Bryan daily eagle and pilot. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1909-1918, 1911-04-10

that seem to endorse everything you
do have repeatedly asserted and in
sinuted that my removal was due In
part TO circular letter that l sent
out on the first day of March. Nine
teen days before that, on the 10th day
of February. you notified Comptroller
Lane at a board meeting that you and
Secretary OF State Mcdonald had al.
ready agreed to remove me. Before
that by some weeks and even months
you had stated to number Of people
that you were fully determined to put
me out. And yet you authorize or
permit these papers to publish the
glaringly false statement that my cir
cular letter had something to do with
/ my removal. Is that In keeping with
your notions of honor?
Again, these papers have repeatedly
asserted or insinuated that took an
active part against you in the last
campaign; that / am political peda-
gogue"; that have been guilty of
offensive political craftsmanship" etc.
All these charges are so utterly false
as to amaze the good people of San
Marcos, among whom / have lived for
nearly eight years. All these good
people know that have carefully re-
Trained from taking an active part in
gubernatorial campaigns since / have
lived here; and many of them know
that have pursued this policy solely
because | believe, and have often
stated, that the principal of a state
normal school should not endanger
the interests of the school by taking
an active part in gubernatorial cam
paign. Many good men in San Marcos
are ready to testify to the truth of
these statements. / challenge you to
put them on the witness stand. But
/ will go further and say that you
knew the facts to be as have stated
You had this information from men
whose veracity you could not ques-
ton. And yet you have permitted
these papers repeatedly to publish
these wicked falsehoods. Is your con-
duct in this case in keeping with your
ic+ IS bnnnro
These same papers have also laid
emphasis on the charge that | at one
time misrepresented you. That charge
is also absolutely false, as you very
well known. Here are the simple facts
in the case: Years ago in the state
senate you opposed a school tax meas
ure to which the democratic party
was committed in its platform. crit
cised your course in the Texas School
Journal, which / was then editing.
You replied in the Dallas News, using
some ugly language, calling the teach
ers "tax-eaters," etc. | answered You
| in the News and the Journal. The
result was a rather bitter controversy,
in which you were pretty badly worst
ed. Why were you worsted? Simply
because you were wrong in that case,
as you are in this. There was no need
for Misrepresentation The facts were
bad enough Your position was clearly
Iindefensble 1t needed only to be eX-
posed, and | exposed it. But did
not misrepresent you. Yet these same
papers repeat again and again the
charge that | did misrepresent you.
| suppose you authorize them to do
this. At least, you permit it. Is that
what you consider a square deal or a
fair fight?
Having thus disposed of the false
issues raised by these papers for the
purpose of misleading the people and
saving you from a dilemma from
which there is no honorable way of
escape, am now ready to discuss the
real cause of my removal.
1t must be found in one or more of
these three facts
1. i criticised you as stated above.
2. am prohibitionist
3. | voted against you last July.
An occurrence that | heard much
about in my childhood days in the
hills of Tennessee exactly illustrates
the traits of character that you have
exhibited in this case so far as my
criticising you years ago influenced
your action Let me tell you about it.
The leading facts, as | recall them,
are as follows: 1t was in the old days
of 'log-rollings," "house-raisings" and
'corn-shuckngs,' when the neighbors
snapped work." all joining in to help
each one in turn on these special oc-
casions. Incidentally, they often had,
on the side, such amusement as they
could get out of foot races, wrestling
matches, boxing bouts, ETC. On one of
4