construction, when 3 inches of Topeka, according to his statement, would have cost only 96 cents?" The writer has at no time stated his belief that Topeka should be used as a substitute for standard sheet asphalt. He believes, however, that the material is suitable, when properly laid, for pavements in the same class of streets in which bitulithic is suitable, that is, streets with light horsedrawn traffic and automobile traffic, at a much lower price than for bitulithic. Also, the writer was not at the time acquainted with the merits of Topeka mixture and it appears that the decision of Judge Pollock in the Topeka case, which made the mixture available for general use, was not filed until May 26, 1910, about the time the writer went out of office, i. e., June 7, 1910. As regards brick pavement laid in the Roxbury district in 1909, the statement of Warren Brothers Company that "your 'consulting engineer,' as Superintendent of Streets of the City of Boston, laid a number of streets with brick pavements in 1909, which brick pavements are generally already in wretched condition," is not borne out by the facts. These brick pavements were laid largely on account of enthusiastic recommendations of such pavements, after an examination of such pavements in the city of Bridgeport, Conn., a city with which Warren Brothers Company is not entirely unacquainted. The work secured in Boston, on account of unforeseen contingencies due to a newly enacted sewer statute, on account of which many trenches were dug in the streets at the same time the pavements were being laid, was not of as good quality as might have been obtained. These pavements have already been discussed both in the published and unpublished reports of the Finance Commission. The streets in general, however, are in excellent condition and good for many years' further service. As regards the Morton street pavement, Warren Brothers Company states that bituminous concrete "claimed to be as good as' bitulithic was laid at a cost of 67 cents per square yard for surface only in 1909." A mistake was undoubtedly made by a subordinate of the Street Department, who allowed the contractor to deviate from the specifications, after statement that the quality of asphalt called for could not be immediately obtained. This permission was unfortunate and, coupled with the foundation of some parts of Morton street, undoubtedly secured poorer pavement than might have been obtained. The writer has no recollection or record of ever making the "claim" attributed to him by Warren Brothers Company and doubts if it ever was made. The statement, however, is probably true as regards some of the bitulithic laid by Warren Brothers Company. Other examples of bitulithic are undoubtedly of better quality than was the Morton street pavement. The cost per square yard, 67 cents, is significant, as showing the approximate proper price for bitulithic or other coarse aggregate bituminous concrete pavements. a As regards the pavement on Huntington avenue, in the neighborhood of the Opera House, although the writer has no actual figures of cost, the prediction is made that the figures will show it to have cost less for repairs than the bitulithic pavement on Dartmouth street, from Stuart street to Copley square, for an equal length of service. The writer, with the advantages of aftersight, frankly admits errors in judgment by himself and his subordinates during his terms as Superintendent of Streets. He trusts that he has profited by these errors sufficiently to prevent in some measure the foisting on the City of Boston of inferior pavements at exorbitant prices. The length of the foregoing statement has been necessary in order to submit evidence to refute the bald statements of Warren Brothers Company's letters. For convenience the essential points are summarized as follows: 1. (a.) Eight samples of bitulithic examined show the average weight, 2 inches thick, to be approximately 232 pounds per square yard. (b.) A weight of 286 pounds per square yard, as claimed by Warren Brothers Company, is physically impossible. 2. No mysterious or unusual ingredients are contained in bitulithic, and the same or equally good materials can easily be obtained for any type of bituminous pavement. 3. The excess weight of bitulithic over Topeka, when made of the same grade of materials, is principally on account of the larger amount of asphalt in Topeka, which displaces stone, as compared with bitulithic. 4. Weight alone is of little, if any, importance in determining the wearing qualities of bituminous pavements. 5. Using the same grade of materials, Topeka and standard asphalt are more expensive to manufacture than bitulithic. 6. The cost of bitulithic in Boston, including labor, materials and plant charges, does not necessarily exceed 64 cents per square yard, 2 inches thick. 7. There is no appreciable difference in the cost of handling stone and sand in constructing bituminous pavements. 8. There is no substantial increase in cost for hauling bitulithic over Topeka and Standard asphalt mixtures. 9. The same machinery is suitable to manufacture any type of bituminous pavement. 10. The flush or seal coat is sometimes used on Topeka, but is not needed for Standard asphalt. 