 o t- m- €©■ X f> w 03 o Ci ■M f-H 05 rH X O j> X X w '^. CO q 1-H q q I-H 1-H q X q X q l-H § Oq ©0 cd 05 d P P d X X P Of d X d s w H K *o 05 05 Of CO Of *o X X X *0 H 03 Q <3^ P CS 00^ of GO lO 05^ x" X 1-H Of i> x" 1-H f> x" o o" X q_ P Of q^ P 1-H q x" X x^ o" 1-- mm q x' Of |h CO €©• 1-H X X PU w H c/3 s 09- 05 05 CO 1—H o o X X -s©- 1-H o -s©- rH X Of Q P hH P X X X X q q q q q c 1-H 5r o 1902. cd GO d cd d d cd X d X X 0 P Fh d J> p to CO i> o x_^ i> o^ of X x" o 1-H x" X x^ x" x^ x" rH x" x^ x" *0 X rH X x^ p X -H P pH H C/3 C/3 <5l P U o^ CO X Of 1-H G©- Of o 1-H 1-H *o Of X X €©■ ■6©- <3 Oi Of i> 1-H ’f* CO o o 0 0 T-^ rM *-q q q q X q X X I-H q Of y^ cd cd CO X d 1-H P P d 1-H Of P p Q) t^ CO X 05 Of o Of X rH Of X rf* X 05 c« o^ r—1 q^ q_ q^ q_ q_ 1-H 1-H Iq q co" p of 1-H of P o' x" x" x" P P x" €©■ X Of 1-H t- 1-H X l" i> t> X CO €©■ £©• fO «©• €©■ €©■ t- X Of 1-H *o X X 1-H fo rfl io X Of X X q q q q q q rs GO ol d GO p P GO X P d P p I-H X CO 1-H o >0 X Of X 0 •0 -f 05 o^ x^ Of^ Of 1-H o q q x^ q_ ■M cd oi o" o" o" P x" d x" o" x" cd rH €©■ X Of 1-H X Of X rH X 5-0 1-H €©5 09 ‘O *0 1-H €©• f . 69 ^ • c3 . «c 05 . P >H . X .2i S K. Q '5 r2 ' o 33 <3 w C. •x> 05 75 05 * ^ HM ~C3 .2 • c/: ,22 o § O c/3 CJ IrH X >4 s 05 05 05 =C |M Cc 05 fl s ►-—I .Si *E c3 e o 9 C X /M •S2 be 0 C:5 P 0 w o C5 s: >--1 d CSi CJ -M a; m o 05 5- w 3 •w X a c/3 o cC G ’a"? ■S4 O* 6 en-c 0 73 05 cs 05 E 4-) e o ■fci MO o oS (-< 0) 'E H-d cn O O 05 X CJ E a> 05 h 0) 4—1 MO a •Mi E c/3 • ^ MO E MO o 2 ^ /M s MO •Mi 73 05 05 y. • »M 05 CC 05 * 05 CC 05 p C W o hH Q p -^3 P W c Q o 0) 3 ’S u C/D Oi 05 O CO r-H CO 00 O CO o 1-^ S CO oi CO O CS^ “ 2 *o t- o o i> cd CO ‘o 05 <3^ o t}5 I-I 05 CO o t> o cd Oi T—I C3i CO O 05 S ‘d 00 I s § 2 o 12; i? o H CQ R PM *o CO 00 O hJH o cq p O) oi ©i d 1^ pH fH ©< pH o H CO o »© o GO ©/ GO GO O 05 PH pH pH d ©^ rH Q >4 CO pH 05 o io 00 cq GO 05 oi ©i G 40 s PH pH pH pH f-H O o ed O QO ©^ ©? GO pH P 1-H s 05 PH cd pH cd pH 05 I-H <6 J-H o H ^ « 05 ©:j pH r—I CO CO i> *o 05 ©J ■M pH »0 05 i> CO t- »d J> i> »o »© 1> CO cc 0) • pal o d tJD 73 01 o d 01 o Q 54-1 o pb a 73 0) ■ a I §>1 iS d g ^ d d ■Hi -M O O O H H a ja W < W z O O CD h-3 hH r co' •» t^o©eocoO-Ht^T}..^i'_o.^«:>coqTj'_co“ o 00 ©' ■^' o os •-< cd ^ © oi ^ OsosTrt^^Ocoosioosio^osoot? 1-H 05 O *o ^ ©© (N .ooo05©©.^t^©oc^'^o©2 t^Tl<5OO5©^q00Wt^qt';«M'* 2 c.* .-<■ T»< 05* ..i* t'l © CO © © 05 (N * 2 CO-H 00 05 ©® N o ©.^©^.^_ "<*© 05 *^ fs. 1—j 1-^ ^ ^ M ..^OOOC^^^05T^^O^^. © '^00oOC0©'-'t^ (N©'^ C0*.-T-|.^C0©O.-t.-i© O 05 05 ; C'.’ ■ © o -^cot^o .'^ »© C>. . Ol ] O) w _iOO©©©0.^''f op©q'- ■©©•^©co ^ © ^ 1-^ w ’.-T c» ©30© ^ q©© ed w C'i cd O'-!©© f„ 1-H 1-1 •rl< .©O ■ ro • h,* TJ» • ©rj< •© •t^ !<» Q © <-i ©o© • •o»o • •••••••• oo • • • • © Cl©©© . • O ” © • •••••••• • • • • id'^od • *«•••••• • • • • © ci©Tj N Cl 00 CO o CO © Cl © !>; CO Cl © —H t>. © ■ Ot»< . •q© • • oo • Ot'; • • : :g '|H ■ <-4 05 CO ■ ©05 ■ ;dd • • • ^ © Cl 3 ■ oci . E? . 1—1 © Cl .Cl© ; ; • • • Cl © I..* «• © • • © • • • • •© • 'T • • ..H s © • i>. . • • • • © • © • ;© ©’ : : • • • ■© ^d o © Cl • -S? • . © •2 • .© |H © Cl • •<=^. • . Tf . ^ . .Cl a 2 05 © © ci !>.’ • p4 bfl 05 Cl-.Jt CIO N. ” 3_© « © 3 73 C55 Cl .H O 05 1 ooci© © • O Cl © © © q 3 CiQ o q o6 ..i © ci © CD 05 ®©©©© © 2 ■hh ”ci«q© © W »s Cl Ph a CO (N s 73 .2 3 CS o 'd c cd >> t-l 3 03 03 w bD.D<73<13 g^.EoWWSW —I 03 73 2 >>o ffi d” d 'S'*5.g”^-gi'£W.o 0^2.^ ..ro*5Cn3 "d 3 2*S^ 03 2 tn<32 be o S i:; o 2 - tn mO^W S d OT d—-s.is Oa3^c^*«Q3c0303«OCt.i q, Eh H m O H Eh H <3 H |5.i I SSis.S S « Sl3| nil ||i lls H )SEHHH>?OOCSP^^SoHOfeoWH^-3>^