San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-05-25

| business mems CITY SOuhNii NhS $500
| ment made with the San Antonio
Street Railway company is one of the
most remarkable because of the siren
uous opposition of the city attorney;
| for the reason that the action of the
council was had seventeen days after
the whole business had been carried
out by the mayor. On the Sth of May,
SO, the following letter was addressed
to Mr.. W. H. Weiss:
May sth, 1895.
San Antonio Street Railway Co., w.
H. Weiss, President, City:
Dear Sir: AS a result of the nego-
tiations conducted by yourself and
through the finance committee and as
sessment committee on behalf of the
city of San Antonio, for the purpose of
reaching a settlement of the claims
your company has against said city, and
those said city has against your COM
pany, and acting on the recommended
ton made by said committee, 1 sub
NIT the following proposition on be-
half of the city:
First, You are to pay the city of
San Antonio the taxes and all accrued
interest to date at the rate of per
cent per annum owing by your corpo-
ration to the city Of San Antonio, the
same being for the tax years of 1898,
1894, 1896, amounting to $9,940.76.
Second You are to pay to the city
the amount, found to be due it as per
experts reports, dated March LIST, '9S,
$4,3O6.S5.
Third. The city will refund to you
on account of payments made to it by
you for paving on Houston street,
$S,029.90. on account of payment made
to it by you for flooring on Houston
street bridge 1855; on account Of pay
ment made to it by you for paving on
Soledad street $500; on account macad-
amizing and damage done you on
Arkansas street, 1,579.S0-s10, 473.70.
Loss on agreed deduction from said al
lowance of s2,643.99. Leaving balance
due you s7,s29.71.
Fourth. The said city of San Anto-
MO agrees to dismiss at your cost GER
tain suits pending against your COM
pany, in the 37th Judicial District court
of Bexar county, Texas, wherein the
said city is plaintiff and your company
is defendant, Nos. 64S5 and 1865, and
your company agrees to dismiss at its
own cost a certain suit pending in
the 45th Judicial District court of Bex-
ar county, No. Bali, wherein your COM
pany is plaintiff, and the said city is
defendant.
Fifth. 1t is understood and agreed
that the said sum of $4,306.S being
the balance as shown to be owing by
your company to the said city. Ac-
cording to the experts report Of
March 1st, 1893, and the taxes as above
set forth, constitute all the claims the
said city has against said company
to this date, and that said sum of 81
S29.7, as shown to be due and allowed
to your company as above detailed,
shall and does constitute all the claims
your company has against the said
city to this date, except such as may
be involved in suits Nos. 7249 and 7400,
pending in the 37th Judicial District
court of Bexar county, wherein your
company is plaintiff and the city of
San Antonio is defendant, said suit
growing out of the construction of the
sewers in the city of San Antonio by
said city.
Very Respectfully,
HENRY ELMENDORF,
Qn Duplicate) Mayor.
The above and foregoing proposition
is hereby accepted, and in pursuance
| thereof, we have this day paid to Hen
| ry Umscheid, Esq, collector Of the
city of San Antonio 90 GAO 76 and have
received from the said city a warrant
| $3,522.S6.
San Antonio Street Railway Company,
BY w. H. WEISS, President.
On the 25th of May the city council
| proceedings contain the report of the
| special committee in which they state
that they had arrived at the conclu-
sion to pay Mr.. Weiss $3,522.95, as a
balance due the Street Railway COM
pany, Also report an ordinance cover
ing the transaction which was passed
in the face of the opinion of the city
attorney, making the appropriation
although the whole transaction had
been carried out seventeen days be-
fore the meeting of the city council.
Mr. Minors opinion upon this poin
is forcible and to the point and how tn,
city council could in the face of sucl
an opinion from their legal advisor, g
ahead and pass such an ordinanc,
can only be accounted for on tn,
grounds that the thing had alread!
been did, and did" without authority
MINORS OPINION.