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

time It 81, ia secret aud took evidence "a
parte for about three weeks and gave the /
Observation-Disclosures the purpose Of having
his witnesses brought here and examined +
eight days; that is, they gave him from the
second Of April to the ninth Of April torig-i
inally 70 the eight { subpenaing witnesses /
in the city Of Austin on the third, and Civ
ing him subpanas for the witnesses for the (
State at large on the morning Of the fourth !
Of April, after the mail had left thereby /
leaving him Excluding Sunday four days
in which to bring witnesses from long dis I
tances and different parts Of the State At.
tention is especially invited to this action Of
the committee, and to his statement under
oath as 20 what he desired to prove by his
witnesses. The labors performed By the
Superintendent of Public Instruction in
opening to the youth OF the State two thou
sand and sixty-seyen free schools. employ
ing two thousand six hundred and twenty
five teacfe-s, and placing into these schools
over one hundred and twenty seven thou
sand children. at an actual cost 70 the State
of about one dollar and forty cents per
scholar per month, with all expenses paid,
in the first year Of the operation of the
school law. speaks for itself.
The testimony, in our opinion, show that
the Superintendent has performed his duty
fully under the law which he has sworn to
execute: if this law is not one the majority
of your committee approves, it is not his
fault.
The Superintendent had no doubt, the
power to make political capital with his Of
fee, but no evidence has been pro-
duced to show that he has done So except
that of Judge Caldwell, and he speaks of
street rumors; he had also opportunities to
speculate without school money, but no evil
dence has been elected to show that he has
done so; but, on the contrary, the commit
tee, while in secret session, and once after
wards (see evidence of Thomas H. Sharp,
page 81, re-examination, cid ask different
witnesses questions affecting the honesty
and integrity of the Superintendent, and
were in all instances answered in his favor;
but this evidence was not recorded, except
in the case of Sharp.
We here call attention to the evidence of
Mr.. Philips page 81, cross-examination),
which shows that Col. Parker was never in
debted to the State.
The Superintendent, before approving the
vouchers of Col. Parker and Col Smith,
travelling examiners, and Major Griffin,
supervisor, while the two latter were serv-
ing as militia officers, and the former in the
United States revenue service, asked the
opinion of the Attorney General rs to the
Justice of their claim as school officers
upon his opinion (see page 9S) their youch-
ers were approved. We also refer to the
Attorney Generals evidence, on pages 81
and 90, and Of Mr.. Eggleston, No A.
We call attention to the statement of
Major John N. Shafter page 101), who
swears that he did not draw pay as supervi-
sor and major of militia forthe same time.
Major Welch was an employee of the SUI
. perintendent's Office to the twenty-frst of
January, 1873, which is shown by the tes-
timony of Major WEIGH (No. 80, page 110),
and also by Hon. j. P. Newcomb (No. 40,
page 49, and nothing to the contrary is
: shown, except that he was in the State
Journal Office before that time, which may
have been true, bnt it is not shown that he
: did not perform his services in the Superin-
! tendent's office; he may have worked at the
: Journal Office after Office hours; nothing is
produced to show that he worked there
during Office hours
The evidence of Warren Norton should
not be taken into consideration; he states
: that Mr.. Ribble was Supervisor of Schools
when he taught at Sherman; but the report
of the Superintendent shows that Ribblt
had been discharged nearly year before
that time. (See testimony, page 46.) Hi:
entire testimony and letters attached thereto
show that he is not reliable.
The majority of your committee refer t.
: the employment of attorneys to represent
the State in school tax cases, and blame the
Superintendent severely for such action
!, when it is shown on page 100 that the BoarC
l of Education directed the Superintendent
to so employ an attorney and fix his salary
/. This has no doubt been done under section
five of the school act, approved April "a
$ 1871. In justice to the Superintendent VIZ
$ desire to state, that on the first day of tn,
: meeting of the Senate committee, he inform
ed the chairman, Honorable j. D. Savers
that newspapers had made serious charges
against him regarding the purchase of slat,
: blackboards, furniture and school-books
taking the ground that he was interested il
their sale; he requested the chairman theI
and afterwards to send interrogatories Il
the different houses from whom these arti
cles were purchased, and ascertain whetbe
: these rumors were based on facts; but thi
: was not done, The reason why this was no
done we cannot give as the committee Ger
tainly should have sent to the fountain heaC
to get facts, and not receive street rumor
a and accept hearsay as evidence.
The minority of your committee deem
: hardly worth noticing that portion of tn
report of the majority of your COMMITTEE
which refers to the Superintendent drawing
, travelling expenses when he had free pas
: over the Central Railroad, which it is vel
known that in this, as well as all othe
States, passes are given to persons by rail
roads and not to offices they may occupy
and we have yet to learn that any membe
of the Legislature holding a free pass ha
l ever refused to accept his mileage
: The suspicious the majority of your com
: nittee seem to entertain in reference to cer
tain purchases could, we opine, have bee
t easily cleared up, if they had so desired, B
! sending intelrogatories to the places of puI
I chase.
4 In conclusion, We desire to say that tn
, testimony, although taken in q great mea
; sure ex parte, fails to sustain the charge
. and insinuations contained in the report 0
, the majority of your committee.
Respectfully, p, w. HALL
: For Minority of Committee
I st