The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-03-30
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS,

Cooper recently introduced in the SEN
ate and published in The Journal:
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, /
AUSTIN, Tex, March 20. 1893. !
To the Honorable, the Members of the Senate
Committee on Education:
regret that it is necessary for me,
owing to certain circumstances, to an
swer some charges made by Professor
Cooper against the university and
against myself in paper which has
been designated his memorial"
The circumstances that make 1t nec-
essary for me to ans wer these charges
are these: On Friday, March 10, about
2:30 o'clock in the afternoon received a
note from Hon. l.. 7. Dashiell, mem.
Der of the committee on education in
the house, saying that Professor
Cooper would appear before that com.
mittee at o'clock to make charges
against the university, and urging me
to be present. l could hardly believe
that formal charges would be made
against All institution of learn.
ing, involving the interest of so many
persons, without notice being given
and time afforded for the preparation
of an answer. Yet such was the case.
Prof. Cooper appeared before the COM
mittee with an elaborate paper, at
taking, with the most reckless asser-
tons, the university regents, the
university, faculty and myself. re-
quested copy of the paper, say ing
that iG could and would be answered,
and in The meanwhile replied orally
to the most salient points of the in
dictment. at tho conclusion Of my
reply the paper was refused mo on the
ground that it was not the property OF
the committee L acquiesced, and
there the matter would have ended so
far as l. was concerned, but on the
afternoon of Saturday, March II, this
same indictment, now entitled o
memorial" was sent up to the presi-
dent of The senate with the request
that it be printed in the Senate
Journal without being read. This
being granted, as is usual ia
such cases l am informed, Professor
Cooper's paper with some changes,
suggested doubtless by the debate of
the previous day, appeared Monday
morning in full in the senate Journal;
but without the answer or any allu-
sion to the answer that had been
made to it before the house commit
tee. 1t was at once eXpuDged from
! The Journal and referred to the SEN
ate committee on education by, am
told, q unanimous vote. 1t is owing
to he courtesy of this committee that
| am allowed to present in this paper
what is substantially the reply L made
to Professor Cooper before the house
committee on education. Before TAX
ing up the "memOriap | wish 20 call
attention to Professor Cooper's mani.
fest unfairpess in his attempts to geG
| his complaints before the legislature.
| The con fusion is irresistible that it
was his hope and expectation to APP.
| pear before the educational commit
tee of tho house uncOnironted. He
prelends to pose as the unbiased, dis
Interested critic OF great in
stitution and its officers. III SO, why
was not notice given and time allowed
that @ defense might be made? His
unfairness is not matter OF inference
so far as his appearance before the
senate is concerned, it is gross and
palpable. If truth and the public
good were his objects why did he in
| trOduce a "memuriaW which bad been
answered the preceding day, knowing
that it was impossible Tor the answer
to accompany it? The fact is that
truth and the public good were rot
his objects, but, as the senate imme-
diately saw, he wanted TO vent his
individual spleen and ventilate q prt
vate grievance. In the light of this
Characterization, which 1 believe to 10
just, ask that his indictment against
the University be read and considered.
This indictment which is verbose,
turbid, and singularly confused may
be divided, so far as l can see, into
four counts: l. The incompetency OF
the board of regents. 2. The
inet1iciency of the faculty. 8.
the influence of the Austin clique;
4th. the insigniticance of the chair
man of the faculty. These all run into
each other in confusing kind of way
but, believe, they can be fairly dis.
tinguished and segregated. They are
all cited in support of proposition
with which the Memorial" begins:
"Our state university has fallen into
Incompetent hands.n
In the first count the regents are
charged with "groce incompetency."
The brazep effrontery of this charge
is apparent when it is remembered
that the board of regents was compos-
ed originally of men selected by Gov
ernor Roberts, from different parts of
the state, on account of their fitness
for organizing and establishing a uni
versity and is composed now of men
selected by Governor Roberts, Cover
nor Ireland, Governor Ross and Gov
ernOr Hogg 1t is reasonable to sup
pose that citizens selected at different
times, by different governors
and whose names are
known all over the state
as eminent, practical, astute,
scholarly men, should, upon their Sc,
lection as regents of the university,