The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-09-26
MIR. PHELPS REPLY
To the Statement of MIR. EstiII ana
Others.

10 the statement OF Mr. ESttlI ana
others.
To the Editor OF The Post.
In reply to the criticisms of Mr.. Harry
+. Estll. one OF the compilers of Cooper's
Our Country" in answer to resolution
OF the John b. Hoop camp relative to that
work, passed at a regular meeting OF the
camp in the city of Austin September 10.
1888, the committee answer:
That, in his first sentence, he is guilty
of false suggestion in replying to the
resolution in speaking of IAN attack upon
the action of the State textbook board,
purporung TO be inaoTsel by The John b.
Hood camp" In the first place, no at
TACK was made upon the ''text-b book board, -
but upon Cooper's history; and further, the
use of the wopi purporting" by Mr.. Es-
till can but mean land is so intended to
mean that the resolution was not regu-
larry ADOPTED by the camp, an assertion
that he should rot have maze with the
evidence OF the adoption by the camp as
printed in the Galveston News; thus max
ing a false charge in the first instance in
reference TO the text book beard, and an
attempt in the second to msslead the public
by the use OF the word "purporing" Mr.
Es;ill rext claims that the report contains
TO criticism upon the book. II So why
read the resolutions will find that the book
is very scientifically skinned from cover
to cover 1t Is quite true that the book
has gone through so many transformations,
as Mr. Estill admits, even according to the
suggestions of enemies as well as friends
that it is difficult TO put your finger on any
part of it without kavirg that part imme
d!ately stricken out by its sapient au-
thors.
Mr.. Estill speaks OF "the most pitiabe
display of impotent venom on the part OF
Messrs. Phelps Ct al" Why should this
committee entertain any prejudice toward
Mr.. Cooper the alleged author OF that
part of the work embracing the war be-
tween the Stites, unless the ineffIciency
and tone of his book produced that preju
diee? On the other hand, he was a
citizen OF Texas, and IL his book had been
as meritorous as the works of compsti-
tors from other States, then John B. Hood
camp would undoubtedly have favored his
history of the Civil War A large ajor-
ity OF the camp believed. and still believe,
that Southern man rFa1ing MI. Coopers
book would conclude without knowing the
author that Ii was writer by Northern
nan highly prejudice against the South.
The committee is composed Of men OF
character In whom their comrades have
full confidence, and they can well afford
to disregard the per onal illusions made
by Mr.. Estill when he utters the following:
Were | disposed 10 follow these critics
in the mire of personal defamation. II
would be easy TO suggest an apparent con-
nection bstween the notorious metho $ of
certain book companies TO njure the text
books OF their rivals. and the surprising
and persistent diligence in the same line
displayed by these gentlemen themselves.
There are employers and employers
We answer the charge OF interest mo-
tives by saying that John b. Hood camp
could show in no higher form their love
and ratr'ofic edhererce TO a cause made
sacred by the heroes OF 81 10 '65 than in
tie effort through committee OF the
camp to secure a proper history. present.
Ing the truths OF that immortal struggle
for use In the public schools o. Texas. Let
the people 81 Texas determine whether the
authors Of "Our Country who gather the
shekels. or John b Hood clmp, ana this
committee were disinterestei In this mat
ter.
LET the CALLED jade vince, Our withers
are unwrung"
yesi A fugitive from the lashings OF
indignant public opinion attempts 70 hide
in tire shsinw OF great name stat IN
uarn. nominis umbra''-a name which we,
In common with thousands OF others In the