ing the engineer from unfair criticism, and bad, in creating a feeling that the members of the profession are indifferent to practices which apparently have grown up without restraint.

The American Association of Engineers, appreciating this condition, has attempted to handle these cases in such a way that the members and the public in general are informed concerning the results and are thus made aware of the fact that improper practices will not be condoned.

The only penalty which may be enforced by a civil engineering society, for violation of its standards, is expulsion from the society, this being largely a matter not made public. The assumption is that no man who has been admitted would be guilty of improper practice after the careful scrutiny given in advance, and that should he fail to live up to the standards, the fact of dismissal from the society should be adequate punishment.

THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND PUBLIC WELFARE

The civil engineers with their ultraconservatism have largely refrained from taking part in public affairs, and have not been conspicuous in initiating legislation or regulations for the protection of the public, such, for example, as have characterized the medical profession. It is true that individual members have been prominent in various reforms having to do with better water supply and sewage systems, better roads and bridges, but, as a body, the civil engineers have kept away from active participation in public affairs. In this respect they have not exercised the influence which a group of highly-trained and experienced men should have had.

In a similar way the civil engineers have been extremely cautious in taking any action which might be construed

as sustaining or "backing up" the members of the profession in the individual efforts toward improvement of social, economic, or political relations. Many an able civil engineer has been dismissed from public position, or has been severely criticised, without any outward support from the organization to which he belongs. In fact, the caution displayed has been criticised as bordering upon timidity. In this respect, the civil engineers, as a group, do not appear to have a strength in sustaining sound public opinion at all comparable to that of other groups of engineers or to doctors and lawyers.

From what has been stated before, it appears that, in outward appearance at least, the civil engineers, while individually setting a high standard for themselves, have, as group organizations, not been leaders, nor have they developed the ideals of leadership among the younger men. This is undoubtedly due to the type of education which has tended in the past to emphasize in the mind of the young engineer the ideals of modesty and self-effacement, to “let the work speak for itself" and not to put himself forward in expressing opinions. This is in striking contrast to the attitude presented to the young lawyer, who from the outset is instructed as to his duties, as a man and a citizen, to use his best efforts, not only before the courts but in every public meeting; to help in discussion and to take the leadership which is due to the educational advantages which he has had. He is impressed with the fact that since the public has directly or indirectly contributed to his education, he has a duty in turn to the public to take an interest in its affairs.

The young engineer, on the contrary, impressed with the necessity of accuracy and thoroughness and with the importance of a caution which will

provide a large factor of safety, is inclined to let public affairs take their course until such time as he may be called upon to assist the men who have become practically the self-constituted leaders of affairs.

The greatest need among civil engineers as a group is to correct this false modesty, and, while maintaining a high standard of professional attainment, couple this with the true conception of the duty of an educated man-never to hold back at times when he can be of service to the public.

EMPLOYMENT

In the matter of employment the civil engineers, as distinguished from other professional engineers, have tended to lag behind. In fact, one of the strongest criticisms against the civil engineering societies has been their neglect of this whole problem of the welfare of the young men entering the profession, both in the matter of compensation and of employment. The ideals taught in the schools have been largely those of devotion to the work, such as would make it quite improper for the young civil engineer for many years to give consideration to his compensation or personal comfort. In fact, it has been rather a source of pride, that in the construction camps, in survey parties, and elsewhere, the engineer has worked the longest hours, endured the greatest hardship, and has received a pay less than that of the skilled workman or mechanic.

It has been regarded as unprofessional to consider rates of pay, especially for the lower positions in the ranks of civil engineers, and much criticism was showered upon the American Association of Engineers because it did discuss the proper rates of compensation for the men entering

upon the civil engineering profession, such as draftsmen, rodmen and instrumentmen. It was urged that such action flavored too much of labor unionism.

In the same way, consideration of methods of securing employment was under the ban for many years, and while some of the higher members of the profession who had reached the grade of consulting engineers were ready to discuss proper fees and rates of pay, these men as employing engineers were not at all keen in considering the claims of the great mass of younger men from whom their ranks would ultimately be recruited. It may be said that until the American Association of Engineers led the way in the development of an employment service, the principal groups of civil engineers did not look upon this with much favor.

