The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-08-04
IT PROVES HAARER
.B0uGHTPD0RBRICK'
Mayor Makes Neat Answer To Com
missioner's Claim That Inferior
Material Was Replaced.

In response to lengthy statement
made by Commissioners Haarer, or the
department OF public works In defense
OF his actions In regard to the brick
situation in Detroit, Mayor Thompson
said, Friday morning:
Commissioner Haarer states that
within the last two years he has
compelled brick manufacturers to
furnish, approximately. a half million
good brick TO replace bad brck which
they had previously furnished, which
had been laid in the streets, and had
gone to pieces within the three-year
guarantee period.
We'll, suppose. he did. What does
that prove. except that he accepted
a half million bad brick In the frst
instance? What better proof do you
want for my contention that all brick
ought to be tested before being laid
than this boast of Mr.. Haarer that he
had to take a half million brick out
Of our pavements In the last two
years? II these brick had been prop
erly tested before being laid In the
street, there imperfection would have
been revealed and they would never
have got into the pavement. Mr. Haar-
er, In asserting his virtue. dries home
the truth OF mby claim that there are
q lot Of bad brick being dumped into
Detroit. -
.Donf forget. either. that while the
manufacturer. vixen compelled TO do
SO. furnishes new brick 10 replace bad
ones, the city pays the cost OF putting
down the brick. This labor cost TO
the city runs almost twice as much
as the cost of the brick. City Account
ant Bullock's figures show the labor
cost to the city for replacing a part
OF this brick, is $6,333.45 This was
the labor cost to the city for replacing
1885 brick; at $40 per thousand
these brick would be work $4,000;
whereas. the city paid nearly $1,000 to
lay them in the streets. Is 1t good
business To adopt apolicy Of letting In
bad brick on the theory that II may
be replaced, when the labor cost to the
city foot up twice the alue OF the
brick to the manufacturer.
Another thing. while Mr.. Haarer
says that he made the manufacturers
disgorge $4,000. he omits to ten che
public that $2,299.44 was collected af-
ter had begun my fight on the brick
question. My first veto of the brick
bills was made June /. last; about
$4,000 was refunded to the city about
July 1. guess this bad brick expos
ure did that much good, anyway.
'An ounce of prevention is worth
pound of cure. II you accept only
good brick In the first place. you won't
have to prove your virtue by showing
how many bad brick you have nod 10
replace. h
The city has bought probably 30.
10000 brick In thel ast three years.
II Mr.. Haarer has replaced 10000
brick in that time, that is scarcely
"a per cent of the total brick laid.
Anyone who drives over our brick
streets will tell him that he could
AFFORD to replace Ave times as many.
This Is shown conclusiely by Mr..
Bullock's figures Out of 16 streets
resurfaced 19O6-1907, eleven had to be
repaved In 19O9-19lO. Out of 36
streets resurfaced In 1907-190S, nine
teen had to be repaired In 1909-1910.
Does that show that the brick furn-
ished to Detroit is standing up under
the test, actual wear In the streets?
Or does II not prove the reverse?
but why waste time in proving the
obvious? Any citizen who will take
the trouble to investigate our brick
street conditions can learn the truth
for himself"
The National Association OF Paving
Brick Manufacturers has advised the
Board OF Commerce that II is willing
to take up the question Of defending
brick as paving material. as invited
by the board. The association will
send some OF its experts here, but
- a.ta has haap aoraod tnon