Our Catlrolic Heritage in Texas
by Luis Antonio Menchaca, and part of the materials had been gathered. The work was to be done by the soldiers when not on duty, but since funds were necessary for the purchase of materials, the governor asked permission to use two hundred pesos which had been appropriated for the construction of a fort on the Cibolo and were still held on deposit. If this money could be used, the soldiers could build not only the guard- house indicated but a powder magazine and a much needed warehouse in which to store the supplies of the garrison.M Agreeable to an order of December 10, 1790, Munoz commissioned Pedro Huizar to make a survey and draw plans for the reconstruction of the presidio and the i:nprovement of its defences. Huizar in his report pointed out that the crooked streets, the irregularity of the terrain, and the haphazard development of the city presented a serious problem in the improvement of the presidio. The new wall would neces- sitate cutting across some of the occupied lots, and moving several of the houses. He recommended that the jacales (mud and straw huts) outside the new wall be demolished. The actual damage to property would, in reality, be slight, the governor explained, because only a few stone houses were not within the proposed new wall and most of these were already in ruins. The reconstruction would be a blessing, as it would afford much more effective protection and correct the irregular plan of the city. According to the estimates and drawings prepared by Huizar the cost of reconstructing the presidio and of building a new wall amounted to six thousand three hundred eighty-five pesos. 65 Posada, the fiscal, who appears to have been a narrow-minded official, took exception to the recommendations. He protested that while the cost of construction was indicated, no details were given as to the length, the height, or the thickness of the new wall. He wanted to know, furthermore, the depth of the San Antonio River along the east side of the proposed enclosure. He feared that if the stream could be forded, the city would be exposed to attack by the Indians or other enemies. In view of this statement, his last argument ·against the reenforcement of the defences of San Antonio was indeed curiously illogical, for he maintained that if San Antonio was made absolutely "Manuel Munoz to Revillagigedo, February 9, 1791. Bexar Arc/1ives. 65 :\Iunoz to RevillaP,'i~cdo, March 26, 1790. Nacogdoc/1es A1·chives, Vol. 7, pp. 42-45,
Powered by FlippingBook