The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1909-12-23
s',Ys THEY SHOW
II THE BEST TEST
.nxs THE WORK oa asWcAs.
rls srsEEr 70 ss.ao
WELL Done.
He sAe~s the sessn Of = Test Made
Between Augusta and cAiskfu Brick
h Atlanta, Which shet~es Augusta
Brick to ee the sess-s.ss test.r 10
the Mayor in Full.


the public works committee, yester-
day replied to the letter addressed to
him by Mayor Hopkins, relative to the
test made of the brick now being useJ
in paving Newcastle street by the
Georgia Engineering company. of Au-
gusta. In his letter Alderman Cal
nan defends the Augusta brick and
states that they stood a better test
in Atlanta than the Catskill brick IA
states that he was present when :ne
test was made in Atlanta and that the
result was as fellows: Loss ic rattler
test of the Catskill brick, 27.0G per
cent; loss of Augusta brick in rat
tier test, 1882 per cent. 1t will thus
be seen by Mr.. Calnan's statement
that the Augusta brick, which are
being used, stood the better tas..
He also states that the work now
going on is being done by we'll
known and reputable company, and he
thinks the city is getting very line
piece of work at reasonable prices.
His letter is as follows:
Brunswick, Ca, Dec. %. 1909.
Hon. R. R. Hopkins, Mayor, -
i Brunswick, Ga
Dear Sir:-I am in receipt of your
communication of December 21st, with
reference to d test which you have
had made by Henry! S. Spackman Co;
OF Philadelphia, OF the. paving brick
being used in the present Newcastle
street contract.
] notice in the Brunswick News Of
this date. publication OF a copy of th,s
letter; ! procedure which, If my mem
0ry serves me correctly. Is unusual, to
publish communication on city mat
ters In advance of their being laid
before council or until the committee
reports action.
If your intention was to give. the
utmost publicity. which Is in itself
eommendable. you should have at
least favored the chairman Of the COM
mfttee you were addressing, with rs
much information as you furnished
to the newspaper, for It appears that
they have published copy Of the
result of the test, while you failed
to send me a copy.
Assuming that the newspaper has
published this result correctly. loss
IN the rattler test of 24.81 per cent,
] desire on behalf of the committee,
myself personally, and the citizens at
large, to thank you for the steps taken
ito protect the city's interest" as you
say, for 1t puts an end to any further
discussion of the brick question.
You will remember, or could have
refreshed your memory if you had ex-
amined the records on this subject,
that, on the city engineers written
statement that the Augusta brick were
closest to the specifications, and stood
a better test in Atlanta than the brick
you favored (the Catskilu viz:
Loss in ratter test, Catskill 27.06
per cent.
Loss in rattler test. Augusta, 1882
per cent,
and were acceptable in the work to
be done, and, on the city attorneys
written opinion that the acceptance OF
the Augusta bid was lawful, the con-
tract was awarded to the Georgia En-
gineering Co., and Augusta brick
adopted as tle kind Of brick to be
used.
| was present in Atlanta and per
soasIly saw some of the tests hat
we're made. and there was never
cuestisn in my mind or of the COM
61stjGs as TO the superiority of the
Augusta brick, over the Catshll brick.
The result of the Atlanta test, prov
ING the Augusta superior on all three
noints. confirmed our opinion ana
concil awarded the contract accord
ingly.
II is therefore matter os personal
satisfaction, that under the test you
had these Augusta brick submitted 10
in Philadelphia, that they stood bet !
ter test than they did in Atlanta ana
on which they were accepted; but III
is also my own personal idea that ,
# was waste of money. either 70
YOU. or to the city, if you Intend 70
charge the expense to the city, TOT
having this test made.
~-,bara f+ ic necessary