San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-04-28

The seven who voted for Hindry
were Albert and Joe Beckmann,
Mackey, Hoetiing, Menger, Meal.
lister and Tobin; all except Joe
Beckmann and Tobin were candi-
dates at the last election and have
been reelected.
The five who voted against Hin.
dry were Clifford, Daugherty, Hice,
Limburger and Ryan the only one
of whom, Clifford, who was a can
didate for reelection, was defeated.
{. or the seven who voted for Hin
dry, all were Elmendorf men at the
last election; of the five who voted
"nay," only Clifford and Daugherty
were anti-Elmendorf men at that
time, the others supported the
present mayor.
The administration favored Hin
dry and practically made the vote
on awarding him the contract, a
test OF party fealty."
Whether the majority OF the old
Council made a mistake or not, is
now for the people to determine.
They seemed to think that Hindry
was the only competent bidder,
Notwithstanding his bids were
considerably below the minimum
estimateof cost fixed by Engineer
Gray.
The old Council constructed and
forced Mr.. Hindry to sign, an IRON
clad contract; il the sewers are
built accordingly, they will be done
in workmanlike manner.
Unfortunately, the old Council
delegated to the mayor the ap-
prevail of the contractors bond ;
had they been as strict in this re-
gard as they were in the drawing
OF the blank contract, the city
would not now be in trouble.
When Alderman Ryan in open
Council stated that the contractors
bond should be submitted to the
Council for approval, and that he
was unwilling to authorize the
mayor to sign the contract until
this had been done, did not His
Honor state that the Council could
trust him in this regard, and that
he would not "close the deal" I'M
til proper local bond had been
given?
While a majority of the old
Council Is blamed for this sewer
middle, the entire board was
anxious to push matters, and
voted unanimously to make the
appropriation, though differences
arose as to who was the "best bid
der"
The minority Of five aldermen
certainly are not blamed by the
people for this "sewer mess" they
had nothing to do with causing it.
Ofthe majority, five of the Coun-
Gil arc in the new one, and
should know all about Hindry, the
contract, ct cetera; the mayor par
ticularly ought to be thoroughly
'posted.n Let the people apply to
either of them for information.
In the new Council, Alderman
Robards seems to be the leader
his approval is necessary, apparent
~ to the passage, OF all ordinances
and resolutions.
In the old Council, every man
was a "Warwick," and had to be
satisfied before any ordinance or
resolution could run the "gaunt-
let.v
Indhe old Council the minority
of fEe made successful fight for
a clause in the sewer contract, reg
I Waiting the hours of labor and fix
ing a minimum price therefor.
This was the best they could do.
In the new Council, after cutting
down salaries of the "poor devils''
who work from sunrise till sunset
for mere pittance to keep body
and soul together. A resolution to
nav laborers on the sewers $3.50
for 9 hours work is adopted, provid-
ed nevertheless that the city should
cancel the sewer contract with
Hindry, and he advertise for bids.
This was concurred in by five
aldermen, who voted against the
original $1.25 a day resolution.
oh consistency thou art jewel.
TWIsTER.