New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-24
A REPLY TO Mr.. LEWIS.
THAT BRICK PAVEMENT IN M'DONOUGH-
ST AND THE WAY IT WAS LAID
SUBJECT OF DISPUTE
TO the Editor OF The Tribune

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: l notice the remarks OF Engineer Lewis
criticsing my letter relating to the McDonough-s:
brick pavement ard VIII say word in answer TO
each point made by him
First-Does Mr.. Lewis know more about brick
pavement than any other official. etc? / do not
know. but II he does the people OF Meteorological
have not benefited by that knowledge. That he
should have known all about a brick pavemen.
before he spent other moneys than his IS con-
coded. II is not difficult for him or any other man
to learn all about brick pavement after most Of
the cities of the State have been using II for years
admit that 1t is more human to spend the peoples
money without careful investigation than 10 spend
our own in any enterprise.
Second-Mr. Lewis says mfr Granger is incon-
sistent when he says the concrete was OF inferior
quality think this is mistake. l have been
laying and have laid concrete for twenty years
the McDonough-st. work done. and know
whereof speak. No frst-class concrete work can
be done with the proportion Of cement grout and
soil mot sand as was used In this work. When
frst-class, even second-cass. concrete Is laid a
heavy rain will no. wash innumerable holes all the
way through 1t. so that the contractor is COM
PEELED to patch them up. dozens OF people on
Electromagnetic. saw his men do In this work In
ferior concrete. when 1t hardens and becomes
stone, especially II In the form OF an arch ought
to be sufficiently strong to sustain brick arch
when subject to the light trafic on McDonough- st
only But that this so-callcd hrst-class concrete
work is not second-class is evidenced by the
fact tina, 1t is already giving way. and that basins
already appear on the surface of the street II
this concrete had been even second class and had
lain firmly on the hard earth beneath these surface
basins could not have appeared. ut least. SO soon
This. | think. supports my theory that the earth
beneath the concrete was not firm and that 1t has
settled leaving concrete bridge
Third-Mr. Lewis says: THE contractor could not
level" etc. - ~ s' " :"
II he did not. it was near level that the eve
Of several of our people to that excavation at The
time the work was being. done. | also saw the
men forming the crown with loose earth.
Fourth-Mr. Lewis says: "As a matter OF fact tho
concrete was OF the best quality and was the wort
Of al frs nS company" etc know Messrs
t:emen believe they viii do lob BUSINESS iSs1 gen gen
%o4S they h DO viii Do you ssy hs% FOR
Fih~Mr Lewis says MI Granger a' shows iasss"e his
had been laid and before 1t had set. It should have
been firmly rolled down on the earth beneath etc
and that such a course would have been ruinous."
set In twenty thirty minutes ! have had IL
rolled down at once after being laid The roller
should have followed the laying at once. 1t would
solid. sshpact body. resting solidly on the earth
beneath: The rain would not have washed holes
not have allowed the brick above to settle in weak
places. Even the concrete used could not have
given way. This rolling has been done thousands
necessity OF rolling down into compact body.
have no doubt that Mr. Lewis Is con-
and ssrsu man. and !; very sorry r for
which are, entirely unsupported by. facts reason
and experience must be EXCUSED for Offering
We: No. Ia Mcponoush-st.. Brooklyn. March 3. iss