PART I

CHAPTER I

THE PROFESSION OF ENGINEERING

1. Definitions of Engineering

While the early definitions of engineering envisaged all that was scientifically or technologically possible, those devised in recent years take fully into account the principle of economic feasibility. The best known of all formulations of this kind is that of Thomas Tredgold, written in 1828, and to be found in the Charter of Incorporation of the Institution of Civil Engineers. It reads: "Engineering is the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man."

This did not raise the question of economic practicability. Representative of present-day thinking on the subject is the definition formulated by President R. E. Doherty, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, in 1944. It is: "Engineering is the art, based primarily upon training in mathematics and the physical sciences, of utilizing economically the forces and materials of nature for the benefit of man."

In days when slave or serf labour was abundantly available, there was little need to consider costs or the duration of the work. The construction of ancient monuments, for example, the pyra­mids of Egypt, was a matter for kings to order and direct. Their labour resources were unlimited. In modern times engineering enterprises cannot be so conducted, however, and economics must enter vitally into planning, construction, and operation. No definition is adequate without full recognition of this fact.

2. Classification of Technical Persons in the Engineering Field

In the field with which the engineer is concerned, there are three classes of functioning technical persons. These may be conveniently designated as (1) technicians, (2) technologists, (3) engineers.

Technicians are highly skilled mechanics who are able to perform manual work through acquired dexterity much better than the engineer could perform it, although they have not had formal scientific or professional training. They are not competent to design, plan, or originate, except in the case of simple structures, devices, tools, jigs, fixtures, processes, or methods of working.

The recent war drew heavily on the services of technicians. They were particularly effective in connection with radio, radar, communications, instrument maintenance, laboratory testing, photography, and as aides to scientifically or technically trained superiors. In the activities of peace, technicians have been and will be highly useful as chemical plant operators, draughtsmen, foremen, inspectors, metallographers, power station operators, production control men, samplers, shift bosses, surveymen, superintendents, technical clerks, technical salesmen, timber cruisers, water or sewage plant operators, or X-ray operators.

Those functioning at a level requiring rigorous scientific educational preparation, but not involving duties that are sufficiently distributed or comprehensive to lie within the practice of engineering, may be called technologists. The technologist is fully trained in the theory and practice pertaining to a specialized field and is competent to design and to originate at a high level of achievement therein. Within his specialty he may, indeed, be a master, possessing profound scientific knowledge, as distinguished, on the one hand, from the practical resourcefulness and competence of the technician or skilled manual worker, and, on the other hand, from the broad, overall, co-ordinating, managerial grasp of the engineer. Whether he be engaged in the design, construction, or manufacture of a desired product, the devising of a process, or the establishment of a service, his responsibility is confined to the application of physical laws and knowledge of design, constructional, or manufacturing procedures.

The technologist assumes no responsibility for the general sufficiency of the completed work and ordinarily exhibits little interest in the organiza­tional, managerial, economic, legal, administrative, social, or public aspects of the enterprise as a whole. Moreover, as technologist, he has no concern for the soundness of the enterprise from the investor's point of view; no responsibility for, and no interest in, advising the proprietor to defer action in uncertain circumstances, or to investigate alternative proposals; no sense of obligation to warn the proprietor of any duty that he may owe the public in respect of the venture; and no thought of taking steps to ensure that the enterprise is in accord with public policy.

In other words, the pure technologist is a narrowly learned, skilled, scientific or technological worker, exhibiting no interest in contiguous fields, often possessing low adaptability for service in them, and manifesting little concern for the broad aspects of the project and none for the social or economic implications of the work on which he is engaged.

Instances of this narrow viewpoint are by no means uncommon. One of the most competent men on railway location in Canada had no interest whatever in the construction of the line, once its location had been determined. Everything worthwhile had, in his view, then been accomplished. Another, an eminent hydraulic specialist, having finished the design of the equipment of a power house lost further interest in the enterprise. Still another, who attained considerable distinction in the realm of bridge design, confined his interests to the calculation of secondary stresses in steel superstructures. These men, in adopting such attitudes, were for the time being technologists and not engineers.

One must realize that a given person may at times function as a technologist and at other times as an engineer. Young men, busily engaged in acquiring the technique of a profession, may for a while become so engrossed in it as to overlook considerations that will weigh heavily with them when the time comes to undertake full professional roles.

In contrast with technicians and technologists, engineers are recognized as persons who not only are competent to design, plan, originate, and construct, but also to direct others effectively in such activities. They are able to organize, manage, and control large operations involving the use of labour forces and the weighing of financial and social considerations. They are able to co-ordinate the contributions of many sciences, of some arts, of business procedure, of sound economics, and of enlightened social policies, to the attainment of the desired end.

