San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-02-09
GAN SAN Al TONIC STAND TIP
To the Daily LIGHT:

Ohob Nlls Suiu no "o5
mayor, did great deal to improve
San Antonio. What Improvements
were made during his first term,
from 1885 to 1887? None deserving
Of mention. Mavor Elmendorf has
been filling the office Of mayor only
about four months, and he has
been hampered by the want OF
funds. No man, under the same
disadvantages, could have done
bit better than Mayor Elmendorf
has done. Mr.. Callaghan had
entered on his third term as
mayor, before any OF the improve
ments, concerning which he and
his clacquers 80 loudly boast, were
undertaken. The city hall, the paw
ing Of the plazas and OF Commerce
and Houston, and the opening OF
Market and Crockett streets, were
begun in 1889 or 1890. The bridges
we're erected in 1891 or 1892. Give
Henry Elmendorf the same term
OF office and the same amount OF
money, which Callaghan enjoyed,
and he will be able to show more
aud better public improvements
than were executed under the Cal
laghan regime.
1t occurs to me, that the tax
payers, who voted the bonds for
building the City Hall, paving the
plazas and streets, and building
the bridges, deserve fully as much
credit for those improvements as
does Judge Callaghan. Had they
not voted the bonds, none OF those
improvements could or would
have been made. That is too clear
for denial.
Had the money voted to Mr.. Cal
laghan for city Improvements been
expended properly, the city could
now DO ist OF more aud better i'm
provements. The public did not
get the worth OF its money.
The bridges on st. Mary's, Crock
ett and Market streets are said to
have cost $57, 900. The concrete
floors are reported to have cost
$4,000. These bridges ought not to
have cost more than $4,000 in the
aggregate. / think the bridge on
Garden street cost $4,000 during the
term Of Mr.. French, when iron aud
everything else was good deal
higher than they were in lS90-9l.
The City Hall was let out for
$4,000, and, OF course, the con-
tractor had to give a good bond
for thu f,ithful performance OF
the contract, yet the City hall cost
$l9S,0O0, just $4,000 more than the
| sum for which it was let. There
must have been wastefulness some
| where, else it would have been
built for $4,000, the price at which
4 it was let TO the contractor. The City
hall is an ornament to the city,
still the public did not get the
4 worth OF it's money in the building
OF it.
The paving Of the plazas and OF
Commerce and Houston streets
cost more than such work ought
to have done, and the public did
not get the worth of it's money.
Then the city refused to receive a
portion OF the work after 1t had
been done and had IL taken up and
laid down again at the expense OF
the contractor. Since that flare up
the contractor sued and recovered
a Judgment against the city for the
sum withheld by the city, and he
could not have recovered such a
| Judgment unless the work executed
by him, had been performed ac-
cording to the terms OF his contract.
The city was thus mulcted into all
the cost for taking up and laying
down the pavement again.
Why don't the Express and the
Callaghan blowers explain these
wasteful expenditures Of the funds
OF the city during the Callaghan
regime?
Did Callaghan, in the matter of
paving the streets, reject the lowest
bid and award the contract to a
higher bidder? OF course he did
that, and yet the Express and its
bowling dervishes Of correspon
dents are Mortified at the failure
of Mayor Elmendorf and the Coun-
Gil to award the sewer contract to
the lowest bidder. Callaghan set
the precedent of passing by the
lowest bid.
The writer's for Judge Callaghan
speak Of him as il he was the peer
of Webster and Calhoun in intel
lect and superior to all men in
financial ability, but they sheer
and ridicule the ability Of Henry
Elmendorf. Judge Callaghan's
ability does not rise above medioc-
rity. Neither does the ability Of
Henry Elmendorf soar above medi-