As to the Brann-Baylor episode, the old adage, "two
wrongs will not make a right," is certainly applicable to it.
Brann's article on Baylor University was wholly indefensible--
essentially ill-timed and could not possibly have
wrought any good, either to Baylor or the cause of
morality in general. It merited the protest and indignation
it evoked, and we question if Brann, when he wrote it,
really appreciated its full import, for, had he reflected,
he would have known that he placed his friends at a
disadvantage, in that men who hold the views respecting
virtuous womanhood that most Southern men (and himself
included) do could not defend the article. And Brann is
a man who we have always found to be true to his friend;
not one to place a friend in an embarrassing or unpleasant
position. He illustrated how a wonderfully brilliant man
may astonish the world and himself, too, by perpetrating
a grave blunder or mistake. We cannot understand how
he came to print the article.
And as for the course of the Baylor students who laid
forcible hands on Brann and by mob power compelled him
to sign humiliating admissions and apologies, their course
was about as grave a blunder as was Brann's. It is not
palliation to argue how indignant they were and how
natural their indignation. Perhaps those in authority at
Baylor who are said to have known beforehand the purpose
of the student mob and quietly winked at--if they
did not openly commend it--are more to blame than the
boys who did the work, for the older heads were naturally
expected to display the wisdom of mature years. It is the
truth that the authorities who condoned and the students
who perpetrated the lawlessness are equally beyond the
pale of defense.
It was thus that two wrongs and not one right were
done. All the parties to the wrong will have to take the
consequence. Brann has impaired the prestige of the
ICONOCLAST, students and university authorities have
brought unnecessary reproach on Baylor, given it
undesirable notoriety. Baylor is part and parcel of Waco.
All of us, regardless of creed, helped to rear it. Its good
name and welfare are matters of concern to all.
Brann, if he knew of disgraceful facts or episodes
connected with Baylor, should have given names, dates and
specific details. And some student, professor, patron or
friend of Baylor--someone with a daughter, sister or
female relative there--thus vested with the God-given right
of resenting slurs on the virtue of girl students, should
have been found willing to deal with Brann personally, and
somewhere else than on the university grounds with Brann
helpless and bulldozed. Any man thus acting with defense
of his womankind as his plea may, if his pretensions are
valid, always risk public opinion and jury verdicts in this
county.
We hope this matter will end where it is. Nobody wants
to see Brann driven away from Waco, nor do we believe
such a thing can be done. Men will be found in ample
numbers to maintain his right to dwell here. He is a
brilliant man, who can be distinctly useful as a writer.
On his part he owes something to the community which
is willing to maintain his every right--to the friends who
are still his friends even if he makes a mistake, and that
is to remember that Baylor University is part and parcel
of Waco, and that the reputable element of society here
does not share his views concerning the disrepute alleged
to attach to Baylor. Most of us wish Brann well; most
of us wish Baylor well.
It has been said that this is a matter of "religious"
differences and prejudices. It is not so, save where
individuals want and see fit to make it so. It has been said
"personal liberty" and bigotry are involved in this
matter. We fail to comprehend how or wherein. God knows
there is not a spot on the globe where there is more
diversity of opinion, more freedom of expression and action
as to religion than in this town. Once more, we hope
the matter is ended and for good.
. . .
Since the above was put in type the assault made by
Judge Scarborough, R. H. Hamilton and George Scarborough
on Mr. Brann has occurred. Judge Scarborough
has a daughter, George Scarborough a sister, who has
recently been a student and is now a member of the faculty
at Baylor. It will thus be understood how Brann's article
could aggrieve the father and brother. If either one had
taken a shotgun and killed Brann on sight, public opinion
would have held such a course far more commendable than
the policy adopted. If either one had challenged him,
given him a show for his life, and in the duel killed him,
public sentiment would have condoned such a step and no
jury in this county would award any penalty for the
slaying. But the overpowering attack by three men was
itself a mob attack--three may constitute a mob as well
as ten or twenty. Of course there will be some to defend
the trio of assaulters, but the consensus of public opinion
will be against it and by the greater part of our people
it will be regarded as essentially unfair. It has not served,
so far as we can see, any good purpose, but to the
contrary has intensified the bitter feeling existing here.
Brann's friends never indorsed his article on Baylor, but
this assault justified their indignation. As for Judge
Scarborough, we must regret his act and express surprise
that he got his consent to such a course. As for Hamilton,
his participation is altogether indefensible.
* * *
The following is the account of the shooting of Brann
from the Waco "Times-Herald." See the editorial for the
attitude of this paper. The ante-mortem statement of
Davis, and the statements of Moore, Hall and Sherman
Vaughan are identical in both papers and are therefore not
repeated. The "Times-Herald" gave no statements from
Earp, Petterson, Chase, Insley nor Dugger. Note other
statements not given in the "Tribune."