Scientific American Supplement, No. 530, February 27, 1886 | Page 7

few men of recognized professional standing who would confess that they have yielded to the temptation and retained for their own benefit the commissions received by them. I do not hesitate to give it as my opinion that the acceptance and retention of a commission is incompatible with a standard of professional honor to which every self-respecting engineer should seek to conform. Those who defend it as proper and right, and plead the sanction of usage, are not the ones to whom the young engineer can safely go for counsel and advice. The most dangerous and least reputable of all the competition he will encounter in an attempt to make an honest living in the practice of his profession is that of the engineer who charges little for professional services and expects to be paid by those whose goods are purchased on his recommendation.
With equal emphasis would I characterize as unprofessional the framing of specifications calling for patented or controlled specialties when, to deceive the client, bids are invited. I am well aware that it is easier to procure drawings and specifications from manufacturers than to make them. Many manufacturers are very willing to furnish them, but those who do are careful to so frame the specifications that they can secure the contracts at prices to include the cost of the professional work for which the engineer is also paid. There is nothing unprofessional in recommending a patented article or process if it be, in the judgment of the engineer, the best for the purpose to be accomplished, but he will do it openly and with the courage of his convictions. The young engineer should, I think, have no difficulty in recognizing the important difference which inheres in the methods by which a given result is accomplished.
In the relations of engineers to contractors there is many a snare and pitfall for the unwary feet of the beginner. In superintending the construction of work the engineer may err on the side of unreasonable strictness or on that of improper leniency. If so disposed, he can involve any contractor in loss and do him great wrong, but it more often happens that the engineer is forced to assume a defensive attitude and to resist influences too strong for a man of average courage and strength of will, especially if his experience in charge of work is limited. He should enter upon the discharge of his delicate and responsible duties with a desire to do impartial justice between client and contractor. He is warranted in assuming that his judgment and discretion are his chief qualifications for the position of supervising engineer, and that all specifications are designed to be in some measure elastic, since the conditions to be encountered in carrying them out cannot possibly be known in advance. He should not impose unnecessary and unreasonable requirements upon the contractor, even if empowered to do so by the letter of the specifications. The danger, however, is principally in the opposite direction. Frequently the engineer has all he can do to hold the contractor to a faithful performance of the spirit of his agreement. He is bullied, misled, deceived, and sometimes openly defied. He must constantly defend himself against charges impeaching his personal integrity and his professional intelligence. The contractor can usually succeed in making it appear that he is the victim of persecution, and especially in public work he is likely to have more influence than the engineer with those for whom the work is done. It often happens that the engineer, defeated and discouraged, gives up the unequal battle. From that moment he is of no further use as an engineer, and if he remains for an hour in responsible charge of work he cannot control, he rates his fee as more desirable than a reputation unsullied by the stain of dishonor. He has a right to decline a conflict for which he feels unequal, but he has no right to consent to a sacrifice of the interests of his client while he is paid to protect them. The questions of professional ethics arising out of the relations between the engineer and the contractor are much too complex to be decided by an inflexible rule of professional conduct, but the engineer cannot make a mistake in refusing to remain in responsible charge of work when, by remaining, he must give consent to that which his judgment tells him involves a wrong to his client. With equal confidence may it be asserted that the engineer who secretly participates in the profits of the contractor, whatever the arrangement by which such participation is brought about, sacrifices his professional standing.
In making reports for contingent fees or fees of contingent value, the young engineer needs to exercise great discretion. This may be done without impropriety if