11. Only the best grade of materials should be specified or allowed for use in any type of bituminous pavement. 12. The brick pavements in the Roxbury di trict, laid in 1908 and 1909, are in general in excellent condition. 13. Bitulithic was not excluded from the City of Boston specifications in 1908 and 1909, as no specifications were prepared, contractors being at liberty to submit bids on any type of bituminous pavement that they would guarantee. Warren Brothers Company preferred to submit bids for Standard asphalt. Respectfully submitted, Placed on file. GUY C. EMERSON, Consulting Engineer. The following was received: Boston Finance Commission, September 14, 1916. To the Honorable the City Council: THE FINANCE COMMISSION, To the Finance Commission: Gentlemen, -A letter of seven pages, under date of September 9, 1916, has been received from Ralph C. Warren, general manager of the Warren Brothers Company. The document is evidently intended to be an answer to my reply to the letters of Warren Brothers Company, dated June 7 and June 12, 1916, respectively. How long the public, the Finance Commission, the City Council and the Boston newspapers should be required to endure the discussion is a question. According to information received from the City Clerk this latest letter of Warren Brothers Company has been presented to the City Council and as extracts have been printed in certain of the daily papers another answer seems to be demanded. Nothing appears in Warren Brothers Company's statement to cast any doubts upon the accuracy of the figures presented in my previous letter, within the limits of accuracy possible for such work. Several of the answers of Warren Brothers Company were anticipated in my previous letter. Either the letter was not completely read else the company chose to disregard the statements for the purpose of further argument. or Answering the categorical statements of the latest letter of Warren Brothers Company: 1. The method by which Warren Brothers Company probably arrived at the weight of bitulithic was fully explained in my previous report. The accuracy of the explanation was proven by the later statement of Warren Brothers Company. The contention of Warren Brothers Company amounts to the claim that it is possible to mix stone with sand, asphalt and fine dust, each of which is lighter than stone, and secure a mixture which, volume for volume, is heavier than the solid stone. The absurdity of this contention will be recognized by the general public, if not by Warren Brothers Company. No further statement seems to be necessary. As stated in my letter the weights given by me for bitulithic include in them the weight remaining from the seal coat last applied. There is no necessity for me to visit the Warren Brothers Company's plant or "laboratory." I have ample apparatus for making any tests which I choose to make. I have also the use of a wellequipped laboratory whenever I care to use it. I have no desire to play the part of the fly to Warren Brothers Company's spider. At least one of the gentlemen who prepared the figures upon which my principal calculations were based has a laboratory that compares favorably in equipment with any laboratory in the country. The others have laboratories sufficient for all purposes. As regards the various samples of Topeka examined by me, the composition of Topeka is as uncertain as is the composition of bitulithic. The quantities of the different sizes of stone in the mixture may vary within wide limits. This is shown by the formula agreed to by Warren Brothers Company as not infringing on its patents and published over its own signature in the report of the American Society of Municipal Improvements for 1915, page 423. The claim made that the samples examined by me are an infringement on Warren Brothers Company's patents can hardly be accepted upon the statement of a prejudiced party like Warren Brothers Company. It would be better to wait for a decision of the courts before making positive statements in the matter. 2. This paragraph contains nothing requiring an answer. 3. The figure in my estimate giving the amount of asphalt in a square yard of bitulithic from Columbia road as 16.82 pounds was prepared from the figures of an actual analysis, as stated in my previous report. The figure of 20.5 pounds given by Warren Brothers Company, if true, does not materially change the figures of my estimate. There is ample surplus in my prices to cover any such slight difference. 4. Warren Brothers Company evades my questions regarding certain streets by saying that the work speaks for itself. It certainly does. I am content to leave the matter with its statement. 