The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-09-16

The Warren Brothers Co. of Boston, manufacturers of the bitulithic pave ment on Bridgeport streets. has ad- dressed a letter to the finance con- mission of Boston, disputing charges of city consulting engineer. The let ter follows:-
 Boston, Sept. g, 1916. To the Honorable Finance Commission
 of the City of Boston, Mass. Gentlemen:-
 "Our attention is called to the re- port of your Honorable Commission dated Sept. 7th, 1916, addressed to the Mayor and City Council, embodying report of your Consulting Engineer to the Finance Commission dated Aug. 16th, 1916.
 eve wish to reiterate that the statements made in our letters to the Finance Commission of June 7th, 1916: and June 18th, 1916, are true, and we would be pleased to prove them to any impartial person. Unfor- tunately your Consulting Engineer did not visit our laboratory or go over the streets with your Honorable Com mission, although he was invited to do so. Your Consulting Engineers un- fair and prejudiced attitude toward this company and the Bitulithic pave- ment was clearly shown at our confer- ence with your Honorable commission. and his report to you of August 18th can either be ascribed to prejudice or lack of experience and knowledge re- garding the construction of bitumi- nous movements. Whatever 'advertis- ing thiscompany has done in the mat ter has been made necessary to cor rect the erroneous statements emanat- ing from your Consulting Engineer concerning this company and it's bus mess which were given full publicity in the public press and which if un- answered, would have done great damage to our business and would have placed us in an improper posi- tion before the public.
 "The same reasons which actuated us in addressing our two previous communications to your Honorable Commission are responsible for this one, and we assure you that the neces- sity therefore is deeply regretted by us. We will reply as briefly as possible. The numbers in the margin refer to the summary in your Consulting En- gineers report.
 "1. The weight of two CD inch Bitulithic Surface including Seal Coat as specified and laid in Boston, is ap- proximately 2S6 pounds per square yard, not 232 pounds as stated by your Engineer. The materials in the mix ture (after heating and loss of mois- ture and waste) are accurately weigh ed into each batch and batch weighs 1775 pounds. Each batch under our rules of operation lays 6.75 square yards, therefore,
 "The weight of mixture alone is 26a lbs. per square yard.
 "The flushcoat bitumen weighs about 2 lbs. per square yard.
 "The hot stone chips weigh about 20 lbs. per square yard.
 Weight of pavement 2S5 lbs. pel square yard.
 We will welcome an examination by your Consulting Engineer or his | inspectors at our plant and on the street where these figures can readily be corroborated. We are unable tt state whether the eight samples ol Bitulithic examined by him, the aver. age of which he reports to weigh 23: pounds 2 inch thick. are fair repre- sentative samples. He assumes, how ever, that the f1ushcoat bitumen ana screenings add no permanent weigh or thickness to the pavement. I would be of interest to known wha the actual weight per square yard ant thickness, including Seal Coat, O. these several samples are. We art certain that they are far greater thar the figures given by MT. Emerson. 'The weight of Sheet Asphalt sam pies reported by your Consulting En gineer is within five per cent. of oul stated weight (200 pounds per squar' yard) the slight excess being probabl. due to the case of unusually coars' grained sand. MT. Emerson state that a sample of Broad St., Provi dence, weighed 213.3 pounds. Thi street must have been very variable as sample we have weighed only 19 pounds per square yard two inche thick.
 "The weight of Topeka Mixture us ing trap rock and laid as specified pc square yard is about 209 pounds. tw, inches thick as stated by us and no 222 pounds as stated by your Consult ing Engineer. Unless he has mad mistakes in figuring his weights. w unhesitatingly state that the sample reported were not laid in accordanc with the Topeka specifications, am this fact would have been clear to an one familiar with the subject by a cas ual examination of the samples. w would comment on these so-calle Topeka samples and reported weight as follows:
 Providence, 215.2 lbs. per squar yard. This is within 3 per cent o . our reported weight, and the mixtur probably contains more coarse ma terial than the Topeka Specification permit.
 South Park Commission, Chicago
 229.1 lbs. The South Park 'Commis
 sion has laid considerable amoun , of pavement under specification
 which flagrantly infringe our patent
 and for which we intend to hold tn
 Commission liable for heavy damage. The sample referred to cannot be with
 in the Topeka specifications and
 doubtless an infringement.
 Seymour, Connecticut, 220.3 lb! The State Highway Commission (
 Connecticut laid some pavements i
 1Q12 ,,pder contra cts for TOpeka whi c