Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1915-08-07
ACCEPTS Def ON
PAVING QUESTION
Argus Has Never Shown Prejudice
Against Amy Material the Peo-
pie Wanted.
FILES SHOW STAND ASSUMED
Mentioned Material Such as Directors
Want on Ninth Street for the Four
teeRth Street Job.

The Argus has beer challenged to
show where il ever said anything in
favor Of the use of paving material
such as has been proposed by the OBJ
jectors for Ninth street. It makes
haste TO respond. More than two years
ago, or. 10 be exact. on Feb. 4. 1918, this
newspaper made editorial reference TO
this type Of paving after news stories
had been printed giving the trend Of
discussion among property owners on
Fourteenth street. who were then CON
sidering the improvement Of their
thoroughfare. The files are open TO
examination by anyone who cares TO
inspect them.
At this time the material was re-
ferred to as tar macadam" because
that was the term used in the property
owners meeting. Tar maCadam does
not differ greatly from asphalt ma
Cadam and evidently the owners sup
posed that they were identical Tar
macadam, it is said. needs resurfac- /
ing about every five years. Where
asphalt is used as a binder the surface
is said TO stand up somewhat longer.
The Argus is not in the paving bust
ness now nor was it at that time. 1t
did not and does not profess to possess +
expert knowledge regarding the wear
ing qualities Of asphalt or tar ma
cadam. 1t argued then. as it argues
now and @as it always has held that
the property owners should investigate
and determine for themselves. It's
freedom from prejudice now, then and
against any special kind Of pavement
could be no better shown than by re-
production of the editorial printed
Feb. I, 1913, which was as follows:
OWNERS HAVE RIGHTS.
If the property owners of Four
teeuth street south OF Ninth ave-
nue. are able to show that tar ma
cadam is standard material for
street Improvement and is being
used with success elsewhere there
is no good reason for the board
of local improvements to deny
them the use OF it in paving their
thoruoghfare Those owning
frontage on the street argue very
properly that they are paying for
the work and are more vitality in
terested than anyone else and that
they have a right to say what
kind of paving shall be laid pro
Fided their choice is a reasonable
one They point to the fact that
tar macadam is and has been for
some time in general use in some /
of the larger cities in parks and in
residence streets that do not bear
heavy traffic and that contract for
hundreds OF thousands Of yards
more Of it are to be let this sea
son. There are samples of this
kind of Improvement in Davenport /
and on one of the driveways at /
Rock Island arsenal They ad-
NIT that this variety of paving is
not suitable where the traffic is
heavy and that resurfacjng at the /
end of five years is advisable,
guarantee for five years being re /
quired Of the concern doing the
work. Resurfacing however,
will not cost as much as Will the
reIaving of asphalt which usually
wears out in eight or ten years.
Tar macadam is not a patented !
article and no concern will have
monopoly, a feature that the state
law aims TO prohibit.
While the board of local i'm /
pr0vements is given broad powers
in the inauguration and direction
Of such work. good policy on its /
part seems to demand. at least in 7
the present instance, that its part /
in the selection of paving material /
he limited to the protection Of the /
public against imposition and /
fraud
And now will the organ Of obstruo- +
ton please be good enough TO come Z
forward and show when IT first dis /
covered" and advocated the use of /