San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1888-07-28
THAT SUPPRESSED LETTER.

that curiosity and give the letter pub
licity. The letter presented herewith
is a certified copy of that original,
secured for the benefit of the readers
of the LIGHT and the satisfaction of
the taxpayers of this city who inn
agine that they have a right to know
what are the official acts, or the I'M
official acts having the semblance of
official authority, which the head of
the city administration performs.
Here is the letter as it came into the
hands of the I. & G. N. company:
COPY.
Form 1875.
International & Great Northern r. r.
Co.
SAN ANTONIO, March 31st, 1888.
Superintendent I. & G. n. r. r.
San Antonio, Texas.
DEAR SIR
We request that you allow Houston
street to be extended through your
depot at San Antonio, as Commerce
street is badly crowded near the de-
pot by freight and baggage wagons
anu ltdNlDS uuilO" iohO iSso
ing up to the depot from said street.
The street cars have also their stand
on Commerce street. During the time
that trains are in there is often danger
vehicles running into each other, 60
ing in opposite directions, from the
narrow entrance to your depot from
Commerce street.
As the city has already opened
Houston street up to your depot
grounds at considerable expense which
will be useless grounds are open.
Houston street is about sixty feet wide
and leads straight into the center of
the city, some distance shorter than
Commerce street. Enclosed plan will
show you what we want done and
there will be only the fences to re-
move on Houston street and part OF
Medina street which will not cost over
$1,000. Please give this your early at
tention as it will be important to open
this street.
Very Respectfully
(Signed) BRYAN CALLAGHAN,
Mayor.
City of San Antonio.
AS to the subject of this commune
cation; the matter treated of, the
opening of Houston street, the LIGHT
does not express an opinion just now,
because the onus of the complaint
does not lie in that direction, but in
another. The objection made in
council and upon the street has been
to the employment of the term,
1--WE" and the signing of the letter
as a private document, not as one
emanating from the city council.
The true inwardness of the whole
case lies in the utter disregard of the
mayor of the city to all forms of pro-
cedure, all rules for his guidance, all
obedience to municipal regulations.
He assumes to act for the city, ire
spective of orders of council and then
refuses to present to council or permit
members of council to examine the
correspondence which he secretly
carries on and to which he endeavors
to give the sanction of official author
ity. The egotism involved in the
term 1--WE" may be easily passed by.
1t matters little one way or another.
The refusal to permit members of the
council, who are elected to
represent the city's interests in the
municipal council chamber, the refusal
to permit these representatives to ex-
anime correspondence bearing upon
matters directly connected with acts
of council, upon business which the
council alone and not the mayor can
determine, it is this refusal which has
caused the universal distrust of adj
ministrative action and the general
condemnation of his high-handed and
unwarranted usurpation of powers pc
crliarly and properly the province of
the city council. The character of the
letter, whether for the good or i'll of
the city, does not enter into the case.
1t is one of usurpation of authority on
the part of the mayor. 1t is the at
tempt to do privately and secretly
what of right belongs only to the city
to do openly and publicly in her
council chamber that is complained of
and most justly.
AMERICA has finally Opened cable