University of Texas Austin - Cactus Yearbook (Austin, TX)

Page 24 text:

University of Texas Mineral Sur ey Henry Winston Harper, Ph. G. M. D.. F. C. S. Chemist, •h. i., I ' hiliKlelpliiti Collpge of Pharmacv. I- si: M. h , I nivt slly of Virginia, 1S92: Fellow of the rh.MTiiiul Soeielv, Uiniloii, IH ' MK Benjamin Felix Hill. M. A. Axsistmit (icoldi ist, William Battle Phillips. Ph. D.. Dirvcltir: Professor i f FieUI and Ecotiowic dcolo I ' ll. H.. I ' liiviTsityof Nonli Cnrolina. 1K77: I ' h. D. l.s.s:t. I Omerod Heyworth Palm. B. S. Assistant Chemist, B. .• ., The liiiverslty or Texas, I ' .KJO. Steve Howard Worrell. B. S. Assistant Chemist, H. .S,, The I ' liivcrsity of Texas, I ' .iOl.

Page 23 text:

Cliarlca 1 lerniaii Wiiil-Jcr. Stiiiknt Assistant in liatanv. Mrs. Helen Marr Kirby, M. A.. Lady Assistant. M, A., Wfsleyan Female ( ' llofie. (lia.) r- Benjamin Wyche, B. Lit., Lihrariati ot ' the Main University. B. Lit., I ' niversity ol ' N ' nrth Carolina, l.syi. James Benjamin Clark, B. A., I ' nictiir. anil Secretary ot ' the Facnity nl ' iiie Main I ' ni versity. at .Anstin. B. A., Uarvani rniver iiy. is.-),=i. John Avery Lomax, B. A., Reifistrar ol the Main University. H. A.. The I ' niver. ' sity of Texas, 1S07. F. Homer Curtiss, B. S., lit lie Gymnasium for Men at tlir .l .i versity. R. S.. rnriiuo I ' liiveisilv, IIHK). Joseph Burton Dibrell, B. A.. .Assistant Director ot ' Men ' s Gvmnasinni. n. A.. The Cniversity orTc.xas, llKJl. Pearl Eleanore Norvell, Directress ol ' t lie Gymnasium for Women at tlie Main Universitv.

Page 25 text:

Fore - word ( ) I ' l ' T down ill prosaic words what is attempted to l)e told in the following pages through the medium of pictures, songs, quips, grinds, histories, and stories is at best a difficult task. P ' or historians uniformly teach that a chronicler must not only have a i)roper perspective from which to view his subject, but that there must al.so intervene the mellowing influence of time to round off the jagged corners of events — tlie import of which can not immediately be interjjreted — ami to distribute artistically the lights and shadows which, woven together, make up the story of the life and progress of every institution. The Cactus, as someone has observed, may be likened to a many stringed harp whose twanging strings body forth the spirit of the I ' liiversity. If there be a string that produces discord, it is not the fault of the harper, but of its maker. Let us bravely strike them all, knowing, as we must, that beneath the discord — or it may be our false conception of the music — there is a roll of harmony which ultimately will sweep away the false, the ignoble, the impure. This task, coming to one inside the charmed circle of the I ' niversity public, must be done willy-nilly. The C. t ' TUs can not go without its fcire-word. We are forbidden to show our love too clearly; for then we should be denominateil sentimentalists. Neither must we criticise too sharply, lest other critics conclude that we are out of harmony with our environment. A middle course is safest; but, for that reason, the hardest to finil. Like the the camel that didn ' t go through the e} ' e of the needle, we shall perhaps rub smartly against the stone walls of University prejudices, with the comforting reflection, however, that no one is getting hurt save ourselves. Our perspective must be taken from within — a geometric inconsistency. Our verdant youthfulness furnishes no musty archives from which historians maj ' evolve epochs or trace tendencies. There is only left the possibility of an endeavor to interpret the changeful surrounding life, an undertaking unpromising and yet alluring in that it gives an opportunit) ' for academic theorizing. The University of Texas is in its nineteenth year; some of our Freshmen ha •e reached that age. It has an attendance of more than eleven hundred students, anil employs more than one hundred professors, instructors, and officers. It has survived the cries of evil prophets, the sneers of critics, the bi-ennial wail of scurv}- politicians. No longer a theory, a dream of the fathers, it has become an accomplished fact ; and the strong and well-equipped sons and daughters it has sent forth to work in the ranks of citizenship are proof of its prowess in the educational world. And yet — for let us be i erfectly honest and candid, and, for once, eschew sentimentality and meaningless high-sounding phrases — the sudent-mind of the University, when viewed internally, reveals a sur- prising absence of continuity of ideal, and a lack of concerted, systematized plan of definite action in many directions. Fickle as a Freshman is a common college proverb. The student-mind of the University of Texas is yet only that of an average Freshman. It is an earnest, high-minded Fresh- man — a promising, well-groomed boy, who may yet grow to an hoiioral)le manhood — but nevertheless a Freshman. Sentiment, as shown bv the action of the student Ixxlv, is uncertain, illogical, lacking