San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-11-16
The Veto
Mayor Callaghan Gives His Reason
To The Council.
For Not Being In Favor Of Allowing
Right OF Way Without
Equivalent.

/
Of the city council being present yes
| terday afternoon there was no meet
| ing of the body and the expected veto
| of the mayor on the passage Of the
ordinance granting the franchise to
the Texas Transportation company
| over River avenue and other streets,
was not taken up. The veto, however,
was ready and will probably be pre-
scented this afternoon if a meeting can
| be held.
The full text is as follows:
san Antonio, Tex, Nov. 10, 1897.
Gentlemen of the Council:
Il return without my approval the
ordinance passed at your last meeting
granting to the Texas Transportation
company, of San Antonio, Tex, the
right of way over certain streets of the
city of San Antonio, and the privilege
to operate freight street railway line
thereon for the following reasons:
Il. Because by the ordinance you
graciously granted the said company
a valuable franchise, instead of selling
the same at what it is reasonably
worth, knowing as you undoubtedly
ought to know, that the only revenues
of the city are derived from taxes lev
led upon real estate, personal property
and occupation taxes, and these sub
jects of taxation now bea~ as much as
the owners can pay; and if you bear
further in mind that the corporations
doing business in San Antonio, such
as the waterworks company, the street
railway companies and other corpora
tions, obtained their franchises as a
gift, and that at this date said fran
chises are worth hundreds of thous-
ands of dollars, you may possibly agree
with we that the only relief to the
overburdened taxpayers lies in the sale
| of new franchises and charging reas-
| onably for the extension of those need
| ing additional lease of life, and, also,
| for the renewal of those in existence
| and about to expire. l am in favor
| of giving full protection to the corpor-
| ations, just as much so as favor pro-
tecting the rights of individuals, and
since the rights of corporations and the
protection afforded them are the same
as those secured to individuals, the
burden for the support of the govern
Il
| l say grant the prayers of corporations
when they ask for privileges, but do it
| for a valuable consideration.
20. The ordinance is Objectionable
because, whilst it purports to make
the Texas Transportation company
common carriers of freight, 1t attempts
at the same breath to fix the minimum
amount of freight which the transpor-
tation company is required to receive
and haul, this limitation is recited in
the proviso section of the ordinance,
to-wit: Provided further, however,
that the said transportation company
shall not be required to maintain or
operate that portion of the grant from
the intersection of Grand avenue and
River avenue, thence west along Grand
avenue and Jones street to Dallas
treets until persons or corporations de-
string freight transportation over said
line by the said transportation COM
pany shall guarantee and secure to the
said transportation company an aver
age of three carloads of freight for
transportation per day during any one
year, and upon such guarantee being
given, such portion of road shall be
built and operated within sixty days
thereafter and failing so to do, shall
forfeit the entire franchise herein
granted
Common carriers cannot legally
limit their favors as here attempted.
20. Because the ordinance makes it
a condition precedent to the building of
the treet railway that the Texas
Transportation company shall obtain
tha consent of tha Alamo Haiosl,tc rail
way company, when in fact there is no
such corporation in San Antonio legal
ly known by that name; the council
evidently meant that the Texas Trans
portation company should obtain the
consent Of the San Antonio Rapid
Transit Railroad company
''An additional reason for this veto
lies in the fact that the San Antonio
Rapid Transit Railroad company alias
the Alamo Heights Railway company,
is in the hands of receiver and that
there is no application from the re-
ceivers, authorized by the court in
which the receivership proceedings are
pending, to this council showing any
order of the court permitting the use
by the Texas Transportation company
of the franchise heretofore granted to
the San Antonio Rapid Transit Rail-
way company on River avenue or
Grand avenue.
THE fact that large number of en-
ployes will be discharged by the brew
cries because of the grant of this fran
chise is not urged as reason for this
veto. The reasons previously ad-
vanced suffice.
BRYAN CALLAGEIAN,