San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1891-06-26
SHORT STOPS.
What the People are Saying.

What the People are saying
There is due two more quarterly
statements, and the people are watch.
ing for,,them; if they are not produced
any faster than the last one, it will be
after next Christmas before we see
the report for the quarter ending May
Slst, 1891.
A city government run after such
lose, shiftless, dom care method, be.
comes disgusting TO the people.
The City Clerk, who is an accomp-
plished accountent, is not RESPONSE
BILE for the lack of education on the
part of the people who can't under
stand his published financial state
ment for the quarter ending Novem-
Der 30th 1890.
Nor is he accountable for the lack
of experiences and knowledge Of the
three aldermen who signed this re
port as correct, and who are unable
70 explain it to the people.
But notwithstanding this, we must
put some awkward questions to the
public; can Mr.. Claudon, or the three
wise men of the council who signed
the report as being correct, explain
the item under head of Especial
fund.- expenditures: "By amount
paid for school bonds of 1885, refund
ed $4,000. BY reference TO the
mayors message, April 1890, no such
Item appears, but the same bonds
appear as a debt and not refunded,
and the item of "refunding public
Improvement bends, 1881, $50, 000."
Now how about these two items?
When was the authority given to
refund the school bonds of 1888?
Aldermen Beckmann and Gregory
were not in Office November, $780,
why was not this report approved by
the finance committee then existing?
The appropriations for 1890 provided
for 81, 800 for the parks, but according
to this quarterly statement s., 1865 "
WAS sp6uI uuu6E buls uohu ioi VII 90
months, not including salary of
superintendent.
No doubt the money was we'll spent,
but when and how was it authorized.
How is it that money can be draw
out of the city treasury without an
appropriation being made?
The amount appropriated for con-
tingencies for 1890 was, mayors con-
tingent fund, 81 200, gen., contingen
cies $4,000. According to this quar-
terly report, the city spent In that
quarter S61 ,541.l1. How could this be
dODe?,
Under head of contingencies, -"
September, mayors contingent fund,
800 90; October. same, $4,000; No
harm in asking, how does it happen
that the $4,000 is drawn out even
every month. This con tingent fund
il not part of the mayors salary,
but is appropriated for public pur-
What business has the interest on
notes items under the head of con-
tengencies. There should be an in.
terest account, so the people could
have an idea how our fin ances are
run.
The people have been figuring out
the cost of the three new bridges; the
i,ems are scattered all over the state
ment: under the contingent head,
there appears for abutments and
laborers $S76O 65; under head of"Con-
struction Of Bridges" Sl339.73 thus.
outside of the money paid the bridge
companies.
Now, why did the city clerk scatter
this account about over the state.
ment?
How does it come that under the
head of "city hall, ETC., fund" ap-
pears Mr.. Kramerls salary as city
architect? Is he not a city official9
Then how Is it that Mr.. Kramer
draws also his salary as superintend-
ent from the same fund? Would it
not be just as well to pay Mr. Kramer
$500 per month as architect, and let
him look after the city hall. e.
hid Messrs Guarouip PaouD,ann