The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1903-05-12
CITY COUNCIL.
c,s,o,ithic Pavern-nts Decided Up
on-Contraets Awarded For the
work-List OF Bidders Other Bust
ness Etc.


on-Contrsets Awarded ror inc
Work-List OF Bidders Other Bust
ness Etc.
,nsetiur of the city Council was held
Friday night to receive the report al the
f,int committee on street Paving etc.
A. 10 bids Tor sidewalks aud ctllardoors
There was prescott every member except
cant Revere. and Mayor Willis presided.
MIR Emhrrv. chairman Of Joint tom
mifte.. made the following report.
To the Mayor and Common Council oi
fredericksburg
The Joint Committee ON Street I'm
pruvrmcnt re- specially report that they
opened the bids IN relation 60 the paving
of sidewalks and IN relation to cellar
doors ON Nny 6th. 1903. and they here
with return all at SAID bids for the inior-
nation of the Council
-Four members ui tue Joint Committee
respectfully recommend that The eide
walks be- laiI win grHuOlihir. AZ the
most durable and the most economical.
~ well rs giving - finish 90 orr street
Improvement such as me- other material
will afford
W : Emhrcy
d. Cole
II IL Wallace.
j = Rowe
Two members Of the Joint Committee
respectfully recommend that the SIDE
walks he laid with standard brick. that
beng the cheapest material
a. Nc,racken,
a. 4 Marshal
The Committee RETURNS herewith ihr
report of Engineer Myers 10 relation {"
the aiysntag,s oi granolithic pavement
Respectfully.
vs. ) l'mbrey
May ~th 1903
Accompanying the above WAS The re-
port OF Engineer Myers and tnri'ii"Nlns
bid:
fredericksburg. Va May oth 1903
ro the Joint Committee ON street I'm
prmement. fredericksburg. Va.
Grutlemen The bids received show
the follow iug COS; for sidewalk M 'front.'
oi athirt, foot HOUSE sidewalk t~rlve
feet wide al basis OF comparison
Grauoliihic Compared with STANDARD
-,,ranoliihic. S5333. standard
brick. $500. Difference. Sl4l3
Granoh'hir Compared WIKI Nituhed
Brick Granoliihic. Sl3ti- 'itrined
brick. SIG Dlh r,ncr. = BIB
Nitnurd Brick lompafci With stand
ard Brick-fifrihed brick, SIG. standard
brick SO 20 Difference. - 80
Economy Owing tn wear and unequal
settlement oi standard bricks they VIII
require renewal IN less than one thiri
the time oi rrauoiilhic Owing GO un-
eGnal settlement Of vi,rihei bricks they
wll require renewal IN less than one
half the time OF granolittic There lore
rranolithic Is the most economical
CLEANLINESS Granulthlc has a hard.
smooth true suriacs. with very few
Joints and will wash clean by rain or
nose more readily than brick oi either
Kind. Bricks have numerous joints
and "A comparatively rough surface, LATHE
20 retain diIt even when the pavement II
washed
Appearance THE is OF course. Ia
favor OF granOlithic
Goodness -Grauolthir ahsorhs Joss heat
than bricks This ia This climate i- I'M
portaut
Pm, Ranewal-pipes should he r.
ps..ed b. fore pAfeinrnf- nrr laid. hut 10
ra-r of uniOr.-eeu necessity 90 cut the
sidewalk h. rGu he done and r. done
faiv While slightly more expensive
than with brick. the whole cost Is trn-
lnu in auv case. When restored the con
diti1n will Doe better aud l-s- opt o. give
trouble than with brlck of either kind.
Future Cons'deraIion--Owin To- The
almost universal adoption Of granolifhic
asa .id-Walk material the manufacture
, of pa,iag brick for th's u-e Will probably
diminish. That of Portland cement j.
: becoming daily more common. cOnse-
; quently paving bricks for sidewalks VIII
= become scarce ana costis ana granohthic
will become cheaper. ! prcdirt that 10
le-sthan tveyear- granoithir sidewalks
viii be cheaper IN iir-t cost than BRICK
sidewalk
Therefore iet us ut iAs example now
80 that We may have not only the most
economical but the best. Is standard
for the city
Very respectfully.