The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-11-01
Special COMMITTEES.

To the Honorable the Common Council:
Gentlemen--Your Special COMMITTEES
on Claims and Accounts and Streets,
to whom was referred back the vari-
Gus brick bills vetoed by His Honor
the Mayor, for reasons set forth in
the several communications transmit
ted by him TO the Common Council at
various sessions; also report OF Spe-
cial Committee of the Board OF Com
merce. which had this matter under
consideration for some weeks past. re-
this matter our most careful consid-
Grafton and beg leave to call the at
tention or your Honorable Body to the
following facts: His Honor the Mayor
has returned to this Council without
his approval various bills for brick
furnished the Department of Public
works. the first OF which was sub
nttea In June last and the basis of
chased had not been subjected TO
RATHER as we'll as an absorption test
this covering all brick furnished the
Department OF Public Works under it's
contracts for the year 1911. Subse-
quently. however. on August 18th last
the Mayor withdrew his veto covering
the bills Of the Nelsonville Brick Co.
and Bessemer Limestone Co, stating
as his reason that AT the time these
vetoes were nled / did not have SUI
ficient evidence that these brick would
this office. to-wit: 30 per cent or n
per cent"
Your Committee desires to call the
attention OF your Honorable Body to
the fact that proposals were adver-
ttsed FOR by the Department OF Pub
lie Works for furnishing the Depart
ment OF Public Works with paving
brick required for the year ending Jan
ii, 1912, and the detailed bids were
submitted TO the Common Council Jan
IL, 1911. and the various contracts rec
commended by the Commissioner and
we're approved at session held Feb
4th. following and submitted to the
mayor for his approval or disapprov-
al, as required by the Charter. II His
70 the specifications under which the
proposals were solicited such objec-
tons should. have been interposed a..
the time. and the approval OF the con-
The specifications for furnishing brick
and under which the proposals were
submitted were faulty. then the cen
tracts should have been disapproved
and proposals. re-advertised for The
specifications should have been amend
ed so as TO provide for a RATHER and
absorption test. 30 that the concerns
tiddins Upon furnishing paving brick
20 the City OF Detroit would have
known what quality of brick they
would be required TO furnish.
~ me very time these contracts for
furnishing the city with paving brick
were confirmed, an apparently respon-
sioie bidder made complaint 10 the
Mayor that while his bid was Sc per
1 e
nored. and In said communication, 10 =
ted Feb. 81. His Honor the Mayor uses
the Following language for not vetotn1
ne contracts The fact that soma
class paving brick should be. should
not enter into the contention when
| city specifications are bid upon and
guarantee made OF fulnllment under
city test and inspection III test Of
wear in the street is the only test 20
guide us. we could. under such a avs
TEN. never get the benefit OF a new
and improved paving brick However.
representations made 10 me by repre-
ssntstives OF the unsuccessful company
were not produced In such manner
mat 1 can present you proof of un-
fairness Hence. do not feel privi-
Legged to exercise the veto power" This
statement upon the part Of the Mayor.
under his own signature. Is In direct
contradiction to the position taken by
him upon the approval OF these bills
since June 1. At that time, in APPROX
Ing the contracts, the Mayor used the
language above quoted and we are at
| a los TO understand how he reconciles
4 the osition taken In his veto messages
with the communication approving the
| contracts. Your Committee does not
take the position that brick furnished
the City Of Detroit should not be sub
| tected TO either RATHER or absorption
! every possible precaution should be
| takep~in seeing that the City Of be-
| troit getsNthe best quality OF paving
] brick Ia the market. but 10 IL a ar.
i heult thing te enter into -speciac
| contract and at a later date attemD, to
impose therein conditions and provis-
ions OF which the-biAaeFs were not
cOgnizant Of at the time the proposals
wesc advertised for. Your COMMITTEE
/ believe that RATHER. absorption and
compression test should be made =
/ part OF the specifications but 20 at
| tempt 10 amend n contract OF impose
| the performance Of certain conditions
not contained In the original contract
4 IL unfair and unbusinesslike. and while
some OF the brick furnished the DE-.
partmont of Public Works may not. In
the judgment Of the Mayor. como up