The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-09-11
AN EARNEST APPEAL
To the Commissioners Court to Repeal Their
Hasty Action.

To the Commissioners Court to Repeal Their
Hasty Action.
TO the Editor of the Statesman:
| think the action of the county
commissioners in abolishing the Office
of county superintendent is i'll consid-
cred, impolitic and unwise; and l am
hopeful that when they confer with
the people somewhat more fully, and
give the matter sober, second
thought, they will rescind their order.
The Office of county superintendent is
a comparatively new thing in Texas /;
and while not all the counties of the
State have created the office, it is a
fact that those that have done so are
for many reasons, so well pleased that
they have not abolished the Office and
gone back to the old plan. l really
think that our commissioners have
taken step that cannot be too speed
lily retraced. If the Office were an ex-
pensive and unnecessary one, I should
most heartily applaud the action of the
commissioners, but it is neither. On
the other hand, it is inexpensive, and
when properly administered, it is in
dispensably necessary to the progress
and perfection of our school system.
l can scarcely presume to insult the
intelligence of your readers by draw
ing parallel between system of
county schools conducted without in
telligent supervision and system
which has Constant intelligent and
responsible supervision"
We hear and read much of late
about Prussia's splendid system of
schools, and we may not know that
their excellence and superiority are
due, according to our best opponents
of educational thought, to unremit-
ting and wise supervision. In our
own country the best schools have
been evolved under the ablest super
vision that money could get. hope
1 am not transgressing the linn
its of propriety in calling the
attention of those high in authority
and charged with the weighty respon-
sibilities touching our school interests,
to the fact that supervision is now
recognized as an indispensable factor
in any efficient system of education.
Under the law creating the county
superintendent's Office he is allowed a
maximum salary of $1,000. Travis
county has $2S,920 to be disbursed.
Of this sum the county judge (assum
ing that We had no superintendent
would get 1929 for disbursing and
1902 for taking the census. These
two items amount to $531. The diff.
ference between this sum and $1,000 is
1859 which is the sum the county is
to pay over and above what the county
judge would get, for the constant SUI
pervision of very important and
highly necessary interest.
No county judge ever has or ever
will fill acceptably the dual Of
flee of superin tendent and judge.
Two reasons exist: First, COM
potency for one position argues
incompetency for the other. Second,
it is physical impossibility for a
county Judge to meet the require
ments of the law for the two Offices,
and every county judge knows it.
The abolition of the superinten-
dents. Office confers upon Travis
county the sad distinction of being the
only county in the State in which
progressive educational ideas have not
found permanent lodgment. We
cannot afford to enjoy such distinc-
ton. We are told by those who voted
against retaining the superintendent
Office that they were but rejecting the
sentiments of their constituents.
Very lately there were two county
conventions. Each convention nomi-
mated gentleman for county superin-
tendent. If the will of the people was
so markedly against the Office is it
not a little singular that they should
go through the farce of nominating
candidates for an Office to which they
are represented as being so much
opposed?
For less than $500 more than what
we pay the county judge we can have
an excellent superintendent for our
county schools. This money will be
more than returned in the increased
thoroughness and perfection of the
schools of the county.
The county in which our State CAPT
toll and university are located must
aspire to be the banner county in all
pertaining to education. This
cannot be hoped for without super
vision. r. w. LOWRY.
A deputy sheriff of Napa county,
Cal, had an experience the other day
which, he says, will remain fixed in
his mind as long as life shall endure.
He was sent to Callstoga with
bench warrant to arrest woman.
She asked to be excused until she
could arrange her toilet, and when she
returned without a rag OF clothing on
said: "You Can take me now"