Page images

results in opening the eyes more than filling the mind. The efficiency of university training will be measured on the whole in each case in terms of quality more than quantity, of intension more than extension. The zest and intensity of some part of the student's work will probably determine his pace for the use of his education in life. There is everywhere in our American universities, I am convinced, too much dawdling, too much toying with vaguely applicable subjects of study, too much use of the optimistic analogy between a university and a bureau drawer in which Bartlett pears are laid away to ripen, too much affiliation with that estimate of learning which values it in the class with robes and titles, nose rings and tattoo marks. There is too little appreciation of it in terms of hardness of fibre, strength of character, and rate of efficiency.

A good teacher in a university must fulfill two requirements. He must know his subject at first hand. He must have the sympathetic imagination to share the outlook of his pupil. Some of those who bear even in universities the title of good teachers are, I fear, only clever concocters of doses and preparers of capsules, things suited to be received by the normal human gullet without struggle or the excessive use of lubricants.

I cannot leave this topic entirely without venturing an expression of my opinion that in the recent high organization of graduated cirricula throughout our whole system of public education from the grades through the high schools, and the college to the professional graduate work, we have tended too much to lay foundations upon which houses are never built, and have encouaged students to take so long a start that they lose their breath before they come to the jump. To be creative in scientific or literary work a man must keep his imagination fresh. There is such a thing as "going stale" with too much study and too little doing. It may be that in order to set a broken bone conclusively a medic does not need to have reconstructed the osteology of a mastodon. But all this in a footnote by way of warning, not of doctrine.

A State university exists to set and maintain the standards of higher education in its State. It neither precludes the existence of other institutions, nor is it a ragged school. Local or denominational colleges will always exist and are to be welcomed as offering variety of opportunity, of discipline, or of influence suited to the varying instinct and interest of various elements of the com

munity. It should be especially welcome if such colleges pay particular heed to the more direct personal oversight of students in the earlier years of a college course. The State university will, however, inevitably provide the standard forms of professional and graduate work, and will provide the standards and represent the general oversight of the whole body of higher education in the State. Of antagonism there can be no reasonable expectation; indeed contention would argue the relative weakness of the party contending, for there is evidently more work to do than all the colleges put together can compass. A situation, however, with which it might prove difficult for a community to deal would be created by the tendency to develop two State universities within a single State. Such a situation is surely impending in those States which have established an agricultural and mechanical college as distinct from the State university. There is no exact line of delimitation to be found between these in their inevitable growth. Duplication of work and conflict of interest before the Legislature is a sure result. But the State cannot wisely afford to be divided against itself, and consolidation, at least under one board of regents, is the solution that time and good wisdom and sweet reasonableness will certainly suggest. The State university represents the State, yea, is the State, in its attitude toward higher education. It expresses by its existence a clear public conviction that in free communities where universal suffrage prevails and the State is the possession of the whole people, education is primarily, and as a matter of plain self-protection, must needs always be the function of the State, i. e., the State must be responsible to itself. Modern states are "progressive" states by virtue of enlightening and liberating education. Society which conceives of the present as only by and for the present is either savagery or a civilization launched upon the sordid ways of death. Society which conceives of the present only as part and parcel of the past is the stagnation of China. Society which conceives of the present as part of the future, looks upward, has the breadth of divine purpose in its nostrils, and we call it "progressive." When we provide for the training of the young, we do it in confidence that the duty of the present is not satisfied in caring for the present, but that the claims of generations yet to be must be heard in the courts of today.

The university's real commodity is light, not the pitch-sputtering torch of the agitator, nor the painted lamps of the bigot, but the

calm and steady light of well-determined truth. The plain, fair truth inspires no riots, provokes no panics, undermines no civil or commercial confidence, destroys no substantials of faith; it has no charm for the agitator or the sensationalist, being not crude enough for the former nor pungent enough for the latter; but the exaggeration and the half truth are more perversive than the lie.

The truth is harmless because it is the real. He who evades and suspects it proclaims thereby his doubt that there is a real. But there is a truth and there is a lie; there is a right and there is a wrong; somewhere in the moral universe of God there is a heaven and there is a hell; there is a light and there is a blackness of darkness; the university casts in its lot with the light.



Dean Mezes: The Address of Installation, by the Chairman of the Board of Regents, the Hon. Thomas S. Henderson.

