The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1907-05-07
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
IcoNrINUnD FRoM rIRsr pAeN.l

| Alderman Day said he had opposed
the project at the last meeting, but
| felt that the work should be pushed
ahead.
| Alderman Rutan said he die moi
change his mind as easily as Alderman
| Day. He thought the matter had moi
been handled as it should have been
| There should have been other plans
and bids advertised for
Alderman Mowery said that the
plans had been submitted to all the
contractors residing in Morristowr
and as far as plans go the architects
will not submit competitive plans for
a building of the character of the one
! proposed. The whole structure in
Guiding architects fees and small
I margin for things which cannot be es-
timated wills cost $9,043
| Alderman Meslar called for the read
| ing of the resolution appointing the
committee, claiming that they had
gone beyond the limit set. Finally
the plans were approved and the work
authorized by vote of five to two,
the two Democrats, Alderman Rutan
/ and MeSlar, voting in the negative.
| On motion of Alderman Mowery the
| police committee was directed TO Sc
cure rooms for the police while the
| building is under way, at a cost not to
exceed $l5 per month. He stated that
the Truck Company had offered the
use of the annex for the police, but it
was thoughC better to get other quar-
| tiers. However a vote of thanks was
given for the offer.
The sewer committee formally re-
~ IF 10 OH inF1
which report was received.
Il. d. Foote then stepped to the rail
and asked the board to reconsider the
action of last month in regard to rails
for the trolley line.
Alderman Twining rose to point
of order at this point and moved that
the representatives Of the Morris
County Traction Co., be refused the
right of the floor for two reasons.
The matter OF citizens addressing the
board lies wholly in the discretion of
the board and the right should be
given with discretion. In the matter
stated, the previous board with com
mittees from two citizens organiza-
tions went thoroughly into the queS-
tion will. the help of experts and a
franchise was drawn and accepted as
a result of the deliberations. No sur
prise can be claimed by the trolley
company. The matter was referred
to a committee Of the present board
on petition Of the company and again
gone over, reported to a full board
where after general expression Of
views with the exception OF two men,
the bolrd approved the work of the
former body. The meetings of the
board are lengthy and special meet
ings have been necessary to complete
the business. Ii the board is co eS-
tabllSh the precedent of resembling
the action of the last meeting on the
request of some corporation or indi-
vidual, it might as we'll 20 out Of
business.
No one seconded Mr. Twining'S mo-
ton and Mr.. Foote was told to pro-
coed. He thanked the board for the
courtesy in hearing citizen, a custom
established for forty years. 1t was
his impression that brick pavement
might be laid on Speedwell avenue, at
least as far as Early street. There is
no objection to the grooved rail where
ever there is a solid pavement. The
cost does not enter, as both sections
are the same price. He felt strongly
about the grooyed rail on macadam
roads from the reports of Mr. Alleman
on the operation OF such rails under
like conditions in Harrisburg, Pa. He
made the proposition that the COM
pany lay the brick pavement to Early
street, the town to repay the cost at
its convience and from Early street
allow the use of the girder rail.
L. w. Cauldwell then addressed the
board, stating his pleasure at the pos
Sibility OF brick pavement for Speed
we'll avenue, but feared that the
grooved rail would be left out after
the brick was passed. The supern-
tendent of the trolley company bad
asked him to take up the matter at
the last meeting and he presented the
following letter with the expression
that he was convinced of the superior
ity of the grooved rail
RICHARD T. DANA,
Civil and Consulting Engineer,
Is William Street,
New York, May LIST, 1907.
Mr.. Thomas w. Caldwell,
No 80 Broad St., New York:
Dear Sir: Referring to my recent
conversation with you on the ques.
ton of grooved rails, and to the letter
of the PENNSYLVANIA Steel Co., OF
March 25th, to the Morris County
Traction Co. on the subject, l beg to
say that while the rail section No 243
of the Pennsylvania Steel Co. has the
Objectionable feature that particles OF
sand or stone can easily accumulate
in the groove and cause noise and
rough riding, in my opinion this OBJ
lection lis more than offset by the fact
that such rail is the ideal section
for use where there is to be light
carriage traffic moving on the street
at the same time, even on ordinary
macadam roads and particularly Is
this the case when the macadam road
is treated with thin coating of hea
| Wy oil, asphaltum or tar, which will
to very large extent, prevent dust
and prevent the surface of the road
breaking up, and thereby to an ex
tent remove the objection to the
grooved rail mentioned above. The
distance between wheels of an ordi
nary carriage on the same axle is SC
nearly equal to the distance from
gauge to gauge of the rails of the
trolley track that in driving diagon
ally across the tracks there Is always
a strain and sometimes good dea