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