The Monmouth inquirer. [volume] (Freehold, N.J.) 1865-1933, 1923-02-01

! fore joint session of the legisla-
ture Governor George S. Silzer an
| nounced that he had removed the
members of the State Highway Com
mission. The announcement was con-
tanned in long message on the whole
question of good roads. 1t was the
first time in New Jerseys history that
an executive had personally read his
message.
In making known that he had
ousted the board of eight members
sin the public interest" Governor
Silzer said that although his action
leaves the state without highway
commission he would not now fill the
vacancies. In removing the commits
sion, he added I do not cast any re-
Election upon the members. He re-
ferred to the recommendation in his
inaugural address that a board Of
ated this suggestion.
In conference with the Republi-
can majority senators after an adj
dress the governor received assur
ance that the plan for a three-man
beard would be supported If he
showed the majority senators list
oil his proposed annointees and chose
them geographically.
by making the membership three"
said the governor in his address to
the Joint session. "the board will take
a broader view Of the problem and
will not be subject to local Influences.
It will also be possible to put respon-
sibility directly upon these men, in
stead OF so dividing it,
GAS with so many OF our public
affairs" said Mr.. Silzer, I'VE have
drifted in the matter of road con-
! struction expenditures. Expanding
our program, we have not kept pace
in protecting public expenditures.
Even mere scratching of the sur
fpce discloses the fact that our funds
are used extravagantly, and that
there is corruption and a great deal
| OF waste. The principal elements en-
tering into the problem are cement.
asphalt and labor.
critlcizes patent" Paving
THE great abuse has been in the
use of so-called patent paving.
am told that the original patent, if
it ever was worth anything, has ex-
pired, and that later claims have lit
tie or no value, and that the type of
pavement is no better and no worse
than others of similar character east
ly obtained
THE evils have grown out of the
use of closed specifications; that is,
specifications in which only patent
pavement may be used. The method
enables the favored contractor to get
the contract at an excessive price.
ITO illustrate, where patent pave
ment is called for, the price of such
patent surfacing would be S2.35
square yard, while that of other sheet
asphalt of just as good quality would
be $150, making a difference in cost
of IS cents a square yard.
I'm addition to this, the patent sur
facing would be two inches deep,
while the other asphalt surfacing
would be three inches, giving so per
cent more material for the surface of
the road at a less cost. Considering
the difference IN price and in ma
terial, there is a distinct loss of 81
per square yard in cost. When we
have clearly in mind that the taxpay-
ers are losing 81 on each square yard
of road, we can see that something
must be done at once.
MY information is that during the
last year patent paving surfaces
amounting to 100000 yards were
laid on State roads or roads receiving
State aid.
Il believe that most taxpayers will
be surprised to learn that in the
building of a road having six-inch
concrete base 1t costs about 81 to
lay that six inches of concrete and
$235 to lay two inches of surfacing,
tina two inches of patent surfacing
costing 35 cents more than six inches
| Of concrete. OF course, 81 of the lat
tsr should never have been paid.
''One dollar excess on a cost OF