Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-23
STATE. UNIVERSITY.
Spirited Reply Of Chairman
Waggener to Prof Cooper.
NOT WHOLLY DEFENSIVE.
A Review Of Rovlower-The Comps
tency OF the Board OF Regents aud
Faculty Asserted, aud the Man.
aEemont = Success
NOT WHOLLY DEFENSIVE.


quainted with the position taken 10y ex-
State Superintendent Of Public lnstmc-
tiJn o. IA. Cooper. relative 10 the state
university and the charges he has been
making against the management NJ that
Institution. He has been pushing the
mutter holly and has made his state
1npnt before the senate committee. max
Ing declaration OF the incompetcncy Of
the faculty. the low standard OF the
university etc
The defense Of the university was con
Quoted by Professor Leslie WJggeucr.
chairman of the faculty who has just
appeared before The committee. Zoo sub
stance his remarks were ~ follows.
Mr. Chairman aud Members of the
Senate Committee on Education:
The attack upon ihc university and
IFS management was begun in au article
by Professor Oscar II Cooper. published
iu the Galveston News, Feb 20. 1898.
n was unprOyokcd aud uucullcd for aud
came ot time when any attack was
calculated 10 DO the university the great
ost harm This article made four
charges First That the regents had
spent during the last two year S26T.UOO
oi the states money. Second. That the
university was out " touch with the peso
pie. Ilurl That the term Of the re-
gents eight years was unconstitutional,
and fourth chat ihc standard of ad.
mission was udiCulously low. This
article was answered by me, and by Dr..
George II. leo OF Galveston. who wrote
an admirable and conclusive reply. Pro
irssor Cooper rpJoIncd, saying that my
answer wa. such "a slough OF mi state
menl sophlsiry prtutOgy and per
suutlliy that detailed analysis and re.
luiuuuu were unnecessary, and that DIR
lnr also did not deserve notice lioth
lHli"N were dismissed BOO this summary
way without Tho least attempt 90 point
ont ANY uisstHfpmeut Or fo answer any
urguurWS This has been Professor
'onp.rs method an through this cou-
iroNDrsy He calls names and vents
abuse when arguments FAIL For iu-
stance in referring last night 90 Judge
ln.man.s article, published in the Gal
weston NoWt OF April 3. which was ID
complete and crushing reply 10 his mani.
irsto. outlining "a university, hc simply
HuW DO was silly merely that and moth.
lus moro. Another device of Professor
'uUpnr5 is to shift his ground when
pressed. This was cXcmplifed On his
memorial In this ,iuglurly cone
in.I pllrr he neglected tO speak pf thc
H-btWh NJ thp peoples money, which in
his FIRST article ho charged me regents
Wi'h spending and there WIS no refer
ru'' either tu being ont of touch with
tl" people or of iho uuouusttutiDuality
ul ihp Togcuts term of office. prosuInn-
u'l, 'Hrr'I1l'' th''' points hld been fully
,tr -, "lN lNN IT, lh lilr
...,, E ,'' ~ ul'N'' %, i'I w. can make
~ y. ,"'' ,'a5s lIsi. The lh'om-
IuHhrcncy " the faculty; thirl. the in-
uucucy OF thu Austin Cliuup: fourth. the
iuagnihcaucc and lack Of ability Of the
,.'..i ,''', ,' ~ 'H' ,3',uty' 10 thr'e sew.
49,. ,',,,, l'l.i,'H " WNF hrnFd
'.. a. w '....l''' ~ uul9i '"" ,W'th'
ji,,,.t', IL, H',',,''I, p!phau'r pa ne
81 ~, lt. ,,.,,ai ,i...... '"'l''I u'N'rhu-
..,,,,,t,, w, ,''. "',.'l s7h.l'' '9luhs me an
~, IN H. m 'N',"'uI'I, r''
ip. ut. M. Nl'"l"' ,'nA uuI.
,.rl Ill.,. "N"'''I TUE paper
i,.i, ,.,. G' NuII u'N',nulr
,,..,,." wv .',l I'Hl"I"NnI1 a. q
WV. que "i Tue most
r P"l'i' wv .,'u h'l"f" amy
t...r 'N"N ln' author Two
AMI Eft..., t.'a wv l','i "a nhl one hour
'.N ",''l ln'l' .''' Oh TINS uWr was
....',,,,, ''HS "if u"N h'IinphN. This
,.l ',,..,,..t I u,,.,.' .u' lg"s conn
f.f i l''""'i"h OF Wuol me-
"'5N iN" MIIll' ] un NOT
lt l'' 20 N'l"'. 1h, WnI from the
'"W y" l"Nl'l '"H '"pT WoNr luf
H NV" WlgW' up "n' propose 10 druy
500 v. '''' "u ln"l roI, cooper
tirt d.. .t',,ti wy r'''' WIn Wlu'W
"' .' ', H. own atIIh"i lt'
t,,,tr'ii, 'yu "u' intimate lhNl his
..,',. W. i"l' WIS N"l lh' stral'N
n''", NJ So'lr'r'9, H'uh IrNani
Nu"'t' W. VIZ H.lsN''Nt the cnmpil
' p'" N'N' 10y 'hr luun VINO luld
m,' "' '"' 'W"'l' ''N f'Wl"h lunl ms
xxx M"H WV, '"u.''N' paper lhnt
u'., ',TH h'liN NV hNt ''H,ioh, am
uW'H nun WHINE laul 10 should have
Hn lhr n"nor me- 'lalhS Tor writing the
, w., Mnitn n''9'9e 'n' organic act OF the
wv. i' .'. unu ,"Up M!l.l"E Nn oruclr M
tNr International review ana taking his
bly IN l"o copies OF ne same. but gem
lE'u ~ "l lN' committees lh' dllllculty
WIN ne d. 10 see Whoi nll THIS has iu do
WIN 'h' luroihpr'rncN OF the bnuul of
t'k'Nln WWth ~ tho point ut issue
l. ,'4 .F "nyY one explanation OF the
lhllHuu'tinn nl lhlN apparently irrelevant
MAU'r lhls is mt the regents are
EiussN incompetent because they have
lalru 20 give iroi Cooper place la
the university comnensnntc with his
-'u'ns ana talent lhcy have failed Ia
lSs"tolHe me eminent deserts Of this
ui"d snn on. IcNns, ana lhr conclusion,
therefore Is lrroslsuhle IN Prof Coopcr's
Wiul that they are grossly iucOmpc-
lrut 90 perform The duties Of their
ulhcr 1 submit. with all inspect. that
lhls conclusion is rather severe ON the
regents. 10 Is not always given Go men
to he nhlr 10 detect and reward brilliant
attachments. MANY a flower Is born 10
bloom uuernn ~ and fuuuN "a t,tD1, ...ut,..,