5. Warren Brothers Company is undoubtedly in a position to know the cost of bitulithic. Unfortunately for the information of the general public it keeps these costs to itself and there is no indication in its latest letter that it is likely to divulge them. 6. As regards the items which Warren Brothers Company seems to think I have omitted from my estimate, I have tried to make it plain that the figures included "labor, materials and plant investment only," and although I enumerated some items which were not included the statement perhaps would have been more complete had I placed etc., etc.," at the end. Answering again Warren Brothers Company's categorical claims: (a.) The materials in bitulithic can be purchased in the open market by any purchaser at the prices estimated by me or less. (6.) The quantities were from the analyses of a competent chemist, with which I had no connection. (c.) The possibility of trap rock shrinking during the operation of mixing and laying is certainly an original claim. No doubt some of the volatile oils in asphalt are lost during cooking and the neglect of this contingency is one of the errors into which Warren Brothers Company may have fallen in trying to prove its figures of weight. The same action undoubtedly takes place in the preparation of both sheet asphalt and Topeka. This action may also account for the difference between the weight of asphalt found by the Finance Commission's chemist and the weight claimed by Warren Brothers Company as being incorporated in its mixture. (d.) The estimate for labor both for mixing and laying were made from the figures of a large asphalt plant in actual operation. (c.) Fuel at plant and street was included in my figures. Power is included. Plant repairs are included. Plant depreciation is included. Taxes, insurance, fire and accident, are not of sufficient importance to include in a "square yard" estimate of pavement. Superintendence was included. The estimate provided for incidental expenses. Laboratory was specifically excluded in my statement. Interest on investment was included. Cost of surety bonds was specifically excluded. Administrative expenses, such as office, printing, advertising, canvassing, hotel expenses, entertainments or legal services were specifically excluded. Nothing in Items 7 to 11 seems to require any answer. As regards the denial of Warren Brothers Company that it has ever used a mixture of coal tar and asphalt, the statement was made according to information that was at one time in general circulation among contractors, on account of the apparent presence of coal tar in the sample of bitulithic from Huntington avenue, and on account of statements by a former employee in Warren Brothers Company's laboratory. To prevent further argument and also as it has no significance in the present discussion, I am willing for the present to accept the statement of Warren Brothers Company as correct. I wish to assure the Finance Commission that I have no prejudice against bitulithic as paving material, unless a disinclination to accept it as the equal of sheet asphalt for use under heavy traffic can be regarded as a prejudice. I have frequently recommended it as a good pavement in streets to which it is suitable, as will be shown by an examination of the Finance Commission's reports. I have, however, a decided prejudice against the price which Warren Brothers Company charges to the City of Boston for bitulithic, as well as against some of its methods. So far as I know none of the gentlemen who assisted me in making analyses even knew the name of the material which they were analyzing. An attempt to end the present discussion seems to be nearly as difficult as the problem of sweeping back the sea. I trust, however, that the above will be the last communication which it is necessary to submit on the present phase of the bitulithic discussion. Placed on file. Respectfully submitted, Samuel Altman, keeping and sale of gasolene, 1110 Commonwealth avenue. American Sugar Refining Company, keeping of gasolene, 52 Granite street. Beacon Auto Garage, keeping and sale of gasolene, 21 Hampshire street. United Drug Company, keeping of gasolene, 63 Leon street. John H. Burns, keeping and sale of gasolene, 4 New England avenue. William M. Ware, keeping of gasolene, 11 Sayward street. Carpenter-Morton Company, keeping and sale of gasolene, 77 Sudbury street (Alden street side). Montgomery Brothers, keeping, storage, manufacture and sale of liquid rubber cement, rear 285 Dorchester avenue. Placed on file. DELEGATES TO IRRIGATION CONGRESS. A communication was received from the secretary of the Irrigation Congress inviting the appointment of five delegates to attend said Congress in El Paso, Texas, October 14 to 24, 1916. Placed on file. SIDEWALK SCHEDULE. A communication was received from the Commissioner of Public Works giving cost of sidewalk construction on Blue Hill avenue, easterly side, between Stratton and Morton streets, and Braintree street, between Franklin and Everett streets, and recommending the passage of the following: Ordered, That the persons named in the schedules be and the same are hereby assessed the sums set against their respective names as their proportional part of the cost of constructing sidewalks along easterly side of Blue Hill avenue, between Stratton and Morton streets, and on Braintree street, between Franklin and Everett streets, amounting to $2,268.54. The order was passed. SALE OF UNCLAIMED BAGGAGE. Coun. MCDONALD, for the Committee on Unclaimed Baggage, submitted a report on petition of Boston Terminal Company (referred May 22) for leave to sell unclaimed baggage-recommending the passage of the following: Ordered, That the Boston Terminal Company be hereby authorized to sell at public auction, on or before October 