Scientific American Supplement, No. 530, February 27, 1886 | Page 8

done openly; but it is safe to assume that few opportunities will come to the young man with a reputation still to make in which he can do clean and creditable work on any such basis. The engineer called upon to make a report for a fee in stock which depends for its value upon the effect of his report in creating confidence in the public mind, takes a fearful risk. However honest he may be, he places himself in a position in which the danger is obvious and the advantage uncertain. If, having a contingent interest in the result of his work, he is afraid to say so in his report, he may safely consider his position unprofessional and unsafe. Contingent fees are a delusion and a snare, and in making it a rule to refuse them the young engineer will be likely to gain more than he loses.
Reports intended to influence the public upon subjects concerning which the engineer knows himself unqualified to speak with authority are to be classed with other forms of charlatanry. No man can claim infallibility of judgment, nor is this expected of the engineer, whatever his position; but those who pay for professional services have a right to demand that the man who assumes to speak as an expert shall have the special knowledge which will command for his opinion the respect of those who are well informed. I consider it unprofessional for the engineer to enter upon the discharge of any duties for which he knows he is not qualified, if for the satisfactory discharge of those duties he must assume a knowledge he does not possess. There has been an immense amount of unprofessional work done in the field of reporting, and many reputations have been blasted by a failure to draw nice distinctions in questions of professional honor. The young engineer cannot be too careful in this matter, and he will be fortunate if, with all the prudence he can exercise, he is able to avoid disaster. Of a professional reputation dependent upon the accuracy as well as the honesty of reports ordered and used for speculative purposes, one may say as a marine underwriter lately said of an unseaworthy steamer, that he "would not insure her against sinking, from Castle Garden to Sandy Hook, with a cargo of shavings."
In the matter of expert service in the courts I am disposed to speak guardedly. I see no reason why an engineer should not willingly go upon the witness stand to give expert testimony if he has made proper preparation and has an honest conviction that his testimony can be given with a conscientious regard for the obligations of his oath as a witness. It is his duty and his privilege to defend his opinions, for the man without opinions which he is prepared to defend is worthless as a witness and cannot properly be called an expert. But the conscientious engineer has no right to appear as a partisan of anything except what he believes to be the truth. If he finds himself parrying the questions of the cross-examination with a view to concealing the truth, if he realizes that he is a partisan of the side which retains him, and feels a temptation to earn his fee by falsehood, concealment, or evasion, he can be sure that he is in a position in which no man of honor has a right to be. The abuses of expert testimony in civil and criminal suits are many and grave; its uses are perhaps exaggerated, and the witness stand is not an inviting field for the young engineer seeking a satisfactory career.
How far an engineer can properly use for his own advantage information gained in the discharge of duties of a confidential nature, is a question at once delicate and difficult. He cannot help knowing what he has learned, and his knowledge is his capital. He must be governed in this matter by the considerations which influence men of honor in the ordinary relations of life. Stock and real estate operations, on confidential information which belongs to one's principals, are usually in violation of the simplest rules of professional honor. The manager who advises his brokers by telegraph and his principals by mail cannot, I think, claim to have a very delicate sense of right and wrong. He can judge his own conduct by the standard he would apply in judging like infidelity on the part of those employed by him.
In professional criticism of professional work, it is easy to fall into ways which are wrong, morally and professionally. Criticism which is designed merely to advertise the critic serves no good purpose, and savors of charlatanry or something worse. Only a small proportion of the current critical literature of engineering serves any