At the Pittsburg meeting of the American Institute of Mining Engineers,
held from the 16th to the 19th of February, Mr. James C. Bayles, the
President, delivered the following address:
GENTLEMEN OF THE INSTITUTE: Having availed myself somewhat liberally
during the past two years of the latitude which is accorded the president
in the selection of the topics presented in addresses from the chair, I
do not need to plead safe precedent as my warrant for devoting the
address which marks the conclusion of my service in the dignified and
honorable office to which, through your unmerited favor, I have been
twice chosen, to the consideration of some of the questions in casuistry
the answers to which will be found to furnish a basis for a code of
professional ethics. It is not asking too much of the engineer that his
professional morality shall conform to higher standards than those which
govern men who buy and sell with no other object than the getting of
gain. The professional man stands in a more confidential relation to his
client than is supposed to exist between buyer and seller in trade. He is
necessarily more trusted, and has larger opportunities of betraying the
confidence reposed in him than is offered the merchant or the business
agent. For the reason that he cannot be held to the same strict
accountability which law and usage establish in mercantile business, he
is under a moral obligation to fix his own rules of conduct by high
standards and conform to them under all circumstances. Whatever the
measure of his professional success--whether wealth and reputation crown
his career, or disappointment and poverty be his constant and unwelcome
companions--no taint of suspicion should attach to any professional act
or utterance. Not only should we be able to write above the wreck of
bright hopes, "Honor alone remains," but upon our great and successful
achievements should it be possible for others to inscribe the legend, "In
honor wrought; with honor crowned."
It is frequently and confidently asserted that at no time in the history
of the world were the standards of business honor so high as now. The
prevalence of dishonesty, in one form or another, is held to show that
there is a great deal of moral weakness which is unequal to the strain to
which principle is subjected in the keenness of business competition, and
in the presence of the almost unlimited confidence which apparently
characterizes commercial intercourse. The enormous volume of the daily
transactions on 'change, where a verbal agreement or a sign made and
recognized in the midst of indescribable confusion has all the binding
force of a formal contract; the real-estate and merchandise transactions
effected on unwitnessed and unrecorded understandings; the certification
of checks on the promise of deposits or collaterals, and a hundred other
evidences of confidence, are cited as proof that the accepted standards
of business honor are high, and are kept so by public opinion. All of
this is true, in a certain limited sense; but the confidence which is the
basis of all business creates opportunities for dishonesty which changes
its shape with more than Protean facility when detected and denounced.
The keenness of competition in all departments of professional and
business enterprise presents a constant temptation to seize every
advantage, fair or unfair, which promises immediate profit. It is
unfortunately true that the successful cleverness which sacrifices honor
to gain is more easily condoned by public opinion than honest dullness
which is caught in the snares laid for it by the cunning manipulators of
speculation. The man who fails to deliver what he has bought, to meet his
paper at maturity and make good the certifications of his banker, loses
at once his business standing, and is practically excluded from business
competition; but if he keeps his engagements and is successful, the
public is kindly blind to the agencies he may employ to depreciate what
he wants to buy or impart a fictitious value to what he wants to sell.
Viewed from this standpoint, it may be questioned whether the accepted
standards of business morality are not, after all, those fixed by the
revised statutes.
In so far as the engineer is brought in contact with the activities of
trade, he cannot fail to be conscious of the fact that serious
temptations surround him. Such reputation as he has gained is assumed to
have a market value, and the price is held out to him on every side. It
should not be difficult for the conscientious engineer, jealous of his
professional honor, to decide what is right and what is not. He does not
need to be reminded that he cannot sell his independence nor make
merchandise of his good name. But as delicate problems in casuistry may
mislead or confuse him, it is to be regretted that so little effort has
been made to formulate a code of professional ethics which would help to
right decisions those who cannot reach them unaided.
Standing in the presence of so many of those who have dignified the
profession of engineering, I should hesitate to express my views on this
subject did I not believe that many earnest and right-minded young men in
our active and associate membership will be glad to know what rules of
conduct govern those whose example they would willingly follow, and how
one not a practicing engineer, but with good opportunities of observation
and judgment, would characterize practices which have been to some extent
sanctioned by custom. To those who have yet to win the gilded spurs of
professional knighthood, but who cherish a high and honorable ambition,
my suggestions are chiefly addressed.
An ever present stumbling block in the path of the young engineer is what
is lightly spoken of as the "customary commission"--a percentage paid him
on the price of machinery and supplies purchased or recommended by him.
That manufacturers expect to pay commissions to engineers who are
instrumental in effecting the sale of their products is a striking proof
that the standards of business morality are quite as low as I have
assumed them to be; that engineers do not unite in indignant protest
against the custom, and denounce as bribe-givers and bribe-takers those
who thus exchange services, shows that the iron has entered the souls of
many who may be disposed to resent such plain terms as those in which I
decree it my duty to describe transactions of this kind.
