San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-02-06


answer them? Would it kill his
chance of being elected for him to
answer those questions, truthfully
and frankly? Whenever he answers
those questions it will then be in
order for Mayor Elmendorf to
answer.
In his Mission garden palaVCr,
Judge Callaghan, with a grand
| flourish Of Urumpets and an i'm
mense beating OF tom toms, I'M
dertook to repute the charge, that
he had not paid his taxes to the
city for fourteen years, and he
made a good showing from his
standpoint.
The letter Of Mr.. All. Reaver,
subsequently published in the EX-
press, knocked the bottom plumb
out of Judge Callaghan's trium-
plant explanation, and left it, in
the predicament Of a man who is
hung, with nothing to stand upon.
A plain and unvarnished &C.
count Of the intricate transaction
will best subserve the ends Of truth
aud Justice: Judge Callaghan mott
fled the city authorities that the
garbage carts had been dumping
garbage on one Of his lots, and he
demanded either that the city
should have the garbage removed
from the lot or buy the same. The
city bought the lot from Judge CAL
laghan and he made a deed to it.
II Mr.. ALI. Reaver's publ she'd
statement Of the affair be correct,
(and it has not been challenged or
disproved by Judge Callaghan),
then the pretence Of Callaghan, in
his Mission garden speech, Of hav-
ing paid his arrearages OF city taxes
was without any foundation in fact
or truth.
OF course, he could not settle his
taxes by selling and deciding to the
city lot which he did not own.
That is clear proposition.
Was Judge Callaghan, when he
made his Mission Garden speech,
about having paid his city taxes,
ignorant OF the facts set forth in
Mr.. ALI. Reaver's published state
ment? II he knew those facts to be
true, it is very strange he should
believe he had paid his taxes, by
deciding to the city lot belonging
to Mr.. Reaver and not to him.
The taxes due by Judge Gala
CHAN to the city are in fact and in
law, as we'll as in equity and good
conscience, unpaid at this moment,
and his Mission Garden eXplana-
tion was no explanation at all.
1t does not look we'll in public
officer, to draw a monthly salary OF
5000 from the city, and to leave his
city taxes unpaid for years. Pri-
vate citizens often want the money
with which to pay their taxes, but
Judge Callaghan cannot truthfully
plead that excuse, as he could have
readily paid his taxes out OF his
salary as mayor. The people have
sense enough to see this matter in
the right light.
Was Judge Callaghan lawfully
and eQuitably entitled to his sal
airy of $500 a month for the three
months he was absent in France?
Most certainly he was not entitled
to it.
II however, he was entitled to it,
it is clear, Mr.. Guerguin,the Mayor
protein, was not entitled to draw
the salary Of the mayor for the
same time. 1t is plain the city
could not lawfully have two
mayors at one and the same time,
yet Judge Callaghan as mayor
signed the warrant for mayor pro-
tenn Gnrgin's salary Of $500 per
month.
For doing so, he was indicted by
the grand jury, for a missapplica-
ton Of public funds, but the case
has not been tried.
What became Of the $4,000 bonds,
voted by the taxpayers for the
purchase of two garbage furnaces?
According to the charter and to
the statute, the proceeds OF bonds,
which were voted for a specific
purpose, cannot be used for any
purpose except the specific one.
Will Judge Callaghan explain
what became Of the garbage fund
OF $4,000, arising from the sale Of
the bonds voted by the taxpayers
for specified purpose?
Will Judge Callaghan explain
why he and his cuckoo council in
the matter Of paving Commerce
and Houston streets rejected the
lowest bid and gave the contract to
the highest bidder?
The Kaffir War.
ncnoN Enh G-lffinial die