The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-30
AN IMPORTANT VOTE.

Last Monday the Board of Supervisors,
by vote OF seven to five, refused to refer
to the committee of the whole for further
consideration, an order passing to print
the resolution placing certain restrictions
on the form in which bituminous rock shall
be delivered to the city for pavement uses.
This was very important action, not only
as it concerns the matter in hand, but pos
sibly in a general and Interior sense that
goes to the very character of the board !;
and it is well that both the action and the
vote be remembered. The motion to refer
to the committee of the whole was made
by Supervisor Spreckels, chairman of the
Street Committee, which had this matter
in charge, and yet the three other men,
bers of the committee voted against it.
The first vote to refer. stood as follows:
Ayes-King, Dimond, Taylor, Spreckels,
Hobbs - 5. Noes - Scully, Benjamin,
Hirsch, Morgenstern, Hughes, bunker,
Wagner. A slight amendment required
the motion to be resubmitted, and the re-
suit was the same as at first, except that
Mr.. King was absent.
The resolution which was thus refused
further and more careful consideration
provides that bituminous rock shall be
delivered to the City in its natural state. :"
Thus it shuts out rock which might be
brought hither IN vessels, confines the
supply to sources tapped by the present
rail facilities, and consequently renders
competition impossible. This end is &C.
complished thus: Bituminous rock in its
natural state cannot be shipped proftably
in vessels, because it becomes compacted
in the hold, and hence the expense of I'M
loading it is too great. But the shippers
have been putting II through some kind of
process at the mine by which it becomes
friable; in that state it is easily placed in
large sacks, is shipped without compact
ing. and is delivered at San Francisco in a
form much easier to handle and apply to
the streets than if it were in its natural
| state. The reason that has been given for
excluding it is that the treatment which it
receives at the mine destroys the cohesive
ness of the bitumen and thus renders the
material unfit for pavements.
1t would seem that this problem might
be handled in much better way, to say
! nothing of the harm which the creation of
a monopoly brings and the suspicion which
| might be aroused by that act If it is
| true, as demonstrated by actual trial and
| by chemical analysis and mechanical tests
| of strength, that the sea-shipped rock is
worthless, then by all means it should be
| excluded But have these tests been made,
| and if so, have they been thorough? If
not, the majority of the board have clearly
placed themselves in a position where a
| defense of their conduct is necessary. If
| these tests should be made and it should
be found that this rock is as good as any
other, then its exclusion is an exceedingly
bad thing. The rock has to be made friable
| by heat before it can be placed on the
| streets. Why cannot this be done in
whole or in part at the mine? For that
| matter, could not the Supervisors estab-
| lish standard of cohesiveness, strength
and chemical analysis, and require that all
bituminous rock conform to it? And WHY
could not sound bond be required as an
additional safeguard to insure the perma-
nency of the pavement? Such restrictions
would be practical, business-hke and mani
testify honest. These conditions would be
just as wise in the case of rock brought in
its natural state as in that of any other.
The CALL-does not care where the rock