San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1891-12-07
SHORT STOPS.



After the adjournment of the grand
jury, proceeding the one first adjourned
| the city organ ridicu!ed the suggestions
made by that jury and twitled them with
imbecility for not finding indictu entS
against official offenders. Now the same
organ compares the Indictment against
Callaghan as the grand jury's mouse"
A large stuffed specimen of the Tarpon
fish, displayed in Commerce street show
window, was Tabled above Ike this:
''The reason bigger one was not caught
is that the window only measures hive feet
eight inches.
The people can wait and so can the late
grand jury, for the full development of
its labOrS.
The attempt of Mayor Callaghan to re-
vamp an old ordinance passed in 1872
and repealed so long ago that it has dis
appeared from all printed volumes of the
city ordinances, will only go to confirm
ing the work of the grand jury.
A copy of the revised ordinances dated
June lst, 1884. does not contain Mr.. Cal
laghan'S fiShed up ordinance, but does
contain this provision in Sec. 2:
THAT all ordinances In said digest OF
revised ordinances shall take effect, and
be in force from and after the LIST day Of
May, A. ID. 1884, and all ordinances of II
general nature passed prior TO the 14Ih
when the revised digest of ordinances
takes effect, and which are not included
herein are hereby repealed"
Where was Mr.. Callaghan'S ordinance
In 1884? IL 1t existed it was repealed.
Rut in 1888 another revision was made by
Mr.. BergStrom, while Mr.. Callaghan was
mavor Sec. provides:
"Sec. 2. That the digest OF the ordi-
nanceS of the City of San Antonio when
and may be cited as the revised ordi
nsnces. That all ordinances in said di-
geSt of ordinances shall take effect and be
in force from and after the 31St day of
December, A. d.. 1888, and all ordinances
of a general nature passed prior TO the
3lst dav Of December. A. D 1888, and In
force when the revised digest of Ordi.
nances takes effect, and which are not in
cluded herein be, and the same are here
by repealed"
The truth IS there was no authority for
mayor pro TEN or acting mayor until
the amendment of the city charter by the
legislature April 3rd 1899: and there is no
provision Of the city charter or any Ordi-
nance authorizing the mayor pro tenn TO
receive the mayors salary except when
he becomes mayor by reason OF the death
removal, or resignation of the mayor.
The people have become tired Of this
idea that because a man holds an office
he is above the operation of the laws,
that he must not he indicted for msappli
cations of public funds: that because h."
can run a city council to suit himself
he can dictate to the courts and juries
The people are tired Of it.
There is no such sentiment that will
justify public official to defy the laws.
defy the courts and defy public opinion
If so, then truly the people would be in a
bad box. Laws made to protect tho
peoples money would be laughed at and
hello in ridicuc.
Only the poor, friendlesS. mOncylceS
thief and law breaker would find the road
to the pPnitcntiarv as smooth and swift,
as a tOboggan. while the ieweled officials
could point to it as a pathway paved with
good intentions.