MACHINE VERSUS HAND-BROKEN METAL.

Evening Star, Issue 4015, 8 January 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

MACHINE VERSUS HAND-BROKEN METAL.

To the Editor. Sib, —T thank you for y«mr courtesy in inserting Hiy i revious letter on the above subject, and again crave your indulgence for a few additional rcmaiks thereon. I notice that that expensive toy, the stone crusher, has to be removed from the Union street quarry, and it is about time it was. For ol all the follies the City Council have been guilty of that of the stone-crusher has been the greatest. Let any impartial practical man examine some of the stuff that has recently been put on the streets in the lower part of the town and he must see at once that this machine metal is not suitable for macadamising pu.pose* at all, for the fol lowing reasons, viz., ih it it never consolidates so readily or quicxly, nor makes so stioag and durable a suitaoo as the haud-nrok u metal does. I'his machine-crushed stuff is generally of a shingly, tlsaky nature, irregular in size and shape, some pieces as big as the bo* t m o' a frying-pan, while a large proportion of it is simply rubbish, and fine gravely dust, which the first strong wind blows clean off the road Now hand-broken metal being m ire cubical an angular in form than the former, seta betc r and makes a firm crust, which wears longer and carries a heavier traffic, without being ground up into an impalpable dusts or mud, according to the weather. I consider it an insult, to the ' intelligent comm >u sense of the community to have foisted upon them these condemned, and rejected, stone crushers, which have been discontinued in other countries after a long and fair trial. I know very wen that anything I might ■ay on the subject is not likely to inI fluence the Council one way or the other They are committed to the scheme, and will continue it even although it costs more than the old system. There are certain interests involved is the continuance, or otherwise, of

these machines; and their abolition like the abolition of he Provinces —would seriously inconvenience the greedy cormorants who fatten and grow rich in the enjoyment of comf rtahle sinecures. But such conside alions should not be taken into account for a moment. The question is, which of the two methods is the bait and cheipest? I contend that the handbroken metal can be as cheaply supplied, yi>rd for yard, of clean sound blue stone, as the other kind can. I therefore trust that the City Council will take the hint and return to the old system, which would be a matter of congraulation to many poor men who are at present in enforced idleness, and whose means of obtaining an honest livelihood has been taken away from them by the introduction of these stone-crushing machines.--I am, <sc., F. Conway, Walker street, January 5.