The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-06-26
This Paving Brick Controversy.

II =
seems to be considerable uncertainty
as to the facts In this brick contro
yersy now going on. and as am some
what familiar with the facts In the
case from my experience as special
paving inspector for the Detroit Mu
nicipal league for seven years, | will
ask space TO present a few OF them 70
the end that the taxpayers may know
where they are at.
Now. there Is a very great diner
ence OF opinion as TO methods and
merits OF testing paving brick, and
from my observation OF results In actu
al service, doubt II any test that was
ever tried other than the test OF actu
al wear In the street Is worth it's cost
Several years ago We were working
under those tumbler and water-soak
ing tests, and laid a portion OF Chene
st with the Perkins block which was
very nice looking brick, but II APP
peared 60 be soft and would soak wa
ter almost like a sponge. Probably
| 40 to so per cent OF the brick brought
to that Job we're rejected on the water
and color test, despite which a lot OF
soft brick got into that pavement. but
they were tough brick and are wear.
ing well. On the other hand lot OF
| Collingwood brick laid on woodbridge
st. east that same year passed all
tests TO a position In the finished street
when a lot OF soft watersoaking brick
| showed up there and they have not
| worn well at all. About the same time
we were laying lot OF Logan bricks
and those put In on st. Aubin and Elm
wood-aves. were so very badly broken
| by the roller that there was talk OF
rejecting the brand as generally de-
fective, when a street was laid on the
west side OF the city with thicker
sand cushion and very little breakage
resulted from the roller pressure. This
experience resulted In change OF the
specification on cushion sand under
brick pavements.
Now as to tests and inspections
these brick were all put In subject &c
the RATHER and water-soaking tests but
proved to be both good and bad In
spite of all OF them. Next, as to guar
antees. Here think is the only safe
guard. II Is true we used TO have
guarantees ON our brick In those ole
days. but the bricks were bought sub
ject to delivery on some railway sid
ing In or around Detroit, the con
tractor or the city paying for hauling
same to the street to be paved, anC
again hauling to some place OF the
street all rejected brick. This methoS
of purchase brought two results, |
carelessness In inspection and tempta
ton to work in inferior brick, al
once a brick was fast In the stree
there was very little likelihood OF III
coming out until It was worn out. ant
/ doubt II many makers or thei
agents ever made good on their sup
posed guarantees.
Commissioner Haarer changed al
this and solicited bids for brick to b.
delivered on the street on which the!
were to be laid, with proviso that al
rejected brick must be removed wher
laying was completed, and per cen
OF the purchase price of the brick wal
held back on payment for three years
TO see IL the brick In the street helc
good In service Now, to my mind, thii
| beats all the advance tests ever ye
devised. | am a little In doubt as Il
whether the three-year guarantee anC
8 per cent deposit Is enough to covel
| all risks, but OF course the city In the
| end takes all the risks and pays fol
the guarantees 30 that the increased
cost Of brick In the first place ma,
more than offset the difference In time
of guarantee and amount OF reserve
| This would surely be the case where
q good brick was shipped In the frs
place and with the above mentioned
checks. A manufacturer or agen
would be a fool to ship inferior bricl
unless he had standin with the com
missioner, and in all my years OF as
ISOLATION with him and his work
have never heard his honesty or goot
intentions called in question.
8. G.. HOWE.
| natroit June "a 1911