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 "the cause of education" and not particularly the interests of the university.

PROPOSED SYSTEM OF PREPARATORY SCHOOLS.

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

out and grow like a tree, and to flourish must have a fruitful field, light, the heat of the sun, and the refreshing showers of generous influences." But the legislature, as the law-making power and determining factor in such matters, was too capricious and uncertain in its treatment of the university, whose organization as a consequence, notwithstanding its largely planned but subsequently greatly diverted endowment, was retarded for over a quarter of a century.

IMPOLICY OF SCATTERING BRANCHES.

An important matter in the history of the university, and one which may or may not be to the best interests of such institutions, was the scattering of its branches by allowing their sites to be determined by popular vote in deference to sectional demands. Independent of the unwisdom of such decentralization, this policy weakens the main organization by parceling out its forces so that they can not be operated as advantageously or economically as when centered at the domicile of the parent establishment. It is on account of such policy, as noticed by a French critic, that perhaps "not more than ten or a dozen American universities possess all the advantages essential for higher education;" and it is for such and other reasons that not only removal, but even entire reorganization of educational institutions, has been found advisable, as on account of some great change in public policy, or peculiar development of the country, or unhealthful or otherwise injudicious location. The removal of the old college of William and Mary of Virginia to Richmond, though successfully opposed by Jefferson because it conflicted with his plans for the University of Virginia, would, as Dr. Herbert Adams expressed the opinion in his history of the college published by the United States Bureau of Education, have been "a fortunate thing for the college and for the State at large if all interests could have been united." In selecting the site for the University of Virginia, Jefferson was so impressed with the importance of making no mistake that he took into consideration a census which he caused to be made showing the number of old men in proportion to population, to evidence the healthfulness of the situation.

In the case of the Texas University, it would doubtless have been best, if all interests could have been combined, to centralize its branches with the parent stem at Austin; and even yet, as has been suggested, such a step may be advisable as to the Agricultural and Mechanical College if it is to be fully recognized and not technically regarded, as it practically is, as a branch of the university, provided, of course, the consent of all properly concerned can be secured; and this not only for various reasons which might be presented, but largely because the university, in its entirety of trunk and branches, would have the many great advantages which association with the seat of government naturally affords. As the relations exist it might be well if the college

could in some way be disassociated entirely from the university, with an increased and sufficient endowment separate from that of the main institution.

The location of the university was a matter of such rivalry that a number of places contested for the prize, resulting in Austin winning, Tyler being second, and Waco third in the race. Austin perhaps made the strongest effort, and had the advantage of being the capital of the State. Many of the prominent and wealthy citizens of Austin took active part in the work, and employed a number of young men to canvass the State in that behalf, while some ten or more of the other contesting points had zealous advocates representing their respective merits before the people.

NO UNIVERSITY TAX.

The great expense of providing for higher education was, in Texas as in other new States, the chief cause of opposition to the early establishment of the university. With many, taxation for the schools was right enough, but a university was deemed too extravagant in proportion to its limited operations compared with the work of the schools; while the idea of a university tax, such as other States levied with so much satisfaction and success for the early and rapid promotion of their universities, seems never to have entered into the calculations of Texas lawmakers. Nor to this day, though the question has been ably discussed in the public press, has such a proposition been presented in the legislature, while on the other hand a liberal tax is voted every session for the school fund.

Section 48 of Article III of the constitution, which under proper construction of its expressed "requirements and limitations" as to "the support of public schools" makes the university a constituent beneficiary with the common schools in the general school-tax provision for all purposes of education, has heretofore been either overlooked or disregarded, not only so far as concerns providing a university tax, but also as to appropriations for the university from the general school fund. The legislature, however, under its construction of section 14, Article VII, of the constitution, has perhaps properly enough refused to supplement the university fund with appropriations from the general revenue for "university buildings," except when the grants were expressed as "loans." Such grants were made in a few instances, and, fairly enough to the university, were so conditioned as to make them about equivalent to donations.

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE BRANCH.

Naturally the name and purpose of the Agricultural and Mechanical College branch of the university, briefly known as the "A. and M. College," which had been located at Bryan before the university