Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-02-09
SC0RESAWARD|NG
Of BRICK CONTRACT
H. E. Stringer Tells House
Group His Firm Is Dis.
eliminated Against.

Differences bstween the municipal
architects ONCE and the Hydraulic
rreas Brick Co. which operates a plant
across the Potomac River from wash.
ington. In which tn: latter company
charges 1t has been Disseminated
against in tn: purchase OF brick for
Washington schools and sewer con-
tracts, were aired at q hearing before
the Gibson subcommittee Of the House
District committee today. with Henry T.
StftnSer. vice president Of tho cent.
psny. % the witness. ~
:. Chairman Gibson also called a. 0
witness Edwin Graves who was DIS
charged from his position as an engi.
neer at Gallinger Hospital, Mr.. Gibson
said btcaNse he. had given Information
TO the Gibson investigating commit
tee and the Bureau Of Efficiency and
had charged thst employees were steal
ING Government property.
Offers Correspondence.
Mr.. Stringer' laid before the com.
rnittee copies OF correspondence with
the municipal architects once. the
Engineer Commissioner. and lsdger
ACSVAA0 N&FEAAAk Vn0Ab3 va AAAH AVUtknNNE
to secure o share Of the District BUSH
neSs. He said that while his company
can meet the specifications In New
York. New Jersey and other States for
school buildings. they are unable TO
meet specifications for Washington
schools on account Of the peculiar
methods employed In the municipal
architects once.
As one Illustration. he said that the
architect insists on Colonial brick for
certain buildings that are not o! colonial
design. and that such bricks are laid
with raked mortar joints. o method
never employed In Colonial days, In
one instance, the contractors told him
that they could have cut their price
$1,000 70 $1,000 II they had known that
they could have used the brick Mr..
Stringer offered
He told the committee that ne was
willing TO lay the records Of four years
In writing before them and allow them
70 decide whether they we're dtscfini-
mated against
Sees Yavesitisaa.
He. expressed conviction that othN
brick interests seemed. 20 be favore.S
anf when Representative Bowman OF
west Virginia asked who was fas-
ored. said that most Of the bricks
bought In recent years were from the
United Clay Products Co. a brokerage
concern.
he said that ~ agent for other brick
he had offered hrtcks that
were rejected BY the municipal archi.
tect and the same make OF bricks sub
seQuently were approved when offered
by the brokerage company.
He also called attcntiM 10 the re-
cent controversy over 1000. coo sewer
brick tor which an associate. John
CLARK. had made q bid at sa<. while
the brokerage concern had received the
award after quoting q price q $:<,yS.
Tests or THO bricks submitted by the
two concerns were made al the Bureau
,f Standards. showing u slight advan-
laee Tor those offered BY Mr., Clark. Tn.
der this contract, 10 carloads have been
sblpped, on which tina once Of the Con.
lrcller General has ruled that payment
cannot 30 made - they were bought at
me higher price on tbs competitive
market
Representative sowuan said, .you
have laid the grounds foe very serious
against the rnunieipai srchi.
lettS once" and asked Mir. SnMe~r
now far he could 10 IN pguyins Ms
It was then that Mr..
strinscr said no would law the tocu.
ments before the committee.
Mr.. .strtnaer said that statements he
vas making 10 the sunccHMlttee ple-
itously had been made before Munte.pai |
architect NATrta at q conference With |
ne Engineer Commissioners. Col. Iadus /
ma that Mr., Harris had no. yet 70. |
oiled % them |