San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1894-06-09
LEGAL QUESTIONS
Special Privileges of the
Aldermen.
SAN ANTONIO, June 6, 1894.

Aldermen.
SAN ANTONIO, June 6, 1894.
To the Daily LIGHT: | hear much
| speculation and many remarks as to the
| prOba BILE attitude of the nine alderman
who on the 4th day of June, in forgetfull-
ness of their Oaths as aldermen and their
duty TO the city of San Antonio, voted To
allow brother of al aldermen, TO violate
a City ordinance, al time when only the
MeSSrS. Beckmann and (Alderman-aJ-
LARGE ElmendUrf, sustained the after
ward expressed opinion by the Mayor that
aldermen could not release any one from
compliance with the laws and ordinance
governing this ancient city, and when he
announced that he would present his
veto TO the action of the City council. at
its next meeting. / do not think that
much speculation need be INDUCED in;
the Mayor and the three aldermen were
in the right, and the cool and sober second
judgment of the majority of the board
will so assert itself by at least a portion
of them, that the Mayor will be sustain
ed. 1t will require two-thirds vote to
carry any measure over the Mayors veto,
and it is understood that at least
one alderman cOaStS OF as much legal
lore, as one of the best known lawyers
of the state, one who at one time signed
his name as governor of the state, and
rendered opinions as an Incompatible
Judge from the supreme bench: another
one is by common newspaper report &C
credited with the youthful ambition TO
succeed the able juriSt now presiding over
our 45th district court, while still another
is reported to have vacated his seat as
alderman by having accepted a federal
position in the custom department of the
United States under Collector Fitch, and
has barred himself from further legal or
rightful participation in any manner or
matter now before the city council. The
two legal lights here first referred to will
surely not defy all authority and defy the |
very ordinance of the city, so recently |
revised by one OF them at cost of $500, |
while the third must certainly remember |
that he is no longer an alderman of his |
ward, If he remem 0eTS at all, how the late |
VIM. Knox had to give up the Office of al |
derman in order to hold that of sheriff, |
how the late George Dashiell resigned |
the one office in order TO hold that of dis
trict clerk, and how much more recently |
Mr.. A. Santleben had TO do likewise in
order TO hold his late accepted office of |
registrar for BeXar county. But | |
suppose we need not waste any time /
in fighting the constitution of the state OF
Texas, which says plainly in section 40,
article 16. mo person shall hold or eXer
else, at the same time, more than one
civil office OF emOlument, except that OF
luSJlce OF the peace, county commissioner,
notary public and postmaster" | know
it was hoped and believed that the city
charter "a law of the state would permit
a violation of the constitution in favor of
a San Antonio alderman. but such is not
the case | repeat that at least two or
three of the aldermen who voted to a
specific amendment of an ordinance will
by this time have learned that their
cause was wrong and that the mayor was
right. | think the mayor will. and know
he ought to be sustaine by the whole
number Of legal aldermen constituting
The city council C.S.