The engineer, proceeding in the professional spirit, assumes responsibility in serving his employer or client in every way that a skilled and alert adviser may serve, even to the extent of pointing out possible complications, embarrassment, or danger in features of the enterprise with respect to which he himself may not be competent to give final advice. The professional relation implies a trusteeship, a duty to serve the full and long-range interests of the employer as if they were the interests of the engineer himself, and an obligation to advise nothing and to concur in nothing that appears to be antipathetic to the interests of either the client or the public.

To render such services the engineer must possess a breadth of training that qualifies him to appraise the true needs both of his employer and of society. That training should be based on the principle that while serving his employer in honourable and considerate relationship with all those with whom he has to deal or who may be affected by his work, he must assume in no small measure the public duties of citizenship. He cannot withdraw into technological seclusion, interested only in achieving a greater proficiency in the solution of problems associated exclusively with materials, structures, mechanisms, or processes. The value of such specialized services may be great, but they do not in themselves establish any greater right to the professional designation than does the work of a skilled watchmaker, or navigator, or a computer in a statistician's office. It is only when his interests, responsibilities, and services transcend conformity to a rigorous and narrow scientific or operational routine that the worker is fully and fairly entitled to the designation of professional engineer.

3. The Scientist and the Engineer

Lacking a wide and solid foundation of fundamental science upon which to base their calculations, the first engineers were of necessity empiricists. It was a matter of trial and error, with error only too often predominating. Thus, Vitruvius, the Roman historian of architecture, who wrote not merely of buildings, but also of water supply, harbours, machines, and mechanical devices, prescribed a characteristic empirical test for the potability of water. It was this: "Look at people who drink it. If they are strongly formed, of fresh colour, with sound legs and without blear eyes, the supply is of good quality."

One of the significant contributors to the development of bridge engineering by the empirical method was William Edwards. Around the middle of the eighteenth century he undertook to construct an important stone arch bridge. The foundations of the first gave way. On the second trial the arch ring collapsed. The third structure, the celebrated Pont-y-Prydd, is still standing. It was a wasteful and uncertain procedure but practice and engineering judgment have been developed in part from incidents of this kind.

Modern engineering rests securely upon a scientific basis. Those responsible for early structures, devices, and processes, quickly realized that decisions affecting material things could not safely be made solely on the basis of argument without a strong foundation of fact. The medieval monk, Roger Bacon (1214-94), who has often been called the founder of modern science, and who is said to have foretold the steamship, the automobile, and the aeroplane, looked to experiment and proof as the basis of action in the scientific and technical world.

How absurd the attitude of some leaders of thought in classical days was in the matter of science and technology may be appreciated when recalling that Greek philosophers argued stoutly, and to their own satisfaction proved beyond the possibility of doubt, that a vacuum could not exist. Vacancy was unimaginable. Nevertheless, von Guericke (1602-86), one of the founders of experimental science, built an air pump and demonstrated to anyone who had eyes to see that a high degree of vacuum could actually be produced.

Thoughtful observers can have no doubt of the role of science as the foundation of modern technology. That is the place accorded it by Usher, historian of mechanical invention; by von Helmholtz, many-sided scientist, and by many others who have thought and written on the subject. Lacking an expanding basis of demonstrated scientific fact, technology reached a stalemate by the sixteenth century. Refinements in simple tools and methods could go no further. But the extraordinary scientific awakening of the fifteenth and the early part of the sixteenth century, provided the necessary springboard for impressive new advances.

The use of steam for the driving of a rotary device, such as a turbine, was indicated by Hero of Alexandria in the third century, B.C., but until Sir Charles Parsons (1854-1931), attacked the problem scientifically, it was impossible to create an effective machine of this type.

While according all proper credit to science for its contribution to technology, one must admit that it is ineffective without application. Philosopher that he was, rather than, technologist, Francis Bacon (1561-1626), observed that: "It is safer to begin and raise the sciences from those foundations which have relation to practice and let the active part be as the seal which prints and determines the contemplative counterpart."

Lord Kelvin, with greater directness, observed that "the life and soul of science is its practical application." Speaking later, Lord Stamp expressed the even stronger view that: "Scientific discovery itself, prior to its application, has no moral, ethical, or even economic quality."