25, 1916, and after publication of the time and place of sale, according to law, the articles left and remaining unclaimed in the possession of said company in the City of Boston. Report accepted; order passed. SOLDIERS' RELIEF. Coun. BALLANTYNE, for the Committee on Soldiers' Relief, submitted a report recommending the passage of an order for the payment of aid to soldiers and sailors and their families in the City of Boston for the month of September. Report accepted; order passed. being drawn. I think, in view of the statements that have been made about me in the Press, I should register the facts in the proceedings of the Council. LAYING OUT OF NEW MINOT STREET. Coun. COLLINS offered an order-That the Board of Street Commissioners be requested, through his Honor the Mayor, to consider and report to the City Council with an estimate of the cost as to the advisibility of laying out and accepting New Minot street, Dorchester, between Adams and Carruth streets, as a public way. Passed. TUNNEL, ROACH STREET, DORCHESTER. Coun. ATTRIDGE offered an order That the Board of Street Commissioners be requested, through his Honor the Mayor, to submit to the City Council an estimate of the cost of building a tunnel under the tracks of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, Roach street, Dorchester. Passed. DOUBLE TRACKS, HYDE PARK AVENUE. Coun. ATTRIDGE offered an order-That the Bay State Street Railway Company be requested, through his Honor the Mayor, to lay double tracks on Hyde Park avenue, from the old boundary line, between Boston and Hyde Park to Cleary square, Hyde Park. Passed. ANNUITY FOR MRS. JAMES F. GALVIN. Coun. McDONALD offered an order That so long as she remains unmarried there be allowed and paid an annuity of $300, under the provisions of chapter 107 of the Acts of 1880, to the widow of James F. Galvin, a member of the Fire Department, who died from injuries received in the discharge of his duties, the amounts so paid to be charged to the appropriation for Fire Department, Pensions. Referred to the Executive Committee. MOTOR LADDER TRUCK, CHARLESTOWN. Coun. MCDONALD offered an order-That the sum of $10,700 be and hereby is appropriated to be expended by the Fire Commissioner for the purchase of a motor ladder truck for the Charlestown district of the City of Boston, and that to meet said appropriation the City Treasurer be authorized to issue, from time to time, on the request of the Mayor, bonds of the City of Boston to said amount. Referred to the Committee on Finance. A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Coun. COLEMAN-Mr. President, I rise to a question of personal privilege. In view of the number of misleading statements that appeared in the daily Press recently concerning my absence from the earlier part of the meeting of the Council before the last one, I think it is due to myself that a statement should be made. It was well known to members of the Council in the early part of August that it would in all probability be impossible for me to attend the meeting of the Council appointed for August 28. I knew then that I should be arriving in the city in the afternoon and leaving early in the evening. When the actual day did arrive I found that I was not only under the embarrassment caused by shortness of time, but also that both of my secretaries were absent from the city. The result was that it was almost impossible for me to get away. It was only with the greatest difficulty that I was able to be here for ten or fifteen minutes while the jurors were CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT. President HAGAN called up No. 2, unfinished business, viz.: 2. James J. Canniff, to be a Weigher of Beef for the term ending April 30, 1917. The question came on confirmation. Committee Coun. Ballantyne and Coleman. Whole number of ballots cast 8, yeas 8, and the appointment was confirmed. RECESS. The Council voted at 2.48 p. m., on motion of Coun. STORROW, to take a recess subject to the call of the President. The members of the Council reassembled in the Council Chamber and were called to order by the President at 5.15 p. m. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT. President HAGAN called up No. 1, unfinished business, viz.: 1. Harry J. Byrnes, to be a Constable of the City of Boston for the term ending April 30, 1917. The question came on confirmation. Committee Coun. McDonald and Collins. Whole number of ballots cast 5, yeas 5, and the appointment was confirmed. REJECTION OF APPOINTMEN T. President HAGAN called up No. 3, unfinished business, viz.: 3. Action on the appointment submitted by the Mayor, May 9, 1916, of Morris G. Tuch, to be a Constable for the City of Boston. President HAGAN-The Chair will notify the Council that this gentleman has refused to come before the Council. He cannot be found and I advise his rejection. The question came on confirmation. Committee Coun. McDonald and Collins. Whole number of ballots cast 5, yeas 0, nays 5, and the appointment was rejected. