San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1893-06-26
BRICK FOR BRICK.
Mayor George Paschal Replies to
the Express on the. Water
Contract
San Antonio, Texas June

San Antonio, Texas June "a
To the Express: permit me tC
say that in my opinion the editOri.
al in your to-day's issue comment.
ing upon my expressions to the
council relative to the legal rights
of the city arising under certain
contracts that are found to be not
only oppressive, but absolutely
clog the governmental affairs OF
the city, is not in harmony with
the just course that has heretofore
characterized the Express when
ever public wrongs are sought to
be righted, or public rights were
sought to be maintained.
You say, "the municipal contract
was in the nature of a bonus to in
duce the construction of water
works in this city as well as to
secure additional fire protection"
No tyrO in the law could be per-
suaded to admit that this city has
ever had, or should ever have the
legal right or power to make con-
tract with any one for any purpose
whereby a "bonus" was intended
to be given to construct and oper-
ate its own plant.
To admit that a "bonus" can en-
ter into or form a part of the con-
sideration in any such contract is
to admit that the people can be
taxed indirectly for purposes that
the law directly forbids. 1t is just
such evasions of wise provisions in
the law that has brought distress
upon many communities and this
one is now feeling the effect of it.
There is the line of demarcation
to be drawn, if the city is making
a contract permits the ques-
tion of a "bonus" to form a part
of the consideration. If it can be
permitted to one enterprise, why
not to another and then why not
to all. If such contracts have here
tofore been made by the city upon
any such basis, they have been
wrong in law, wrong in principle
and are indefensible and wrong in
Such a contract does not
draw the people into chad bar
gains" as stated in your editorial,
but in contemplation of law it is
factum an no bargain at all.
To apply the word population"
to such an understanding is seek
ing to perpetuate the original
wrong indefinitely. No "sneer at
the company or it's president" was
intended to be INDUCED in. mere
ly stated right, in the hope of
correcting wrong. l quoted the
decision of our supreme court
(Brenham VS.. Waterworks Co., 9th
TcXD laundering the law of this
state into our ears, that the rights
of the people to have and maintain
their own system of waterworks
could not be coded or bartered
away by contract, or otherwise,
and that such an agreement
was void. To seek to perpet-
uate such an agreement in defiance
of the law is not reputation, but
would be qualification upon the
part of those charged with the
sworn duty or seeing the law en-
forced. If the city is laboring I'M
der void contract, embarrassing
and oppressive to it's well being.
l fail to see how it's credit is to be
besmirched" by refusing to longer
submit to. the expressions con-
tanned in it.
No sane man would submit to
oppression under a void contract,
and neither will this city so long
as the present men are sworn to
look after it's present interests. 1t
is further stated in the editorial
that "the people through their rep
resentatives are responsible if the
assessments for lights and water
are expensive" l deny in toto that
continuing responsibility can be so
enforced upon the people by reason
of void contract made by it's rep
resentatives, as is the case with the
waterworks company.
That which has been paid for
can not be remedied, but the future
at least can be spared from such
excesses. AS to the question of
fact raised in the editorial of the
company not playing Shylock," 1
leave this to the candid judgment
of the people. trust you will adj
NIT the foregoing to your columns
and at the same time thank you for
many former similar courtesies.
GEORGE PASCHAL.