A clear distinction exists between the work of the engineer and that of the scientist. Sir John Fowler (1817-98), great engineer of railways above and below ground, engineering adviser to the Egyptian government, and joint engineer for the Forth Bridge, after a long and illustrious professional life categorized the engineer simply as the "domesticator of science." Sir John's view has been well supported by a more modern observer, Sir Philip Joubert, at one time chief of the Coastal Command of the Royal Air Force, who, while deeply appreciative of the contributions of the scientists to the development of aircraft, pointed out that their work frequently suffers from notable practical disabilities. The designs of scientists are often characterized by excessive weight and size, awkward shapes and interference with other necessary equipment. These barriers to complete satisfaction have to be overcome by the work of engineers who take the proposal in hand and make it a practicable one for the manufacturer and the user.

Sir Robert Watson-Watt, whose name will be forever associated with the amazing development of radar, himself a physicist, draws a clear distinction between the scientific person and the engineer. Said he: "The difference between the physicist and the engineer is that the physicist is interested in the forces of nature but the engineer is primarily interested in the needs of man."

4. The Inventor and the Engineer

While in the nature of the case the inventor must be possessed of unusual ingenuity, he often lacks a rigorous scientific or technical training and equally often is unsuited to the production of the article that he invents. Of educational background for invention, the boy, Humphrey Potter, who in 1715 devised the "scoggan"—pioneer valve gear mechanism—had none. His natural desire for play, rather than tediously turning a cock to admit steam to the cylinder of a Newcomen engine, and then another one to condense the steam when the piston was at the high point, supplied the inventive urge. Andrew Meikle, shy, diffident millwright, had no scientific background, but in his invention of the threshing machine in 1788 and many other ingenious mechanisms he showed native creative ability of high order. Richard Arkwright, great pioneer power spinner, similarly lacked the foundation of scientific training. He had been a barber and a seller of hair dyes. Less ingenious than many of those upon whose work his great industrial empire was founded, he had amazing powers of promotion, organization, and direction. In this respect he exercised to a remarkable degree a distinctive function of the engineer.

Even in inventors who have been widely acclaimed as great scientists or engineers, there are striking differences of approach and manner of working. Thomas A. Edison (1847-1931) was essentially an empiricist. He made innumerable experiments, tests, and trials and by the slow process of elimination, arrived at something that would work satisfactorily. On the other hand, Elihu Thomson (1853-1936), prolific inventor, and guiding spirit in the creation of the great General Electric Laboratories, was essentially a scientist-engineer. The contrast between these two is striking. D. O. Woodbury, the biographer of Thomson, has well expressed it thus:

Elihu Thomson was primarily a discoverer but with a generous share of the inventor mixed in. Edison was no discoverer at all but a teeming beehive of ideas with a mechanical imagination superior to any in history. Throughout their lives the two continued this contrast; Edison plunging into his problems with headlong energy and a staggering score of misses as well as hits; Thomson speculating upon his problems, thinking his way carefully through to sound theoretical ground, then basing upon it brilliant practical solutions which almost never failed.

The normal relation of the engineer to inventors is that he undertakes to make the products of their ingenuity available to the public. He must make necessary practical modifications and devise procedures by which the invention may be produced without the disabilities that often Africa badly-engineered devices. The utilization of the products of inventive genius often requires many years of patient work. That work must be done, not by a technologist, but by one with the practical economic sense of the engineer.

5. Engineering as an Art

Even after generations of scientific contribution to engineering practice, there will arise many situations that cannot be met by precise calculation or planning. That indefinable thing associated with judgment and intuition has afforded the basis for decisions of great material and financial importance. For the most part, the great figures of early engineering were gifted geniuses practising engineering largely as an art. Perronet (1708-94), great builder of bridges, of which the Pont de la Concorde in Paris is a characteristic example, placed much less reliance upon known scientific principles than would be exercised by a junior designing engineer of today. James Brindley (1716-72), whose canals revolutionized transport in Britain, was an untaught genius who could scarcely write legibly, but who possessed a judgment of uncanny soundness.

A committee of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, reporting in 1944 on the subject of engineering education after the war, had this to say about the matter:

Knowledge of these [engineering] tools, however, does not constitute ability to practise engineering. There remains the necessity for the young engineer to integrate the application of these laws, assumptions, data, and codes so as to accomplish a desired result safely and economically. This requires a combination of resourcefulness, skill, experience and judgment—amounting at times almost to intuition—which we call the art of engineering. Judgment mixtures only through experience but introduction to the art of engineering and the development of judgment—in other words, elementary competence in the engineering method—can and should begin in college. Unless instruction includes the elements of the arts of practice, it will be in science rather than in engineering. Throughout the whole fabric of engineering education, therefore, there must be interwoven with instruction in scientific principles, the development of rudimentary skills of execution, understanding of the limitations in the application of principles to practical situations, the beginnings of powers of decision and of judgment, the encouragement of creative talent, ability to deal with the factor of values and costs, and the acquirement of that appreciative sense which is satisfied only by skilful execution or precise verbal expression.

