The action of the governor and legislature resulted in but a limited amount of the million dollars indemnity being granted to the university. Another disappointment to the university's friends was that an attempt in the twenty-fifth legislature to appropriate some $60,000 to $70,000 direct-tax money, which had been recently refunded to Texas by the Federal Government, was abortive, the proposition which was presented by Senator Stone being defeated by but a small majority in the house after almost unanimous adoption by the senate. This was in marked contrast with the action of Missouri, which a few years ago voted some $648,000-every dollar of her returned direct tax money to the University of Missouri.

Other disappointments were the repeated refusals of the legislature to appropriate lands to cover what had been taken from the university and given to the free schools; and here it may be noted that in Texas, as in Wisconsin, efforts were made prior to the establishment of the university to get the legislature to distribute the income from that university fund among the denominational colleges in the State.

DEPRIVED OF ORIGINAL RESOURCES.

Commissioner Walsh, who was ten or twelve years in office, furnishes the writer the following statement, throwing much light upon the situation and showing how largely the university's landed interests have been sacrificed by the action of the State:

The land legislation of Texas, so far as it affects the university, has been a series of errors, if we may be charitable enough to so describe a succession of laws which have stripped the university of what would have been an ample endowment.

The fathers of the Republic of Texas, before they had fairly escaped from the dominion of Mexico, granted to the future university 50 leagues (221,400 acres) of land. These leagues were located largely in Cook, Clay, Grayson, and McLennan counties. Having been selected at an early date, they embraced the choicest lands in the Republic, and as the country settled up they were coveted and squatted on by home seekers. The influence of these settlers secured the passage of several acts providing for the subdivision and sale of the 50 leagues. They were cut up into quarter sections and soid to actual settlers at $1.50 per acre on ten years' time, with 10 per cent interest. The statutes of the State from that date until the adoption of the constitution of 1876 will show at each succeeding session "An act for the relief of purchasers of university lands." The object and effect of these various laws was to cancel previous obligations of purchasers, remit due interest, and allow a repurchase at the original price. The result was to finally dispose of these valuable lands at a price far below their actual value and to deprive the university of a large sum due for interest. In addition to these losses, a conflict with an old Mexican grant in McLennan County caused the loss of several thousand acres.

In 1854 the State provided for a subsidy of sixteen sections of land per mile for construction of railroads, to be located in alternate sections—that is, for each of the sixteen sections surveyed for the railroads a section adjoining should be surveyed for the common schools. It was further provided by act of 1858 that every tenth so surveyed for education should be set aside for the university. Under this statute the university was entitled to something over 1,000 acres of land for each mile of railroad built, and the law remained in force until repealed by the constitution of 1876. At the

date of this repeal the railroads had received grants for near 1,800 miles of road, and the university was then entitled to something over 1,750,000 acres. These locations, it must be remembered, were not grazing lands on the plains, but were situated in such counties as Dallas, Navarro, Ellis, Bell, Harris, Fort Bend, Williamson, and others, embracing the choice agricultural lands of the State. The constitutional convention stripped the university of this magnificent endowment and substituted therefor but 1,000,000 acres, which when surveyed could only be secured in Crockett and Tom Green counties, where the lands were all much less valuable than in the other counties. Thus 1,750,000 acres, worth then an average of $5 per acre, were taken away, and 1,000,000 acres at 50 cents an acre were substituted. In the selection of this western land it was discovered that about 25,000 acres of irrigable land, situated on the Rio Grande, below El Paso, was wrongfully claimed by speculators under a grant already satisfied, and this amount was embraced in the land surveyed for the university. If proper steps had been taken by the State, this land might now be yielding a handsome revenue; but the blight which seems to rest upon all university lands has settled on this, and so far nothing has been done to assert the right of the university. In conclusion, let us sum up what the university should have had, if the intentions of our early legislators had been respected:

Fifty leagues, at $1.50 per acre..

Ten years' interest, at 10 per cent.

1,750,000 acres, at $5 per acre..

Interest on deferred payments (say 25 per cent).......

Total....

$332, 100 332, 100 8,750,000 2, 187, 500

11, 601, 700

It is doubtful if the university will realize 10 per cent of this amount from land donations. Twelve million dollars will probably not more than cover a close estimate.

ACTION OF THE REGENTS AS TO NEGLECTED INTERESTS.

As has been seen all along in the course of the history of the university, the regents have vainly endeavored to prevent adverse action of the legislature toward the institution. They have not been indifferent to their duties, however, in presenting the facts and pressing upon public attention the university's financial and landed interests. As further evidence of this, some extracts from the record of their proceedings are of important interest.

