Colonel Smith, as the first president of the board of regents, was most devoted to his work and active and instrumental in effecting the organization of the university. His successor, Dr. Wooten, the only member residing at Austin, has been equally zealous and efficient in the work. Regents Simkins, Harwood, Todd, Shepard, Clark, and Prather, and Secretary Wooldridge, were particularly useful, on account of their long-continued service, in pressing the claims of the university upon the legislature.

The new members, Brackenridge, Thompson, Ball, Cowart, Starr, Bryan, Henderson, and Spencer, have labored earnestly and more or less effectively in the interests of the institution. Regent Brackenridge, on account of his experience and practical suggestions, as a remarkably successful business man, has been of great benefit, not only as a member of the board, but personally, as the donor of two fine buildings and other gifts to the university. Regent Thompson is noted for the special interest he took, as the Galveston member of the board, in the medical department in that city. Regents Ball and Cowart, and the other new members coming on duty after the university got into operation, have all cooperated heartily and more or less effectively in promoting the university's general interests and efficiency, and especially the success of measures pending in its behalf before the legislature. Regent Prather made a remarkably able address before the legislative land committees in favor of the proposition to grant the regents control of the university lands. Regents Todd, McKinney, and Simkins were active in the university's behalf as members of the legislature. Regent Ragsdale was a member of the board for about a year only when he was made proctor of the university, in which capacity he served one or two sessions, and was succeeded by Regent Clark being appointed to the place. The regents as a board have been generally efficient and personally devoted to their official duties. Their general administration of university affairs has been characterized by wisdom and success.

It was mainly through the instrumentality of Regent Simkins, but actively aided by Senator Armistead and Representative Hudgins, that the State loan of $125,000 to the university, which has been already referred to, was secured. It is proper to add that Representative Prendergast suggested the loan as a compromise of the conflicting demands of the university at Austin and the college branch at Bryan, which Judge Simkins, as a senator and regent gladly accepted, as probably all the legislature would allow at that time for the university. Dr. T. D. Wooten, as the local member and president of the regents, and A. P. Wooldridge, so long secretary of the board and resident of Austin, naturally had every opportunity for their earnest and efficient work in behalf of the university, not only in every general effort before the people and the legislature, but in all the details essential for its success. J. J. Lane, who succeeded Mr. Wooldridge,

was secretary for several years, and has lately been succeeded by the regents devolving the work upon the proctor, J. B. Clark, who is now both proctor and secretary, and very efficient in the discharge of his dual duties. He was formerly librarian as well as proctor and was materially aided in his library work by his wife, a lady of fine literary attainments.

LAYING THE CORNER STONE.

The laying of the corner stone of the university, November 17, 1882, at Austin, accompanied with the usual Masonic ceremonies, was an imposing event in the history of the institution, and was witnessed by a very large assemblage. Col. Ashbel Smith, as the appointed speaker for the interesting occasion, proud of a consummation which he had most assiduously labored to accomplish, said:

We have come up together to do a great work. We have come to lay the corner stone of the University of Texas. The original of a university for Texas, of a home institution, dates back to the heroes of San Jacinto. And this university, such as the founders of Texas with a people of the present race contemplated and provided for, such an institution as the wisest and best men of to-day among us look to be here established, cements the victory of San Jacinto and consecrates that battle as one of the few decisive battles of the world, and this Texas soil, to free institutions, to virtue, and to power. Keen and fierce were often the political antagonisms of the Texans of that generation, yet on the subject of providing a thorough home university education for the youth of Texas these stern men were as one man.

* *

The people of the State of Texas in their constitution, Article VII, section 10, do ordain and command that "the legislature shall, as soon as practicable, establish, organize, and provide for the maintenance, support, and direction of a university of the first class, * for the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences, including an agricultural and mechanical department." Here are the words of the constitution; they are clear in meaning and explicit; they are mandatory; they command the legislature; they express the will of the people; they give no countenance to the conceits of individuals who presume to be wiser than the people, and to set aside their sovereign will in favor of their own plans of education. The people of Texas in their constitution ordain the establishment of a university of the first class as solemnly as they ordain the establishment of courts of justice, of common schools, and other institutions of society. There is no open question of policy. The constitution has decided this matter.

