Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1915-07-02
Messrs. j. C. Christopher and Elgee Riggs.
Laytonsville, Maryland.

Messrs j. c. Christopher and Elgee Riggs.
LaytOnsville, Maryland.
Dear Sirs II acknowledge the receipt Of
your letter of June 18th. My letter of
June 5th, to which you refer and misquOte,
was plain statement of facts which ought
to enable anyone to form just judgment
in the whole matter. hold no brief to
defend those concerned in the original
construction and repair of this road (the
State officials) nor am | personally con-
cerned in il.
As to the suggested plan you refer to,
accepting your representations. it appeared
feasible. but when the matter was taken
up with the contractors they would not
agree to equip and move in except on
agreement to expend the amount available,
and we profted by it by lower pro rata
cost.
The Commissioners agreed TO this on my
recommendation, as. in my judgment. no
part of this money should have been spent
for temporary repairs.
did not state. as you quote. AN addi-
tiOnal amount was paid Mr.. Williams for
damage caused by hauling stone on
his farm" but | stated. IAN agreement
to pay him for the use of his land on
a yardage basis" QOr crushing outside
stone at the crusher on his land)
AS you say you have my letter of Au-
gust 2lst. 1913. to Mr.. Williams. which
contains full statement Of the conditions
(and which is too long to quote) you must
be fully aware of the situation confronting
us at that time and your reference to it is
disingenuOus and misleading. In it | do
not admit the boring and other tests were
not made until after the work was long
underway" as stated by you. but say,
After opening up the uarryit was found
the surface indications were misleading
and the main ledge was soft and dis
integrated and unsuitable for this work,
and at much cost test holes and openings
were made in the endeavOr to find suit
able stone, but without avail" This was
to meet Mr.. Williams contention that
having opened up this quarry at some
damage to him. we ought not to abandon
il and should still endeavOr to get stone
from his quarry
Our contract with him was simple
agreement Of sale and purchase. with the
right of ingress and egress over his land
and TO set up the crushing plant. There
was no expectation at that time Of the
necessity 10 get stone elsewhere After
using all the nearby stone. the nearest
available stone was at Gray's, which, Of
course necessitated moving the crusher
From the outcrop of this stone, reports
from officials of the Office OF Public Roads
and examination Of expert quarrymen. we
had every reason to believe a sufficient
quantity Of good stone could be obtained
and before deciding drill tests were made
over quite an area. which confirmed surface
indications Of large underlying body. the
quality, however. could not be determined
until after actual quarryine operations.
! did not make an estimate Of cost Of
plain "macadam with tar surface costing
as much as tar concrete"
My estimate Of the plain macadam with
tar surface was $1,000 per mile for four
teen-fOot roadway with heavy base, while
a tar concrete at $140 per square yard
would cost for the same width $l1.500. Il
is possible lower price might be obtained
il the thickness be reduced to four-inch
base with two-inch tar surface.
The cost Of tar surface varies with the
material used. and the figures Of $500 per
mile we're based on using heavier tar
than tarvia b. to which our funds restricted
US. and also for a fourteen-foot road in
stead Of twelve foot. as is the section you
mention.
You ask how are we expected to keep
up these roads with available fundsY"
We have $50 regular levy IL the auto
mobile funds are prorated on a mileage
basis Of State Aid Roads. they would yield
$225 per mile, and probably increase fifty
per cent. next year; II the six-cent levy