The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1909-12-22
Interest.

ne News a few weeks ago printed
an article calling attention 10 the TACT
that the charge mad teen made that
tAe Georgia Engineering C mpauy. OF
augusta, which concern was awarded
ta1 contract for paving Newcastle
street from Gloucester 10 Mansfield
with Fitrihed brick was not coming
up to the specifications of The con-
tract. This article, OF course. came
as the result Of complaints filed by
people in position to know, as no one
connected with the paper is in any
way a yitrided brick expert.
1t appears. however, that Mayor
Hopkins, even before this article was
printed, was making an investigation,
ne also entertaining the opinion
that the specifications were not beir g
carried out. It lad also been limited
to him that the brick being used were
not up to the standard called for in
the contract The mayor at once
started an investigation in the inter
est Of the people of Brunswick, with
the result that report has been
received and the charge preferred in
The News article as well as tAe COM
' plants of number of citizens has
been sustained by vitrified brick ex-
perts.
Acting under instructions from the
mayor, City Engineer ]. B. High for
&.Yded to the Henry S. Spackman En-
x eering company, vitrifed brick ex-
perts, of Philadelphia, several brick
being used in the paving on Newcas,
tie street for thorough test. This
test has been made and yesterday the
city engineer received a report from
the above company and it shows that
the brick are not up to the specifica-
tions called for in the contract.
In the first place the contract pro-
vides that there shall not be a loss
by impact of more than 20 per cent.
The report shows that the test
brought out the fact that the brick
showed a loss of 24.72 per cent. Ii
was also demonstrated that there was
a great variation in the loss of the
various brick. For instance among the
number sent to the company one
showed a loss of only 21.67 per cent,
while another showed loss Of 4.12
per cent. Thus it will be seen that
the brick, as whole, do not show a
uniform loss in impact varying from
21.67 to 34.12 per cent.
The report itself best shows exact
ly what was reported by the engineer
ing company. 1t is as follows:
Philadelphia, Pa, Dec. II, 1909.
Mr.. ]. B. High,
City Engr. & Dir. Pub. Wks.,
Brunswick, Ga.
Dear Strive report results of test
on Augusta paving brick: Samples
submitted by J. 3. High, city engineer.
Brunswick, Ga Reported to ]. B.
High, city engineer, Brunswick, Ga.
Description: - paving brick, 10
marked Augusta, . unmarked; used
in rattler charge.
Average size: 8.42 in. X 4.16 in. x
3.13 in.
Average Lengths varied from
8.38 in. to $50 in.
Average IJSE EtDS FdilOu II
1886 in. to 426 in
Average Widths varied from
BOT in. TO 3.25 in
Average Weight-s.01 lbs.
AyxrAge Area On Top Surface
26.35 SO. in.
Aver4E Ee volume of One block
109.64 GU. in.
Implct Test: Sixty minutes in stan
dard 28-inch rattler, making 80 revo-
lutions per minute
weieht before test, actual
weight Natter test, actual
total '..........--..- -'4-Zo II.
Loss " impact ..........17S2 i5.
Or 24.72' per cent.
Results from individual Tricks;
~ yVaioht Weight Per Cent.