San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-09-08

RtNinS inOhOJ PAAHVo'
Ask the question Of any straight
shooter, and he will say "no."
But then while we are on the
brewery prizes matter let us look
into the $50 paid in by the Alamo
brewery, per Jno. Legler, manager.
This club don't say anything about
that.
They must have overlooked it.
But John Legler didn't.
Neither did /.
Mr.. Legler, after the shoot, asked
who won his prize, and his ques-
tion is still unanswered.
II silence Is golden, the silence of
the San Antonio Gun club is gold
en- tipped on each corner and 1t
must be of rare old gold standard,
for it is of four years. duration.
Mr.. Legler gave $50 as a prize to
be shot for. So did Mr.. Hausman
give 800, for that matter, and so
did Mr.. Koehler give $75; all were
given as prizes. Mr.. Legler's prize
was not even shot for. Where did
it go?
The San Antonio Gun club will
tell you it was swallowed up in ex-
penses.
What right did they have to
Swallow up In expenses" funds
that were secured for some other
purpose.
If this club wanted money for
expenses, why did they not contri-
butte themselves. AS 1t is, they
claim that they secured money
from the public for that purpose.
II this club consists of such gilt
edged membership, 1 should think
that they would hesitate to ask
the public to contribute for Eek
penses" while not contributing one
cent themselves. Its own presi-
dent did not patronize the shoot
even to the tune of a 3 cent shell,
while the secretary was not OIL the
grounds at all.
Their final statement, while hor-
ribly garbled, acknowledges that
they came out $l10 ahead. What
became OF that money, and also
what about that $3.50, which was
subsequently collected by them
from one of their delinquent MEM
bers, which money clearly belonged
to the shooters.
What right have they got to
solicit funds from the people to
pay expenses. None, whatever.
From the start, all the money con-
tributed by the business people
was intended for prizes, and the
legitimate expenses were to have
been borne by the club.
Who secured these funds?
Critzer and Guessaz.
Don't it strike the average reader
that in that event, the two gentle
men named know more about the
terms and conditions under which
this prize fund was secured than
anyone else. 1 think so.
Besides, both gentle men have
stated under oath that they were
appointed to solicit money and
merchandise as prizes and nothing
else. Their oath is on record.
Any other osths to the contrary,
gentlemen? Don't all swear at
once.
The third statement is to the eff.
feet that Messrs. Schryver, Crystal
saloon, VIM. Reuter-, l.. Mahncke,
Menger hotel, Jno. Brady ct al,
after shaving made due inquiry"
regarding the disposition OF their
donations to the prize fund, are
that their money escap-
ed the horrible fate of being
thrown in rodents hole.
1 wonder how much "due in.
quiry" the Crystal saloon made
and of whom?
And John Brady and Billy
Reuter-?
Did the entire "Menger no tel"
go, or only the bar?
When did this "due inquiry"
take place?
I'll tell you:
1t consisted OF long slim piece
Of paper in the shape OF a petition,
and these parties were asked to
sign and they did.
There was no "due inquiry"
/ think there is an enquiry DUE"
for none was ever made of Critzer
and GuessaZ. should think that
this was not a full grown Sin
quiry." 1t must have been cut
bias, like the generosity of the San
Antonio Gun club.
Ifany one ever really desired to
find out exactly how this unfortu-
ate state shoot was conducted, why
not seek all the Information from
both parties to the controversy,
and not confine the enquiry" mat
ter to one side. He who hears but
one bell, hears but one sound.
"The San Antonio club always