pressly stated that the Board of Regents were considering charges made in private and from the pulpit that Prof. Edwards was "teaching the Darwin theory, and not orthodox science of creation as treated in the Bible." If that statement was not true, surely the Board of Regents might, for the credit of the university, have taken the trouble to contradict it. We have before us also the letter in which Prof. Edwards was apprised of his dismissal. There is not a word in it of the now. alleged ground of dismissal; simply a statement that in the opinion of the regents "the interest of the university requires your immediate removal." This letter bears date June 21, 1894. Is it not most singular, considering the light in which the matter had previously been represented in the press, that the Board of Regents should not have thought it worth while to put on record in this letter that their action was based not on any objection to the professor's evolutionary views, but on a specific act of personal misconduct, if such was really the case?
Dr. Wooten characterizes as "a pure invention" the statement that Prof. Edwards was removed because he was an evolutionist, but he does not state whether, in point of fact, the teaching of evolution is permitted in the University of Texas. If it can be declared without reserve that the successor of the late professor of biology is perfectly free to teach his class on the lines of evolution, then the statement that Prof. Edwards did not incur loss of office on account of his scientific views will at least have a measure of plausibility. Certainly, judging by the tone of the article in the Austin Daily Statesman from which we quoted in our October number, and of a further article in the same journal relying to our comments, we should judge that the life of an evolutionist professor in the Lone Star State would not be a happy one. The Statesman now says that the article we
quoted from in October was only a local one dealing with rumors. We can only say that the style of that article and that of the undoubtedly editorial one now before us are so remarkably similar as to suggest a doubt whether, in the Statesman office, the differentiation of local from general editorial work has yet taken place. If it has, then we must conclude that the local editor of last summer has been promoted, and now occupies the inmost sanctum. The zeal for orthodoxy and the command of picturesque and incoherent language which his earlier article displayed could not well be surpassed; but we think they are equaled in the following extract from the later and strictly editorial article: "We confess that we are not captivated by the historical accuracy of the natural affinity orthodoxy of the monkey and baboon nuptials; and if this periodical's [The Popular Science Monthly's] facts on that subject are not more correct than its representation of the reasons for the resignation of Prof. Edwards, the Texas populace are under no obligations of logic to believe the doctrine of evolution." Texas was evidently waked up too soon, and when people are waked up too soon they are apt to be cross. A few years' more slumbering on that "log" that the Statesman told us about in its former article would about meet the case.
PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT.
In marked contrast to the tone of thought which characterizes some of the educational institutions of this country is that which finds expression in a report that has reached us of the jubilee lately held of Knox College, Toronto, Canada. Knox College, as its name indicates, is a Presbyterian institution, and, if we are rightly informed, is affiliated with the University of Toronto. Be its theological complexion what it may, however, the speeches delivered at its jubilee make it evident that, as a