The question has been sprung whether it is not too early to establish an university of the class in question. Why, Texas has at this moment a population of nearly 2,000,000 souls-about double the population of Virginia, slaves included, at the time when Mr. Jefferson founded its university, three times the white population of all Virginia at that period.

I beg your attention to a gross error, somewhat prevalent, in regard to any university that may be established in Texas. It is that a first-class university, indeed any university, as required to be established by the constitution, will be an institution exclusively for the rich, and not for the poor. The contrary will rather prove to be the fact. An university with tuition free, as provided for by the constitution, will be in a special manner for the poor. Unless an university shall be established in our State, not only is the poor boy excluded from the education which shall give him an equal start in the great race of life with the son of the rich man, but the father possessing a moderate and comfortable competency is debarred from bestowing on his

son an university education. Where is the demagogue that dare refuse this natural right to a thorough education to a poor boy-to the children of the poor? I say natural right, for are not the public lands, and the proceeds of the sale of these lands, the rightful property of the poor as well as the rich? The University of Texas is emphatically the poor boy's university.

Some persons labor under a vague impresssion that there is or may be an illdefined rivalry, opposition, conflict of interests and purposes between the university and common schools. In their deep interest for common school education they conceive a distrust and entertain a not very clear idea of opposition toward the university. In this distrust they take refuge in the notion that it is safest to perfect first our system of common schools and to postpone the university. Now, so far from there being any rivalry, opposition, or conflict of interest between the university and the common schools, the exact reverse is the fact. They are, indeed, the best friends, each of the other, and especially is it true that the university is the great and efficient practical friend of common schools. Common schools commence the supply of students for the university. They are together the complements, each of the other, of a noble system of the best education of the people.

I beg to invoke authority and experience that will not be gainsaid. Mr. Jefferson was preeminently the apostle of the people. He has left on record his opinion that the benign influences of a higher education, an university education, such as now given in the University of Virginia, such as is contemplated to be given in the University of Texas, will permeate the masses and diffuse knowledge, the blessings of the common schools, among the people. These are Mr. Jefferson's words: "Make the university as good as possible, and the spirit of education will permeate the masses, in the end securing them the highest possible attainments." Mr. Jefferson wrote his own epitaph: "Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and founder of the University of Virginia." This is his epitaph, written in the maturity of his years and wisdom, in view of the solemnity of the grave, with the fruitful experience of his university before him. "Founder of the University" is his appeal to the grateful remembrance of future ages. Let no man hereafter delude himself with the idea that he is a Jefferson Democrat when he repudiates the fundamental idea of Thomas Jefferson. Have Mr. Jefferson's lofty anticipations of the blessings to flow from the university of which he was the founder been fulfilled, or was he a deluded visionary? And are those among us who shake their heads in distrust of an university, or stiffen their necks in hostility to it, the wise counsellors of the people? Let us see. I appeal to the record, to the annual report of the University of Virginia for last year. With honorable pride, with proud satisfaction, the rector, Gen. Alex. H. H. Stuart, and the board of visitors report to the governor of the State as follows:

"The record of the achievements of the university in advancing the cause of education in Virginia and in many of her sister States must be gratifying to every patriot. Her work has been a grand one, and she has accomplished it nobly. Her influence is daily felt through more than one-half the Union. She has performed the office of the great heart of the system of Southern education, sending with strong pulsation warm and invigorating lifeblood through every part of it down to the humblest primary school."

This is experience; this is fact. Let us of Texas, then, rise above idle suspicion and ignorant distrust and gird ourselves in earnest for performing the same noble office for the grand country of the American Union south and west of the Mississippi. The University of Texas will not merely educate a vastly greater number of students than would otherwise obtain a high education, but there goes with it an advantage that is scarcely possible to overrate. It is a home education for the youth of our State. The youth who gets his education at home is in accord, in a sympathy having the strength of an instinct, with the people of Texas; his heart beats in all its

pulses with the heart of the great mass of his fellow-citizens-with a common heart, if I may so speak, of the people of Texas. Further, a corps of young men leaving the university annually and settling in every section of the State carry with them common sympathies; they unify the people of the State-make them one homogeneous community. They unify all the sentiments of all sections, make the citizens of various sections to understand each other, to esteem each other, and all of us to feel that all our great interests are in common, one and the same, including the existence of the State, one and indivisible.

