San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1888-01-12
THURSDAY, JANUARY, II, 1888.
THE JOINT COURTHOUSE.


The controversy now arising over the
payment OF the lawyers fees, In the cast
of the contested city hall and county
courthouse site, is not the only legacy
OF the "queer kind" committed to tn,
citizens OF this city by the present city
administration. From the beginning
there has been very decided opposition
to the placing of the joint building Oh
any of the public pazas, because these
were needed for other purposes, and ALEC
because there were and are grave doubts
concerning tie legality of taking the
plSZas under the grant conveying them
to the city. Under these circumstances
the query only grows the more pertinent.
why did the city council insist upOr
selecting elite for the city hall
and county courthouse, the fOun
dations OF which were neCes
ssriIy laid In an expensive law suit
1t Is the sheerest folly to talk of SAD
ding this law suit upon private parties.
The occasion for the suit was the public
act of the council, the intention Of the
suit was to prevent the erection OF q
building costing 500 900 upon ground to
which no valid title could be secured
without litigation. The commissioners
court acted wisely In refusing to so
build until title was secured. They did
not act wisely in agreeing to be partak-
ers with the city administration in
erecting building upon one of the pub
lie plszas where 1t was not wanted.
Eligible property was offered the city
free OF cost elsewhere and there was no
excuse for the present condition OF
things. San Antonio now finds herself
sewed up In a goat skin and very likely
TO pay her share of the bill for avis and
wsX-ends. That the position taken by
Judge WurZbach In paying from the
county funds the bill incurred in deCd-
Ing the title OF the property upon which
the coming courthouse is to rest, is a
sensible one, Is not called in question. 1t
is the prOpriety Of the whole proceeding
that is called in question. There was no
more necessity for this lawsuit than
there Ia for any other unnecessary
thing. This property was not needed
for the county court house, 1t was not
needed for the city hall, the joint build
Ing should never have been located
there and the county commissioners
court knew that fact just as well months
ago when the foundations for this law
suit we're laid as they know 1t today.
The LIGHT, at that time having SOM
knowledge OF the situation, very conf
IDENTIFY predicted that there never would
be joint building erected on the plaza.
The reasons for it's position were not
given but they arose OUT OF known OBJ
jections on the part OF members OF the
county court to locating the court house
on the Military plaza. and also to some
existing objections against joint build
Ing on any ground. The predl"-
tlon then made By the LIGHT seems
very likely OF fulflment. The only
result so far obtained Is law
suit, and an inevitable difference
Of opinion concerning the payment OF
the legal expenses for determi ming the
title Of the city to the disputed proper
ty. The county certainly has no right
to that property. 1t was not the county,
but the city administration, which was
so anxious to locate joint building
upon the plaza, and 1t certainly was In
order for the city to give the county
title before the county incurred any ex.
pense. AS 1t is, the city has voted its
bonds, the mechanics who expected en-
ploymeDt upon the city hall building are
idly waiting, like Maoawber, for some
thing to turn up, the question OF
title to the plaza is undeter-
mined, the payment OF the legal
fees In the Injunction suit
have caused a controversy that is not
likely to end very soon, and the end Is
not by and by. All this because the ad.
minlstrstion Of this city pays no regard
to the wishes Of the city In determining
Its most important matters.