At their meeting September 17, 1889, the following resolution, offered by Regents Todd and Simkins, was adopted:

Whereas there are outstanding land notes belonging to the permanent university fund aggregating some $110,200 upon which there is due a large amount of unpaid interest, most of which extends back to the past ten years; and

Whereas the purchasers of said land are claiming that said interest is barred and are refusing to pay the same, and there is imminent danger that longer delay may cause considerable loss to the university fund; and

Whereas the State treasurer has been and is unable to collect the same by written demand on said parties: Therefore, be it

Resolved, By the board of regents of the State University that the attorney-general be, and he is hereby, requested to take immediate steps for the purpose of collecting said interest or establishing the same as a debt upon the lands, or else cancel said contract and recover said lands.

Again, at their meeting February 11, 1890

Regent Wooten reported that the attorney-general was disinclined to sue upon the past-due land notes of the university, the ground of objection being that it would necessitate many suits in many different and distant parts of the State, to be conducted in many instances by either unreliable or incompetent persons.

Regent Wooten also reported the opinion of the attorney-general to be adverse to our right to demand the issuance of State bonds for the investment of the present uninvested permanent university funds (some $35,000). The attorney-general holds it illegal for the State to issue bonds unless it owes a debt and wishes to borrow funds, and that this is not the present status of the State's financial condition.

Regent Wooten also reported that Land Commissioner Hall had taken no definite action looking to securing and selling a tract of land belonging to the university in Collin County.

Regent Prather reported to the effect that the university probably did not get a fair division in the apportionment of the lands in McLennan County, heretofore in controversy between the university and certain foreign claimants represented by General Mexia; that the agent of Mexia was very familiar with these lands and rather dictated, as it were, the division. Mr. J. P. Surratt represented the university's interests and Mr. Stephen Tuner was appointed by the court. Mr. Surrat endeavored to protect the State's interest, but was rather overreached in the transaction.

As to these proceedings the records of the regents further show that Attorney-General Hogg subsequently recommended that the suits referred to in the resolution of Messrs. Todd and Simkins be instituted, and it is to be presumed that steps for that purpose were taken by that officer, but as yet nothing has been realized.

OFFICIAL OPPOSITION.

There seems to have been a disregard of the protests of the friends of the university as long as it was in embryo, with no constituted head to represent its interests. There was much early and long-continued indifference to the establishment of the university, and preference instead for the common schools as sufficient means according to the popular view to be provided at the expense of the State. Opposition in the matter was voiced by such leading men as General Houston, Governor Ireland, and others prominent in office. General Houston, while governor, is reputed to have combatted the proposition to establish a university as being "a project for favoring the rich at the expense of the poor;" but as far as the writer is advised the statement is not clearly authentic. If he was really opposed to the establishment of such an institution during the period of his administration, it was possibly not so much on account of objection to university education per se as a system for State adoption, as from an idea that Texas was not then prepared for such an advance in educational methods. Certain it is he did not hesitate in his message to the legislature in 1860, to recommend as a war exigency for frontier defense from the Indians, 10323-03-10

the using of the one hundred thousand dollars of bonds belonging to the university. He opposed selling the university lands, and declared that in his opinion "the establishment of a university was a matter alone for the future." Even here it was significant that he alluded to further use of the university lands as a means for advancing cause of education" and not particularly the interests of the university.

PROPOSED SYSTEM OF PREPARATORY SCHOOLS.

66

Governor Ireland's opposition to the early establishment of the university may have been owing to a preference for the common schools as being quite sufficient and all that the State could then afford or be expected to provide; but his idea more properly perhaps was, without really opposing the organization of the university, to have a more diffused system of higher education by means of "district colleges," fairly distributed as "feeders for a university," and have the university await the establishment of the colleges before putting it into operation, and then to inaugurate it on a grand scale. State Senator Pfeuffer was noted for his advocacy of something like this policy, and for his introduction of a bill accordingly while a member of the legislature during Governor Ireland's administration; in which bill, among other features, he provided for establishing 'one university preparatory school in each Congressional district in the State, under control of an auxiliary professor, at a salary of $1,500 per annum, to be appointed by the board of university regents, which schools shall be organized as high schools, in harmony with the university course, and serve as feeders to the university.' Only one of the regents, Dr. Hadra, objected to early opening of the university, taking sides with Governor Ireland and Senator Pfeuffer and contending that the movement was premature. The Pfeuffer bill, however, which was rather speciously entitled "A bill to perfect the university," did not pass in either branch of the legislature, but great influence had to be brought to bear by the regents and friends of the institution to prevent its passage. This was virtually accomplished by the efforts of Judge Terrell, Regents Simkins and Shepard, and other able advocates of the university's interests.

Col. Ashbel Smith, first president of the board of regents, Dr. Wooten, and other members of the board, most of the governors of the State, Comptroller Darden, and other State officials, Judge Terrell, Senators Maxey and Wilcox, and other active workers in its behalf, had all along urged the policy of opening the university upon a moderate basis, and relying upon the liberality of the State and the pride of the people to maintain and build it up to mature proportions. They fully realized what Dr. Mallet stated in an address at the inaugural exercises at Austin, that "such institutions are not built up at once by any masterly methods of construction, but have to take root and branch