Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-09-03
G|LLEN TAKES ONE
MORE RAP At FOES
Says He Turned Down Invita-.
tons of BituIithic Represen-
tative Repeatedly.

Board of Works Commissioner Gil
len today took another rap at his
opponents in the bitulithic pavement
controversy. He declared that several
time he has been invited to attend a
private conference" with r. w. Tur-
ner. representing the Standard Btu
lithic Company, for the purpose of
having an understanding" None of
the invitations was accepted.
The commissioner. in his statement.
tells his surprise over the sudden dis
covery by Mr.. Turner of Mr.. Gillen's
motives for bringing to an issue the
pavement matter. His latest utter
ances is a rejoinder to the attack on
him made yesterday by the head of
the bitulithic concern. Mr.. Gillen
says:
When nearly all the signers of
bitulithic petitions are withdrawing
their names from the petitions and
demanding the open specifications,
the bitulithic trust has suddenly dis
covered a motive in mby fight against
it. 1t certainly is queer that this
motive was never mentioned before
by Messrs. Turner and Hoyt, presi-
dent and vice. president of the Stand
ard Bitulithic Company.
Some months ago / publicly re-
lated the record that the bitulithic
trust had left behind it in many
places where it had operated; / told
of the numerous scandals connected
with its operations in many cities. 1
told how Governor Sulzer, last April,
/ after an investigation through his
State Highways Department, had
/ RqnEp1ad ~ ~ do ha
ltulithic trust for the paving of TWEEN
ty-three miles or road on Long Island.
Says Suit Was Threatened.
Then the trust sent it's counsel.
Mr.. McCarter to our board meeting
to scare me by threatening suit. I'm
mediately following, tore up the
pavements put down in Newark by
the bitulithic trust and found them
in most cases to be from six to seven
and a half inches in depth, instead of
eight and half inches required by
! the specifications.
1 "AIessrs. Hoyt and Turner claim
| that the Standard Bitulithic Com
pany is independent of the Warren
Bros Company. Warm Bros. hold
the patents on bithulitn;c As mat
! te- OF fact, Warren Bros. hold the
I majority of stock in the standard
]
] own and control it. The STANDARD
Bithulithic Company is merely sub
I sidiary of the Warren Bros Com
! pany. / know this % be true, be-
cause Mr.. Hoyt himself told me in
the presence of a friend.
/ Regarding competition in bithu-
lithic. Mr.. Hoyt says the Standard
I Bithulithic Company last week
quoted the price of s1.S2 a yard 10
! five local competitors, although he
! states it is the first time the COM
pany ever quoted a figure to con-
tractors, but will be willing to do so
in the future. Now. isn't that nice
of the Standard Bitulithic Company
] AS a result of the. alleged competi-
ton FIR. Hoyt says several contSac-
! tors bid on Nineteenth avenue Mr..
| Mcmahon being low at s2.14 per yard.
/ The trust itself refrained from bid
| ding for the sake of politeness. It
must be remembered that the price
! quoted to the city was not 1892 per
yard, but sl.45.
Analysis of s2.14 Bid.
Now let us analyze Mr.. McMahon's
bid of s2.14 per yard:
Lowest cost of bithulithic per
yard ....................- 81. j.
Lowest cost of 6-inch concrete
base per yard. ................. ST
Lowest cost of hauling and lay
] ing bithulithic ...8. Ii
Total ..................... Ia
Profit per yard. ................. Ii
Total ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
IF Mr.. Hoyt is correct in stating
that Mr.. Mahon must pay S1.32 per
yard for the material to the trust
then Mr.. Mahon viii have the extreme
pleasure of losing Ii cents per yard or
every yard he lays. Is Mr.. Hoyt posi-.
| tive that Il different arrangement has
not been made with Mr.. Mahon, and a
lower price than s1.32 given?
Mr.. Hoyt says the Warren Bros
have no plant in this vicinity, but the
Standard Bituiichic Company has a
plant in Harrison. Isn't Harrison
| supposed to be sin this yicinitye"
As to the difference between btu
lithic and Topeka Sterling laid under
the so-called open specification says
Mr.. Hoyt, there was no comparison
| between the two pavements. The To-
| peka, in which smaller stones were
| used. will not stand up as well as
bitulithic, and al competent engineers
will admit this fact
T. In reply to Mr.. Hoyt, l want to
say that the mixture in both pave
IHeIlls IS HOlHliS out aSphalt, Sano
and crushed stone. The only differ.
ence is the size of crushed stone and
the enormous difference in the price. ;
Here Commissioner Gillen quotes
Chief Engineer Sherrerd's statement
made at Erie, Pa. against the wear
ing qualities of bitulithic and tht
property of its patent based on the
size of stones used. He goes on;
Says Six Contractors Bid.
Mr.. Turner says 1 have voted fol-
wood block and asphalt block, and
they are both monopolies. In the
case of the wood block pavement il
Broad street six contractors bid. Is
that a monopoly? In the case OF
asphalt block | voted in the board tc
sustain the mayors veto, on ths
ground that it was controlled by a
monopoly The matter VS. then re-
ferred to our engineering der Srtment
for a report. and after a thorcSgf
Investigation Mr.. Sherrerd reported
back that SspSalt block could be pur-
chased from more than a dozen COM
panies. and was not controlled by d
monopoly.
Mr.. Turner has dragged Harry B
O'Connelrs name into this contro-
versy. have never publicly in meet
ing or in press connected Mr.. O'Con'
|