Governor Roberts, speaking on the same occasion, said:

Let our common-school system, for which an ample provision in expectancy has already been made, become fully developed; let the intermediate high schools be fostered, and let the university and its branches be more amply endowed, organized, and put into full operation as a first-class university, the guiding head of our educational system, then will this State have put on her armor to vie with other States and nations for superiority. And then, after a time, future generations will proudly point to the University of Texas as the brightest jewel in the crown of our greatness as a people and as a State.

Attorney-General McLeary made a brief address as officiating officer in the Masonic ceremonies.

ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT.

The board of regents appointed by Governor Roberts, consisting of Messrs. Thomas J. Devine, James W. Throckmorton, Richard B. Hubbard, Ashbel Smith, James H. Starr, A. N. Edwards, James H. Bell, and Smith Ragsdale, met November 14, 1881, in Austin, and after organizing, by electing Col. Ashbel Smith president, and Mr. Edwards secretary, of the board, considered the question of ways and means for constructing the necessary buildings, as well as selecting a faculty, and other matters, including provision for laying the corner stone of the university at Austin.

At this first meeting the board decided to establish as soon as practicable an "academic department," a "department of law," and a "department of medicine." The academic department was to have one professor, respectively, for the following branches:

1. English language, English literature, and history.

2. Chemistry and physics.

3. Natural philosophy, astronomy, mechanics, and meteorology. 4. Natural history and botany.

5. Mathematics and practical engineering.

6. School of mines, geology, and mineralogy.

7. Moral philosophy and ethics, and political economy.

8. Ancient languages-Greek and Latin.

9. Modern languages-French, Spanish, and German.

The only academic chairs filled by the board at that meeting, however, were

1. English language, literature, and history, Leslie Waggener, LL. D.

2. Chemistry and physics, J. W. Mallet, F. R. S., LL. D.

3. Pure and applied mathematics, W. Leroy Broun, LL. D.

4. The Latin and Greek languages and literature, Milton W. Humphreys, LL. D., Ph. D.

5. Modern languages, H. Tallichet, A. M.

Two professors for the law department, Governor Oran M. Roberts and Judge R. S. Gould, both of whom had been chief justices of the supreme court of the State, were also appointed.

Subsequently, however, in 1883, the first addition to the faculty was made by the election of Rev. R. L. Dabney (A. M., D. D., LL. D.), of Virginia, to the chair of "mental and moral philosophy and political science," as the chair was then designated.

In connection with their first selections, the regents, after referring to the scant available funds of the university, stated in their report to Governor Roberts:

We are aware the number of professors is utterly inadequate even for a respectable collegiate institution, much less for a university of the first class as required in the constitution, as demanded by the people of Texas, and as competent to afford thorough, comprehensive instruction to the youth of Texas, and to furnish the scientific knowledge which the undeveloped resources of our great State immediately and urgently stand in need of. General equipment and material for instruction are as indispensable as professors; they are as indispensable as tools and material are to any of the mechanic arts of common life. In view of the wants just specified, the regents respectfully state that all the resources of the university already alluded to, if utilized to their utmost, are inadequate to the indispensable wants of the university for imparting instruction. This is not all. Without the equipment and the materials, and other appliances and a separate building for a chemical laboratory, the university would in vain expect or hope to present a faculty which would meet just public expectation. The professors already chosen are gentlemen eminent in qualifications and well-established reputations. The names of other gentlemen are before the board, similarly distinguished, and ready to fill the other professorships still vacant. But no gentleman worthy to teach in our university can possibly be retained or hereafter secured unless there be means furnished him to do such work as his reputation and the requirements of the university imperatively demand. The report adds:

It would be a violation of delicacy to name gentlemen who were candidates for professorships but not chosen, and also gentlemen who are candidates for chairs hereafter to be supplied; but the board of regents deem it proper to state in general terms to your excellency that they have had before them for choice, respectively, a good number of the most distinguished scholars and scientists in America, many of them of world-wide reputation.

Among the prominent gentlemen who were not applicants but were solicited to accept chairs were Judge Cooley, of Michigan; Prof. Le Comte, of California, and Prof. William T. Harris, now United States Commissioner of Education, each at a salary of $4,000.

Dr. J. W. Mallet, afterwards first chairman of the University of Texas, who at the time of his appointment as professor was a member of the faculty of the University of Virginia, was solicited by the regents to come to Austin, and did so to consult with them on various