Chairman Henderson :

I am greatly pleased as the representative of the Board of Regents, to give official sanction to these inaugural exercises.

And in this connection it occurs to me that some reference to the circumstances of the creation of the office of President of the University may be of interest.

The original act of the 30th of March, 1881, establishing The University of Texas makes no provision for a President, and for fourteen years the Board of Regents, consisting of eight members appointed by the Governor, residing in different and remote parts of the State and engaged in various business pursuits, was charged with the administration of its affairs. Experience proved this extremely democratic plan to be unsuited to the demands of a great institution. Realizing this, the Regents urged the Twenty-fourth Legislature to grant them authority to elect a President, and as a result the law was amended by act of the 23rd of April, 1895, so as to allow this to be done.

This act does not attempt to define or prescribe the duties of the office, but in general terms provides for the election of a President, leaving his powers to be determined by the Board; and the Regents, while in no respect abdicating their authority or responsibility as the governing body, wisely decided to invest the office with the full and plenary powers which by custom and usage pertain to the chief executive officer of a university of the first class, subject alone to the supervision of the Board. For eleven years the University has been conducted in all its departments by a President, and its marvelous progress and development in this short period abundantly justify the policy pursued.

Three distinguished men have preceded him upon whom our hands are this day laid in this high position, and to their faithfulness are due in large measure the great results which have been attained here.

Dr. Leslie Waggener was chosen President ad interim and performed the duties of that office for more than a year with signal ability. He was an accomplished scholar and came to the University in its early life as professor of English. In addition to his professional duties he had served as chairman of the Faculty during the most trying period of its history. He possessed the entire confidence and love of every Regent and stood bravely at the helm, and his courage and vigilance piloted our ship safely through the dark night of peril. He was a noble Christian gentleman, to whom the people of Texas owe a lasting debt of gratitude.

Dr. George T. Winston was the first permanent President. At the time of his election he was President of the University of North Carolina, and was thoroughly trained in the work of university organization. He was a man of rare and brilliant mental gifts, and the four years of his administration form a most fruitful period in the development of the University. He breathed into it the true academic spirit. His was the master hand that deepened and broadened its foundations in every department, and upon his work will be erected its superstructure which will stand for all time.

His successor was William Lambdin Prather, a noble man who left us but as yesterday. He brought with him an equipment of incomparable value. He was richly endowed by nature, and a liberal education had strengthened and polished his character. From early youth he had lived in the State, and his soul was filled with love for its people. He had had large experience in business, and was emi

nent in his profession. For twelve years he had been Regent of the University, and knew its wants and sympathized with its aspirations. These qualities enabled him to assume the office with a touch of authority. He surrendered all other connections, and, consecrating his life to its work, he determined to establish the University in the hearts of the people. He infused into its life the inspirations of the fatherland, and under his influence it was realized that this was indeed The University of Texas. President Winston had laid here the foundations of a great cosmopolitan University, and President Prather, without detracting from its strength, added the provincial or local quality so dear to the patriotic heart. Under his plastic hand its splendid superstructure was erected, and its noble architecture is neither Corinthian, Doric, nor Gothic, but is wholly Texan. He implanted in its soul the spirit of democracy, and opened wide its doors to the children of the people.

President Houston, I have spoken of the splendid and enduring work of your predecessors, not to hold them up as examples for your emulation, for your ideals are lofty and true and they are your inspiration to duty, but I have mentioned them rather that those whom you are here to serve, the people of Texas, may be reminded of the character of the high trust to which you are this day called.

This institution is very near to the hearts of the people of Texas. Their forefathers planted its seed in the perilous hour of revolution. President Lamar, speaking to the First Congress of the Republic on the 20th of December, 1838, said: "The present is a propitious moment to lay the foundations of a great moral and intellectual edifice, which will in after ages be hailed as the chief monument and blessing of Texas."

This seat of learning is the fruition of the hopes of the patriots of 1836. They reasoned with Jefferson, who, in writing to his friend George Ticknor in 1817 concerning the value of a university to the people of Virginia, said:

"Knowledge is power, knowledge is safety, knowledge is happi


They have declared that this shall be a perpetual fountain of universal knowledge; not a seat for any sect in religion, politics, or science, but a place where all the shackles that bind men's minds. shall be broken and where all the truths of religion, of government, and of science shall forever find shelter. And its emblem

« PreviousContinue »