Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-06-17
DISTRICT AFFAIRS.
A Discussion Over the Award for
Paving Brick.
AN OUTSIDE MPAN Y
Recommended by the Brick Commission
The Tests That the Samples Were Sub
mitted to-Mr. Holbrook Speaks for Home
Industries-Other District Matters.

everything else being equal"
So spoke President T. L. Hobrook Of the
Washington Brick Machine Company in his
opening address to the Commissioners this
morning.
1t was a special meeting Of the board, called
at the request of Mr.. Holbrook. to consider the
trict with paving brick and for the purpose Of
investigating the tests OF the brick commission
and its recommendation in the matter.
Mr.. Holbrook claimed that the award was
unfair to the local companies and unjust to the
taxpayers Of the city.
Capt. Fiebeger sent for Mr.. L. T. Boiseau, the
superintendent Of property, and Mr.. H. N.
Moss, the superintendent Of streets, both Of
whom are members of tho brick commission
Mr.. William Donaldson, inspector Of material,
being the third member.
Capt. Fiebeger explained the tests. At first
the samples Of brick submitted we're placed in
water for twenty-four hours to determine
their absorption This was done for the reason
that brick which readily absorbed water was not
fit for paving in winter, as frost would destroy
them. After this test the bricks are placed upon
Rrndstone and ground for eight hours. This
test determines their wearing quality. third
test is to put them into tumbler to determine
their solidity.
When the bids were opened about two weeks
ago seven firms submitted proposals. The
Washington Brick Machine Company bid S.43
per 1000 and agreed to deliver them at that
price On the works; 1928 was the price for the
bricks per 900 delivered in Georgetown. $40. %
east of Eastern branch between Eastern
hrapch and Rock creeR md Sill Pr west of
Rock creek. This small increase was due to the
extra hauling.
The Washington Brick and Terra Gotta Com
pany bid $3.50 per thousand in the city, $40. As
in Georgetown, $1,000 east of Eastern branch.
ell 80 between Eastern branch and Rock creek,
Sl25 west Of Rock creek. aud 80 at the Dis
trict property yard or $3.50 at tho bidders
yard.
The A. Richards Brick Company offered
bricks by the thousand at 1886 in the city,
60 so in Georgetown. $3.50 east Of Eastern
branch, $40 between Eastern branch and Rock
creek and $1,000 west Of Rock creek. The
company also agreed to deliver brick by the
thousand at the District property yard at %. 81
or sell them at so at its works.
The Frederick brick works Of Frederick,
Md, only submitted bid for the delivery OF
brick at the property yard. For this it bid
80. so for the first SOC. 900 and 1915 per LOCO
for the remainder, about 100000.
The Ivy City Brick Company bid on every
item agreeing to deliver brick on the works in
the city at $40 per thousand at S1O in
Georgetown, at S1l east Of Eastern branch, at
SlO 50 between Eastern branch and Rock creek.
at Gil west of Rock creek, at $40 at the
property ward and 90 at the company's works.
Childs l. Son submitted two bids. II they
were given a contract for 800, 900 paving brick
they were willing to deliver them at the works
In the city at $50 per thousand, in George
town at S9.25, east OF the Eastern branch al
ss. 70. between the Eastern branch and Rock
creek Co. west Of Rock creek $50, at
the District property yard at $3.50 and at
their works at 90. For pressed brick
their bid was $3.50 in the city. Sl0.25 In
Georgetown, So 50 east OF the Eastern branch,
$1O.5O between Eastern branch and Rock
creek, $40 so west Of Rock creek, $3.50 at the
District property yard and 80 at their works.
Charles Ford submitted samples, but did moi
submit bid.
The samples were then turned over to the
brick commission and the tests began.
In its report to Capt. Fiebeger, it was shown
that for absorption the bricks submitted by the
wv City Brick Company were the best, the
percentage Of absorption being :064. the
Frederick Brick Company ranking third with a
| percentage Of .O14. In the grinding test, how
ever. the Frederick Brick Company ranked first
with percentage Of .449 and the brick OF
Childs & Son was second with a percentage OF
.5O7 The Childs brick was fourth IN the alb
eOrptiou teS' IN Po ee"'"oo VI 49,. ,
Mr.. HoiDrook explained tnat WHO AZ nrs'
glance IT might appear tnat tne commission
WAS 1ustihed In It's recommehuatioh' te' IN,
vestigation would prove an entirely different
state OF affairs. Inc freoeIick brick ooh,'
pany. winch Is the Only ou.siue couPsn! otu
ding, only agreed 70 Iurhlsn Tue orick q, on nt
properly sar1s anu onSs.u $50 pc. i hv.
ios, siobt NJ the fnct that the hauling to the
works where they are to be used must be con
sidered. Inc engineer aepa!'ment ngure,
nuunns .. "a sin 90 No. thnn,.nS -,
s2I9 ner thousand more than the com
| pany which stands second in the test. o,
"A loss OF SIT, 800 to the District on ooo ,oo'
brick. MIR. Holbrook maintained tha
the difference In test did not warran
the award. and he protested In the name OF I'M
local brick companies and the taxpayers
Washington. he said ne was the lowest Dlooer
! but would not accept the contract under any
| circumstances
"What reason have YOU FOR taking that posi-
| ton" INTERCEPTED Commissioner Parker.
II would not accept the contract for furnish
ing the District brick, II they are to be sub1ec
to the inspection OF the present brick com
mission. do not propose to Lave my bricl
played with"
Continuing. he said that he DID not beilev
the commission was competent, and as long
it remained In charge OF the inspection OF brlc
his company would not submit proposals
80; j., ~ d;s.uss;or ond nrou;sed 20 ;ny.st
gate the matter thoroughly.
The brick commission maintains that II
tecommehoa'iol was oaseu upon .ns iac' WA