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS. Coun. COLEMAN, for the Executive Committee, submitted the following: (1) Report on petition of Jeremiah D. Barry (referred today) to be retired under the provisions of chapter 765 of the Acts of 1914-recommending the passage of the following: Ordered, That the Retirement Board of Laborers be hereby authorized and requested to retire, under the provisions of chapter 765 of the Acts of 1914, as amended by chapter 63 of the Special Acts of 1915, Jeremiah D. Barry, employed in the labor service of the City of Boston in the Public Works Department. Report accepted; order passed. (2) Report on message of Mayor and order (referred today) that the $500,000 loan for fire station, Readville, be expended by the Fire Commissioner-that the order ought to pass. Report accepted; order passed, yeas, 5, nays 0. (3) Report on message of Mayor, communication and order (referred August 28) appropriating $150,000 of Parkman Fund income-recommending passage of order in the following new draft: Ordered, That the sum of $100,000 be and hereby is appropriated from the income of the Parkman Fund, to be expended under the direction of the Park and Recreation Department for the maintenance and improvement of the Common and parks in existence on January 12, 1887, .and for the maintenance of the Aquarium and Zoological Garden. Report accepted; order passed, yeas 5, nays 0. SIDEWALK, ELMO STREET. Coun. COLLINS offered an order-That the Commissioner of Public Works make a sidewalk along both sides of Elmo street, between Erie and Greenwood streets, Ward 19, in front of the estates bordering thereon, said sidewalk to be from 3 to 10 inches above the gutter adjoining, to be from 5 to 12 feet in width and to be built of artificial stone with granite edgestones, under the provisions of chapter 269 of the Special Acts of 1916. Passed. GENERAL RECONSIDERATION. Coun. MCDONALD moved a general reconsideration of all business transacted at the meeting, hoping that the same would not prevail. Lost. Adjourned at 5.21 p. m., on motion of Coun. STORROW, to meet on Tuesday, September 19, at 2 p. m. CITY OF BOSTON. Proceedings of City Council. Monday, September 18, 1916. Special meeting of the City Council, held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, at two o'clock p. m., President HAGAN in the chair. Absent-Coun. Coleman, McDonald, Storrow. The Clerk read the call for the meeting, viz.: To the Members of the City Council: A special meeting of the City Council will be held on Monday, September 18, 1916, at two o'clock p. m. By order of the President. Placed on file. JAMES DONOVAN, City Clerk. JURORS DRAWN. Jurors were drawn in accordance with the provisions of law (the Mayor not being present), viz.: Thirty-six traverse jurors, Superior Criminal Court, First Session, to appear October 4, 1916: Patrick Torsney, Ward 13; Edward M. Blumenthal, Ward 21: John A. MeCordick, Ward 20; Anton G. Hennig, Ward 22; Eugene F. Sullivan. Ward 24; John J. Kine, Ward 15: Benjamin S. Canner, Ward 1; Walter N. Elliott, Ward 20; John J. Fitzgerald, Ward 10; John Boyden Carpenter, Ward 23; Joseph Dipesa, Ward 6; Alexander Gilmore, Ward 19; Rogers Chambers, Ward 20; William F. Bentley, Ward 23; John O. Forsberg, Ward 20; John A. Driscoll, Ward 24; Edward J. Kuhne, Ward 23; John J. Wright, Ward 26; George T. Jaques, Ward 22; Walter E. Scannell, Ward 16; Clarence B. Soule, Ward 10; Wilfred A. Whealan, Ward 8; William Dalzell, Ward 14; William G. Foster, Ward 11; Joseph S. Bersig, Ward 16; John A. Donovan, Ward 1; Frederick Mohwinkel, Ward 22; Francis H. Bullens, Ward 21; James Mahoney, Ward 15; John J. Wheeler, Ward 10; Ralph T. Perry, Ward 24; Donald A. Thompson, Ward 16; Charles F. Bennett, Ward 24; Andre M. Gay, Ward 10; Walter A. Magee, Ward 12; Maurice J. Ryan, Ward 11. Thirty-six traverse jurors, Superior Criminal Court, Second Session, to appear October 5, 1916: Caspar Boltz, Ward 11; Ralph W. Tyler, Ward 20; Louis Lipson, Ward 9; Hubert A. Lopez, Ward 20; John C. Tobin, Ward 24; Louis Wernig, Ward 19; William A. Wood, Ward 21; Martin J. Lee, Ward 19; Richard Milzner, Ward 19; Clarence L. Foster, Ward 22; Joseph P. Hyland, Ward 12; James A. Harrington, Ward 13; Charles Graumann, Ward 22; Ashton H. Bartlett, Ward 21; John F. Tirrell, Ward 22; Charles H. Welch, Ward 10; Thomas W. Gover, Ward 24; Gustaf R. Ekdahl, Ward 20; David Lane, Ward 19; Anton Hoefling, Ward 19; James J. Minton, Ward 14; James J. Friery, Ward 22; Andrew D. Mirey, Ward 21; Joshua S. Hall, Ward 20; Gustavus J. Esselen, Ward 21; Alfred S. Stewart, Ward 16; James W. Bolton, Ward 24; Dustin N. Alward, Ward 21; Edward J. Moore, Ward 20; Walter L. Sprague, Ward 19; George E. Rea, Ward 16; Frederick J. White, Ward 25; Oscar M. Remick, Ward 10; Henry C. Mann, Ward 1; Michael Fein, Ward 8; Frank J. Burke, Ward 18. APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR. The Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council, submitted the following appointments for terms ending April 30, 1917, viz.: 1. Norman A Whittim, 51 Simpson avenue, Somerville, a Weigher of Coal and Measurer of Wood and Bark. 2. Francis M. Campbell, 17 Hubbard road, Dorchester, a Weigher of Goods, Weigher of Coal and Weigher of Boilers and Heavy Machinery for the Edison Electric Illuminating Company. Severally laid over under the law. Adjourned at 2.24 p. m., on motion of Coun. KENNY, to meet on Wednesday, September 20, at two o'clock p. m. |