San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1881-11-17
County Seat Matters.

NOuutJ ISOoe AA~ssVs %
The regular term Of Commissi o n
ers' Court has been in session this
week. We will give full proceedings
in our next. Meantime we will jot
down such information as wa have
been able to procure as to the pro-
posed removal Of the county seat and
kindred topics.
The walls OF the old court house
are going down rapidly, and by the
end Of this week will probably have
disappeared. Messrs. Gieseh &
Crews are the owners Of the material.
The tearing down process his reveal
ed a very poor construction of the
building. The solid looking front
was mainly only shell, filed in be-
hind With tohglomerate mass of
rough fragments Of stone an d ''heaps'
OF mortar. One of the largest stones
of the building, looked OF in 'front.'
was only two inches in depth The
woodwork also was found to be bad
ly decayed. It is wonder the thing
stood as we'll us it did. We learn it
was constructed during military rule
here, so no representative of the
county is really responsible for the
fraud.
The progress Of the opposition to
San Marcos as the county seat may
be summed up in few words. The
Wimberly meeting appointed COM
committee to select place for the
proposed new site. Some Of the gen
tlemen appointed declined to act,
and the rest failed to agree. The
report that the Mays place had been
selected, as was referred to in our
last, turns out to be a mistake.
Finally Messrs Drake and Ferg Kyle
met at San Marcos and fixed the place
of location for the proposed new
county seat on the Travis league, on
Flat creek one mile above Speeds on
the road from Dripping Springs to
misplace. "Pittsville" was the name
first given to it, but we learn that
Hays City has since been selected,
we presume by the two volunteers
in the selection of the site. (Ther is
already place of the same name in
Kansas.) We have been shown
copy of the petition specifying the
above place. But whether said To-
cation will meet with the approba
ton of the opposition to San Marcos
generally, we are unable to say. We
think it very doubtful, indeed.
The law requires that the petition
for vote ON the county seat question
shall be signed by two hundred free
holders of the county. The requisite
will probably be secured, but
Il considerable number have or will
sign it who will vote for San Marcos.
They wish the question definitely set
tied, and we think are about correct |
in their policy. But the failure of
the opponents Of San Marcos to unite
On a place may prevent the contem-
plated vote.
To return to San Marcos We |
learn that it is in contemplation. in
case the lew court house is built
here, to build it elsewhere than on The
public square, and that committee
has been selected to report a suitable
place. We are glad to learn this, and
we think the right place is one SINH
lar to where the Institute stands,
where nature has provided sure
foundation free ofexpense. The cost
of a foundation on the square is esti-
mated at not less than $4,000, which
would purchase suitable site and :
leave a handsome sum to apply to-
wards the building. The short dis
lance would be no serious objection,
the modern style being to build court
houses little aloof from the centre
oi business. Let us sink no more
Of the peoples money on SANDY
but next time build
upon a rock. l