The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1873-05-08

joint Committee 10 investigate the Official
conduct and accounts of the Superintend-
ent Of Public Instruction. and Of his sub0r-
dinates, submitted the following minority
report
COMMITTEE ROoN,
AUSTIN, April 90, 1878.
Hon. Z. B. Pickett, President of the Senate. /
and Hon. ~ ID. K Taylor. Speaker Of 1
House Of Representatives:
It would be, perhaps, sufficient for the /
minority Of the Special Joint Committee of /
Investigation, to say that from the moment /
the majority of your committee decided to !
take all evidence against the Superintendent |
OF Public Instruction in secret and ex parte. /
they hardly deemed it proper or Just that
they should attend the committee, as it
seemed to have already settled upon their
report by such action; but when the doors
OF the committee room were open to the
superintendent, and he was refused, as we
think, an impartial investigation; when he
was not allowed clerk, and the rulings of
the committee were against established rules
of law, your minority remained away, with
the exception of a few meetings, altogether.
However, we desire to lay before the honor
able Legislature few facts in the testimony
and action of the Committee, and ask your
W
to the different protests of the Superintend-
ent of Public Instruction, which, in our
opinion, should have been made part of the
proceedings of the committee.
Regarding the evidence of Mr.. Strange
as to Mr.. Smiths reputation, establishes
nothing. He states George w. Smith was
known by reputation as the officer who COM
handed the Federal troops at BRENNAN,
when Brenham was burned. It was also
well known that Gen. Sheridan personally
Investigated this matter and exonerated
Smith Smith being an educated man. full
ly capable of filling the position of Inspect
or, received that appointment. That Mr..
Strange does not know of his own know
ledge that Smith ever examined a school in
Grimes county, does not prove that he did
not. If the committee believed he had not,
why did they not establish this fact by send
ing for and examining some of the teach
ers2
AS to w. B. Bonner having been charged
with stufing the ballot box in the election
of Limestone and Freestone counties, Mr.
Strange gives as lunor, but the country
well knows that out of a registered Repub-
lican vote of about 500 the Republican can
didate only received twenty-eight votes; so
if Mr. Bonner stuffed the ballot box of
Limestone county, of which county we are
reliably informed he was registrar, he must
have done so for the Democratic party.
We find upon careful perusal of the tes-
timony nothing whatever to show that the
Superintendent corruptly or otherwise
used the school money or any portion there
of, but on the contrary, we find that he has
made complete settlement with the Comp
troller, as per statement attached to testi-
| oil Cd
that he drew the last requisiti0n on August
that requisition in April, 1878. If the COM
mittee had any doubt as to what had been
done with this money, why did they not
apply to the State Treasurer, where they
would have found that not one dollar of this
amount had been drawn from the Treasury,
except when paid to teachers and employees
after the Comptroller had audited their
vouchers. Further, if the committee be-
lieved that any of the school fund had Eeen
used except for their legitimate purposes, it
was well known that all school money
drawn on requisition had been deposited
with Messrs. Raymond & Whitis, of Austin,
whose evidence could have been procured
at any moment.
The transaction of the purchase of states
seems to your minority committee, as far as
the superintendent is concerned, a legiti-
mate transaction. We refer to the tcsti-
mOny in the cross-examination of Mr. a. S.
Mair, page Z; and it will be further seen by
the testimony of Hon. VIM. Alexander, At
torney General and member of the Board OF
Education, as we'll as by the testimony OF
Governor Z. j. Davis, that the Attorney
General recommended to the Board of Ed.
ucation the purchase of these states, and
called the attention of the board to this par
ticular quarry. (See page 9S of the testi'
mony.)
Two hundred and thirty-ive thousand
dollars were drawn by the Superintendent
on requisition, and that amount has been
settled by him to the satisfaction of the
accounting officer of the State, the Comp
troller. This is the only money which
could, according to the laws of our State,
pass through the Superintendent hands,
add not the millions spoken of by the ma
joTity of your committee.
How then can it be even intimated that
he has specialized with public funds when
there is not one iota of evidence to sustain
such charged
As to the evidence of AIessrs. Rucker and
Lockett, where it is charged by the major
ity of your committee that the Superinten.
dent has shown partially in the salaries oil
teachers of white and colored schools, il
is not true; nc has allowed in the county Of
Washington six teachers teaching colored
schools, old rate salary, as he is permitted
to do by regulations of Board of Education
as shown in the testimony of Mr.. Rucker
page %. And in this matter we refer tc
the evidence Of Rev. J. G. Lieb, No. 10
which shows that not q white person il
Washington county could have been pro
cured to teach a colored school, and It j!
well known throughout the State that il
has been impossible to procure the service.
of Texans to teach coiored schools Mt any
price Every witness of whom the ques
ton was asked, stated they did not know
Of any Partially having been shown by thC
Superintendent of Public Instruction L
teachers; also that he never asked, either
before or after their appointment, the poll
tics Of school directors, teachers, principal.
OF inspectors, nor is it anywhere shown IN
the evidence that the superintendent hac
used his Office foT Political purposes. but Il
is shown to the contrary whenever the ques
ton was asked. {See evidenceof Governor
Davis. page IS; senator Baker, l02 Col
Morrison, 100; Governor Flanagan, 1I2.
and others.)
As 10 the statement Of Mr Reed princi
pal OF schools OF Parker and iaFTant coun
ties, he must have known, that the Law
gave supervisors the power to appoint and
remove school directors; 50 his complaints,
II any were made, should have been 70 that
officer. bat in examining the list Of wit
4 nesses whom the Superintendent requested
to have summoned, and 70 which list hs
was required by the committee TO make
oath as to what he expected 20 prove By
4 them. We enc that be requested the sum
mons OF Hon. A. B. Norton. Of Dallas, fol
the purpose Of proving the character Of the
board Of directors Of Tarrant county. and
that the statement Of Mr.. Reed in regard
10 the board was not correct; that he alst
requested the summons Of DR.. Ewing and
Mr. E Hovencanlp 70 prove the statement.
made by 5Ir Reed were not correct
The testimony 81 3Ir. Maxwell. account
ant Of the Superintendent's Office, show.
-