The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-07-25
THOMPSON VETOEs
FRESH BATCH or
BRICK BILLS
Mayor Again Points Out to Aldermen
That Material Has Not Been Sub
jected to @All Reasonable Testsp
as Specifications Provide.
Corporation Counsel Advises That
City Gould Successfully Resist /
Payment Under Circumstances.

mayor Thompson will send to the
council this evening his seventh veto
of bills for brick that have not been
properly tested. The veto message
follows:
Council:
"Gentlemen--I return without my
approval, that portion OF the proceed
ings OF your honorable body In your
session OF July 18, by which you ap-
prove the following accounts:
No. 125 Alliance Clay Product
Co., s1O.S5.
No, i2s Alliance Clay Product
Co., $12.S7.
No. ls4 Detroit vitrihed Brick
Co., $1.304.OO
No. 162 Massillon Stone q Fire
Brick Co., $429O7.
No. 163 Massillon Stone q Brick
Co., $221.19.
No; lss Novelty Brick & Coal
Co., $525.43.
No, 1877 Novelty Brick & Coal
Co., $51460.
No. 1853 Novelty Brick q Coal
Co, $946.S6,
$1,64479,
No. ITO Nelsonville Brick Co.,
$S7S.92.
No. 1872 T. b. Townsend Brick q
Contracting Co., $639.1O.
No. 1913 T. b. Townsend Brick q
Contracting Co.. s1,187.S1.
No. 1876 Wassell Brick Co.,
$705.2O.
No 1877 wassall Brick Co..
$42279.
No. 1913 wooster Brick Co..
$361.47.
The above items, as understand.
are for brick purchased by the depart
ment OF public works, under the ex-
listing contracts for furnishing paving
brick for the city OF Detroit.
MY reason for yetoing the payment
of these bills, In addition to the rea-
sons already given In my several COM
munications to you under date of June
g. 1911, June Il, 1911, June 20, 1a11.
June "a, 1911. July s, 1911 and July
8, 1911, is that the brick have not been
furnished in accordance with the plain
import OF the contract and specifica-
tions under which they were purchas-
| ed. In dealing with this subject upon
any of its phases, the contract and
specifications should never be over
looked. The specifications provide:
The brick shall consist OF the
best quality OF sound, hard-burned
paving brick, made especially for
| street-paving purposes and shall
stand all reasonable tests as to
durability and fitness to which
| paving material Is usually sub
! jected.
The question then naturally arises:
What are reasonable tests to which
paving material Is usually subjected,
obviously II is that test which is APP
piled by those engaged In the manu-
facture OF paving material upon
scientific and practical basis. What
has been said by those so engaged?
The National Brick Makers associa-
tfon use the rather test as the one
most reliable end satisfactory.
Nov. then, I am advised by the
corporation counsel without hesitancy,
THAT the contract and specifications,
| read in the light or the experience OK
those engaged in the business OF maxi
ing paving brick, imply without quail
| lification that the brick should ts sub
jeeted to the rattler test because that
\ Is the test which Is usually applied by
those who make paving brick, and that
a court would undoubtedly so construe
the contract. And this wonld be held
TO be the meaning of the language OF
the specifications above quoted, that
a defense to the payment OF these bills
might be made in court OF law,
should suit be brought for their recov-
cry, that they had not been tested and
! delivered as required by the contract
and specifications.
"AIl / seek, and all have sought in
yetoing these bills and other similar
bills is that the city may receive paw
ing material proven and tested as TO
It's durability and fitness, before money
Is expended for that purpose. and this
I think the citizens are entitled TO.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM b. THOMPSON.
Mayor