The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1910-03-23

tests made by the Spaclman Engi-
neering company. On the contrary. l
stand by ii. On the test they made
on the Augusta brick sent uD by
Mayor Hopkins tle brick stood a ] t.
the better test than hat il Atlanta
On which they we're accepted. They
give results on the material sent
them. Likewise l do not question the
results Of the tests made Gy the School
cf Technology in Atlanta; they also
give results on what was sent them.
Tie result OF the Atlanta test showed
that in the abrasion or rattler test on
working brick the Catskill last 27.GG
-per cent against their Philadelphia
sample OF 1912, or variation and
falling eff Of 8.G4 per cent.
While Augusta showed on the At
lanta test on their working brick
loss OF 25.S2 per cent agains; their
sample in Philadelphia of 21.82. or
variation of 3.99 per cent, not half as
much as the Catskill.
Tae Chattanooga brick were not
tested in Atlanta, being high bid and
not considered. The Augusta proyea
superi-r on every point tested. Rep
resentatiyes Of the Augusta and the
CatskiIl TeoDle were present at the
Atlanta test and the Catskill represen-
tatiya expressed himself as satisfied
with the fairness Of the test These
facts and the further fact that in order
TO have accepted the Catskill brick We
world that we were selling the city's
rotes at 81 cents on the dollar. The
terms of the CaUs6i!l id were the
Ia&ecrs sufficiently strong to lAe par
ties awarding the contract as you in
sinuate. to decide the committee in
awarding the bid to the Georgia En-
aineering Co at some $4,000 mOr*
on a contract of approximately 81, coo.
The 97-cent clause in the Catskill bid
(was bigger offset than the saVing)
Of the 100000.
While some might question the
wisdom of spending that much more
Tor the best gods. and maintaining at
the same time the citys financial
credit, how about the proposition to
pay more than we did for material
that SHOWS more abrasion or wearing
loss on a dress parade test than
the very material you criticise? If
the material contemplated g es over
the specifications On show samples
! What can you expect on working brick
/ in the face Of the tests on Catskill and
Augusta?
You say. Mr.. Editor, that the Cats
kill people claimed that they were not
properly treated in the last contract
and refused to lid. Is it possible, in
the face CT the showing made by their
material, tnat any city official or Offi-
cials wanted to use it and requested
them to bid? Surely not; my own
opinion would be that knowing that
they could not stand the specifications
expected that the Augusta people
the ones who came nearest t. them
would secure the work. That is what
rational man would reasonably sup
pose, and is. believe, what Would
happen were it not, as you said, for
the politicians"
I have nothing personally for or
against either tf the brick manufac-
tnrel+ or contractors under discussion.
As | stated in the beginning l have
10 desire to enter a newspaper con-
traversy; political ard personal wran-
gleS are deploraI, le and do the town
more injury than we suspect, at the
same time adverse editorial criticism
tasea on erroneous inf rmation, if al
lowed to pass unanswered and not cor
rected. makes it worse, and l cannot
and do not propose to have official
action in which I had the AOn1r to
participate as alderman, misrepresent-
ed. When the criticisms are based
on the actual facts | am satisfied to
let the records show for themselves.
Yours respectfully,
c. T. CaInan.