The young man who is tendered a commission will naturally ask himself
whether he can accept and retain it, and may, perhaps, reason somewhat in
this way: "My professional advice was given without expectation of
personal profit other than that earned in my fee, and it expressed my
best judgment. The price at which the goods were purchased was that which
every consumer must pay, and was not increased for my advantage. The
transaction was satisfactory to buyer and seller, and was concluded when
payment was made. I am now tendered a commission which I am at liberty to
accept or to decline. If I decline it, I lose something, my client gains
nothing, and the remaining profit to the seller is greater than he
expected by that amount. If I accept it, I do my client no wrong. If it
is the custom of manufacturers to pay commissions, it must be the custom
of engineers to receive them; and there is no reason why I should be
supersensitive on a point long since decided by usage." This is false
reasoning, based upon erroneous assumptions. Why do manufacturers pay
commissions? Is it probable they make it a part of their business policy
to give something for nothing? Is it not certain that they expect an
equivalent for every dollar thus disbursed, and that in paying the
engineer a commission they are seeking to establish relations with him
which shall warp his judgment and make him their agent? It may be urged
in the case of reputable manufacturers that they yield to this custom
because other manufacturers have established it, and that in following
the pernicious example they have no other object than to equalize the
influences tending to the formation of professional judgment. This
reasoning does not change in the least the moral aspects of the question
from the manufacturer's standpoint, but what engineer with a delicate
sense of professional honor could offer or hear such an explanation
without feeling the hot blush of shame suffuse his cheeks? The plain
truth about the commission is that the manufacturer or dealer adds it to
the selling price of his goods, and the buyer unconsciously pays the
bribe designed to corrupt his own agent. Can an engineer receive and
retain for his own use a commission thus collected from his client
without a surrender of his independence, and having surrendered that, can
he conscientiously serve the client who seeks disinterested advice and
assistance in the planning and construction of work?
It is possible, perhaps, for a man to dissociate his preferences from his
interests; so, also, is it possible for one to walk through fire and not
scorch his garments but how few are able to do it! The young man in
professional life who begins by accepting commissions will soon find
himself expecting and demanding them, and from that moment his
professional judgment is as much for sale as pork in the shambles. I
counsel the young man thus tempted to ask himself, Am I entitled to pay
from the manufacturer who offers it? If so, for what? If not, will my
self-respect permit me to become his debtor for a gratuity to which I
have no claim? Does not this money belong to my client, as an overcharge
unconsciously paid by him for my benefit? If I refuse it, can I not with
propriety demand in future that the percentage which this commission
represents shall be deducted in advance from the manufacturer's price,
that my client may have the benefit of it? If this is denied, can I
resist the conclusion that it is a bribe to command future services at my
hands? Is not the smile of incredulity with which the dealer receives my
assurance that I can only take it for my client and hand it over to him,
an insult to the profession, which, as a man of honor, I am bound to
resent?
Gentlemen, it is not true that custom sanctions the acceptance of
commissions by the engineer. That it is much too general I will not deny,
but there are very 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 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 good or useful
purpose, since it has no other or higher object than to help the critics
to climb into notoriety on the shoulders of the older and wiser men with
whom they are brought into competition. I regard as unprofessional every
effort to discredit honest and intelligent work, and every form of
disguised advertising designed to give an engineer a greater prominence
than he has earned by successful and creditable work, or is entitled to
claim by virtue of fitness for more than average professional
achievements.
It is neither possible nor desirable to catalogue the unprofessional
practices which in one way or another come to the notice of those
observant of current happenings in the several departments of
engineering. It is the contention of some that right and wrong are
relative terms, applying to no action or line of conduct save as it is
considered in relation to coincident and contingent circumstances. I will
not deny that this may be true of all professional acts, but the
impossibility of an arbitrary classification under the heads right and
wrong, honorable and dishonorable, need not make it difficult for a man
to formulate a code of professional ethics by which his own conduct shall
be governed. There are certain broad ethical principles which never
change. One is that a man cannot serve two masters having conflicting
interests, and be faithful to each. Another is that, however skillfully
one may juggle words to conceal meanings or evade responsibility, if the
intent to deceive is there, he lies. Professional ethics are no different
from the ethics of the Decalogue; they are specific applications of the
rules of conduct which have governed enlightened and honorable men in all
ages and in all walks of life. It is only when the moral sense is blunted
or temptation presents itself in some new and unrecognized form that it
is difficult to draw the line between right and wrong. I am aware that a
delicate sense of honor often comes between a man and his opportunities
of profit, and that a fine sensitiveness is rarely appreciated at its
value by those who employ professional service. I know that in this busy
world men of affairs do not always stop to weigh motives, and that
confident assurance always commands respect, while modest merit is
distrusted. But I do not know that a man can sell his honor for a price,
and retain thereafter the right to stand erect in the presence of his
fellows. I do not know that any engineer can make for himself a
creditable and satisfactory career of whom it cannot be said that,
whatever his mistakes or successes, his failures or triumphs, he has held
his professional honor above suspicion.
* * * * *