The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1909-12-25
PAVING REPORT
AS RENDERED BY
THE COMMITTEES
MEMBERS OF PUBLIC WORKS
CcMshlTTEE Tti!NK WORK
is SATISFACTORY.
They Believe TIE Contractors VIII Do
Their Part in Paving contract-An-
ncunce That New curbing NHI 3e
Put in When Work is Completes.

in view cf the controversy going
cn Saent the paving of Newcastle
-roet with yitriGed bricN, the report
rendered by the committee on pub lie
works ana adopted at the meeting OF
council thursday night, will be OF
interest. The report in full is AS
follows:
Brunswick Ca, Dec %, 1909.
Hon. Mayor and Council,
Brunswick, Ga.
Gentlemen: Your standing commit
tee IN public works begs to make the
following report on a communication
dated December 2t from Mayor Hop
kins. addressed to the chairman of
this committee, which is hereto at
tached The said letter having been
published in the Brunswick News of
December 81, it is unnecessary TO
quote in full its contents; in brief,
it states that the mayor submitted
ta the Henry S. SpaclIman Engineer
ing Co, of Philadelphia, to be tested,
samples of the brick taken from the
paving work On Newcastle street, and
that the test falls far short of the
specifications.
No figures are submitted with the
letter but in the same publication
containing a copy of the mayors let
ter 10 the chairman Ct this commit
tee, q letter appears purporting to be
COPY Of a letter from this engineer
ing company; it appears that in the
'rattler" test, the only test made, the
loss 5y. abeas.Gsl Was z4,s} per cent
The brick used by the Georgia En-
gineering company, the contractors on
this work, were tested in Atlanta, Ga,
alcag with a certain brick known as
the Catskill, G. mretitiye bid, with
the following result:
Rather test--loss by abrasion, Cats
ill. 2706 less b. abrasion, Augusta
25.S2.
The city engineer made written
statement to council September 70,
1899. that the Augusta brick we've
closest to specifications and accent
able in the work to he done; the city
attorney at the same meeting gave
written opinion that acceptance of the
Augusta bid was lawful and at tae
same meeting the contract was awaf
ed for the paving to the Georgia En-
cheering company and the Augusta
brick adoDtel as tie kind Of brick 10
Re used; while the specifications as
advertised called for not over 20 per
cent loss; after full consideration
the Augusta brick were accepted on
2582.
The result of this Philadelphia test,
if the newspaper figures are accurate,
proves the Augusta brick on the cen
tract to be even better than the ones
q the test, of which the contrac
was awarded; that is, they only run
24S1 loss as against 25.82 as accept-
ed on contract. 1t is a matter for
congratulation than otherwise and W..
see no reason for interfering with The
contractors in their good work.
Owing to delay in getting out the
curbing from the quarry, aad beln2
en- rush order when shipned, the
curb is not properly dressed fac
which was Immediately noted by you
committee and the city engineer bit
which the contractors agreed to rem
edy after the paving is laid, and We
have no reason to believe, or have
, anv doubt, tut what that feature Wi
ac adjusted tc the satisfaction of an
sasonahle man.
", ~" ramand thar IL" c""'n'nn'
ELTON b. fled. Res 'ifully,
C. T. ca!nan,
Chairman,
j. n. Leo,
Cnas. n. Taylor,