The evening light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1881-1883, 1882-09-27
IRON the San Antonio Express, Sept. 26.l
WHAT COL. T. G. WILLIAMS SAYS.
A Reply to Maj. Jos. K. Dryers Letter.
SAN ANTONIO, September Is, 1882.

A Reply to Maj. Jos. e. Dryers Letter.
SAN ANTONIO, September 25 1882.
Editors Express:
Please permit me to say a few words about
Maj. Jos. E. Dryers letter in your issue of
September "A. Having neither time nor in
clination to enter into politics, and still less de-
sire for newspaper controversy on any subject,
it is with aversion that feel it imperative on
me to correct some statements in Maj. Dryers
lettel. have kind feelings toward Hon. Han
cock, our social relations have ever been friend
~. Had he have been in the state he would
have promptly and frankly, as hgh-minded,
honorable gentleman, corrected the statements
made by Maj Dwyer in his card in the Times.
In the matter of the 100000 appropriation
for the government depot in this city, Hon.
John Hancock would have said and viii! say
when asked, that he, most positively did not
get, nor did he try to get, that amendment to
the sundry civil wi bill in the house of represen,
amendment to said bill was put on in then SEN
ate by Hon. Morgan Hamilton, at the same
time that Senator Hamilton offered the amend
to saa D OF b fSr the hf ts
amendments, which persuaded Senator Ham
iltOn to offer, passed the senate at the night
session of March I'd. Your correspondent was
and passed. The bill went back to the
house, where it had originated, and
owing to the short time left of the ses
three of the house and three, of the senate com
posing that committee. Then it was that Hon.
John Hancock took action, and not before. He
was told by the committee that both of those
items for Texas would net be allOwed-his re-
ply was, drop the largest $780, 600 for the teie-
graph and let the other pass the 100000 for
the depot; that was done and so the bill became
a law.
As the secrctaly of war, Belknap, had bitter
ly opposed the location of the depot at San An
tonic, Qet Hon. G.. Epson tell what he knows
personal part in trying to prevent the appro-
priatIOn of the money in the house, as Hon
John Hancock will confirm, he, the secretary,
the morning after the bill had passed the sen
chairman OF the appropriation committee in
the house, demanding in such language as per-
haps had never before been written to con-
gresham by a head OLA department. that the
item of $lOO,OOU for San Antonio depot must be
stricken out of the bill Hon. John Hancock
saw or had copy OF said letter and was justly
the committee of conference and disrcgarded
he orders of Secretary Belknap. Within three
weeks after Belknap ordered Quartermaster
General Meigs not to build the depot and to do
nothing about 1t until further orders. l3elknap
also practically said and swOre that he never
would draw requisition on the treasury for
one cent Of that money. A reliable and trust
your correspondent that Bclknap used the fol-
lowing language: ~ understand that Col. Will
liams exults at taxing out Sheridan and
It Is fact he dd do it. aekmew Tet the
corn, but swear ! will never let the money be
used. At the next session of congress Belknap
had drafted and presented a bill i'm the house,
No. 1877, Feb. 3D. 1874, authorizing him to use
the $luO,UOO for payment of rent or purchase
of such sites of posts in Texas as may be &C.
tually needed for military purposes, etc, etc.
committee on military affairs Your CORE
spOndcnt appeared before that committee as
the authorized agent of San Antonio and made
opinion of Attorney-G General Gushing, report
ed in volume VII, opinions of attorney
general, page lao, in these words:
80 Most especially is this true of acts
''lic service. 1t may be that executive officers
think the sum appropriated is more thar was
necessary or otherwise ineXpcdient; but that
'is not sufficient reason for refusing to give
Its due effect to the law"
The military committee did not act on the
secretarys bill. Two years passed and the
100000 was saved from lapsing into the treas-
session. Then the democrats had majority
in the house. Belknap having illegally and
most audaciously practically vetoed an act of
thought himself of making friends with the
democrats. But some excuse for violating his
oath not to build the depot must he given,
Ma%er r. Letter to- hS Manq9k sent to
additional reason could have been adj
duced for the Importance and necesiti of the
depot. Ihe NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. had already
set forth all that could be said for the cOnStruc-
ton of the depot, and I}clknap knew it all. But
some excuse for doing what he ought to have
done in 1874 must be given, hence the letter.
Concerning the removal of kickapOO Indians
Had Mr.. Dwyer been able to rn.pr to the
records Of the department of tho interior ana
commissioner of Indian affairs fur 1873 he
would have found what he says was not men,
toned in reports of the department of state
&c, for the years 1873 &. The appointment of
H. NJ. Atkinson and Thomas G. Williams were
word to word identical, as were also the in
Structions from the secretary of the interior.
The same powers, pay and instructions to both,
The manner in which the commission of Mossrs.
Atkinson and Williams was gotten up is cor
rectly stated In the EVENING LIGHT of the 2lst
inst Official documentary evidence, if needed,
will be shown by your correspondent.
In 1876 the kickapOO removal had already
been completed, and your correspondent was
sent to Sonora, Chihuahua and the City of Mex
leo, about the MescllerO and other Apache lu-
dams, by the secretary of the interior,
1t Is unquestiOnable true that the Hon. John
Hancock did make good and efficient repre-
and worked faithfully for the inter-
est of his state and this district. But in the
matter of Mr.. Dryers card to the democracy
in the Times, ane the letter in the Express of
the 4th inst Hon. John Hancock has Just
cause to eXclaim: Save me from my friends.''
Respectfully, THns. q, WILLIAMS,
Another Runaway,
Last eyeninr Fritz Stpiner who WAS dri vino