In short, in studying the code of ethics of the civil engineers, the impression is strong that this has been considered largely with reference to the relatively few men who stand near the head of the profession, and has not taken into view the great body of younger men, recently graduated from college, who have the greatest needs, not only as regards practice but also as regards their inexperience in the profession. For this great body, who form the rank and file of civil engineers and who furnish the greater part of the finances of the organizations, there is a special need of a code of ethics and of specific application of such a code, in order that they may properly pursue a middle course, avoiding, on the one hand, the selfish practices which are attributed to some of the labor unions, and, on the other hand, the extremes of an over-sensitive conscience or timidity which has kept the civil engineers out of the larger affairs of daily life.

of

primarily with the forces nature and are, therefore, governed in their work by the laws of nature; as mother nature demands and insists upon absolute obedience to her laws from which there is no appeal and which cannot be circumvented, the engineer is, by the very nature of his profession, brought up to respect and obey the laws which are fundamental to his work. Any violation of these laws is certain to bring its own punishment with it, even without a trial, either in showing the ignorance and therefore unfitness of the violator, or, what is worse, the deliberate practice of what he knew was wrong. Moreover, many human lives are often at stake when an engineering structure fails; hence the engineer realizes that his responsibility in many cases is very great.

As has often been said by way of comparison, the physician can bury his mistakes six feet under the ground, the lawyer can pass the blame to the jury, court, or witnesses, and the minister can often find a quotation from the Bible which, taken literally, may seem to uphold him in a mistake he may have made; but when the engineer makes a mistake or violates the laws which are fundamental to his profession, he cannot hide the blame or pass it to others. Since, then, there is generally no question who is responsible, and no escape from censure, he must be doubly sure of what he does and how he does it. His profession is therefore by its very nature on a high plane, as far as it concerns obedience to the laws of nature, a thorough knowledge of his branch of learning, which involves a higher education.

tiousness, and regard for the effect of his work on others.

Training in such an atmosphere cannot fail to have an important bearing on the ethics of engineering conduct; the records of the professional lives of many noted engineers bear this out, as does also the ruination, professionally as engineers, of those who have violated the principles of a high code of ethics. "The engineer's intellectual relations with his subject involve a contact with nature and her laws that breeds straight thinking and directness of character and for these the world is constantly according him a higher and more honorable place."

ENGINEERING AS A PROFESSION

That engineering is recognized as one of the so-called "learned professions' and as such is in a class with the medical, legal and other professions, is probably now generally conceded, at least when the nature of the work is limited to true engineering as distinguished from commercial work, and is based on high educational qualifications acquired at a college of good standing, supplemented by years of experience and training and the intelligent application of such knowledge. The requirements in educational qualifications and training are quite as great, if not greater than for some of the other professions. But to the mind of the public, unfortunately, the term "engineer" often means the mechanic who operates a locomotive or some other form of engine.

The preceding statements apply to the profession of engineering in general, 1 (Gano Dunn.)

1

facturers, administrators, organizers, financiers, promoters, etc., many of whom may have started as college-bred engineers, but have branched off into these other vocations, for which they were often very well fitted by reason of their engineering training. Their interests are, however, sometimes directly opposed. To manufacturers and those entrusted with the selling of a product or project, "the exigencies of selling are so constantly forced upon them, that it produces in their circles a commercial atmosphere quite at variance with strict professional views," to quote from a leading engineering journal. Technical journals themselves may not always be free from the influence of their advertisers. Another technical journal last year said editorially, "It is to be hoped that the year 1921 will see real progress in the establishment of codes of ethics in the various engineering societies, or, better, the establishment of general fundamental principles of engineering ethics on which the individual societies may build." Still another technical journal asks, "Is engineering a profession or a business?" and implies that it must be one or the other, stating that "we are at the parting of the ways." This distinction refers to the modern large organizations, as distinguished from the individual engineer, in conducting engineering work; it implies the old saying that "corporations have no souls." The differences between the ethics of such large organizations and of the individual engineer is a subject of discussion which space does not permit going into here.

Within the near past, another departure of a somewhat psychological nature has been added to the engineering profession, that of the science of dealing with men, as exemplified in the legend in the great National Engineering Library in New York

City, which states as a conception of engineering: "Engineering-the art of organizing and directing men, and of controlling the forces and materials of nature for the benefit of the human race." The last part of this legend was formerly one of the definitions of an engineer; the former clause has more recently been added, though not by unanimous consent. In the opinion of some, the term engineering is being broadened too far.

It is often difficult to draw sharp lines between the many different practices, as to where true engineering begins and ends. The title of "engineer" is a coveted one, and rightly so, as long as it implies a long and difficult course of education and training, and it is therefore natural that its appropriation is broadening. A code of ethics is naturally a different matter for one who deals with the application of nature's laws of matter and energy for the benefit of mankind, than for one who deals merely with getting the largest number of dollars; though of course the true engineer must of necessity also consider the cost of projects. For the purposes of the present article, however, the term professional engineer may be supposed to apply to those who occupy themselves exclusively with the true profession of engineering, in its older sense of applying the laws of matter and energy to the benefit of mankind by the design, construction and use of engineering structures. The statement of Francis Bacon in the preface to his "Maxims of the Law" applies to professional engineers as well: "I hold every man a debtor to his profession, from the which as men of course do seek to receive contenance and profit, so ought they of duty to endeavor themselves by way of amends to be a help and ornament thereunto."