6. Humble Origin of the Profession

In Britain, the nursery of professional civilian engineering, most early enterprises of a non-military character, were very largely in the hands of the millwright. This personage was a self-taught, resourceful mechanic or technician. Sir William Fairbairn has best described him, in A Treatise on Mills and Millwork (1861), thus:

The millwright of the last century was an itinerant engineer and mechanic of high reputation. He could handle the axe, the hammer and the plane with equal skill and precision; he could turn, bore or forge with the ease and dispatch of one brought up to those trades, and he could set out, and cut in, furrows of a millstone with an accuracy equal or superior to that of a miller himself.... Generally he was a fair arithmetician, knew something of geometry, levelling and mensuration, and in some cases possessed a very competent knowledge of practical mathematics. He could calculate the velocities, strength and power of machines; could draw in plan and section, and could construct buildings, conduits or water-courses, in all the forms and under all the conditions required in his professional capacity; he could build bridges, cut canals, and perform a variety of work now done by civil engineers.... A century ago the small skilled class of millwrights executed every kind of engineering operation, from making the wooden patterns to erecting in the mill the machines which had been constructed by their own hands.

In proposing and carrying out engineering works, the "undertaker" was a notable figure in the practical world. He was the original engineer-contractor. Very often he had neither scientific nor trades training but possessed to a remarkable degree the power of initiative and direction. A notable example was Sir Hugh Myddelton, the goldsmith who brought the first improved water supply to London in 1613. Even the King did not shrink from being an "undertaker." James I, in 1607, hearing of disastrous floods that had swept across the low East Anglian coast, declared that—"for the honour of his Kingdom, he would not any longer suffer these countries to be abandoned to the will of the waters, nor to let them lie waste or unprofitable; and that if no one else would undertake their drainage, he himself would become their undertaker."

Many millwrights or mechanics later became great engineers and leaders in the slowly forming profession of engineering. James Brindley has already been mentioned. He began as a millright. Thomas Telford (1757-1834), was a stone mason who, amongst many other notable achievements, completely revolutionized transportation in Scotland by his great system of roads and bridges. John Rennie (1761-1821), a millwright, became one of the most distinguished British engineers and the founder of a family of engineers. George Stephenson (1781-1848), the man who made the steam locomotive a practical working mechanism that could be depended upon for the haulage of goods and passengers, was an uneducated fireman in a mine. He could neither read nor write until he was eighteen years of age.

7. Scorn of Eighteenth-Century Educated Classes for Engineers

Practical persons who undertook the work that is now deemed to fall in the territory of the engineer were given short shrift by the traditionally educated and cultured classes of the eighteenth century. Dr. Samuel Johnson—he of the dictionary—defined "mechanical" as "mean, servile." Dean Swift, with characteristic asperity, spoke of "that fellow Newton [Sir Isaac] over the way, a glass grinder and a maker of spectacles." The members of the Royal Society of London, of which John Smeaton (1724-92), the first man to be formally designated as a civil engineer, was a distinguished and highly productive member, took him severely to task for undertaking the "navvy" work of building a road across the valley of the Trent. Up to that time no one considered the calling of the engineer as that of a gentleman, and one who would turn his hand to road building was regarded as in the class of the crossing sweeper. Men of talent avoided such work, since the building and repair of highways was considered derogatory.

8. Military and Civil Engineers

Very naturally, those who undertook to construct and operate works and devices for war and defence were first accorded the designation "engineer." Their prestige mounted in proportion to the success of their efforts. The conquests of Alexander the Great were admittedly furthered by the work of his engineers. Syracuse, great Sicilian stronghold, was successfully defended against the Carthaginian's through their enterprise and resourcefulness. Archimedes, the Greek mathematician and engineer, held it against the Romans for three long years until his reflections and calculations were terminated by the rude hand of the Roman soldier.

For defence and for the ready administration of both conquered and home territories, the Romans went far in the construction of fortifications, roads, aqueducts, and related facilities. Having regard to the means at their disposal, their achievements were, and continue to be, admirable. An intimate picture of the vicissitudes that fell to the lot of the Roman engineer has been painted in a report of Nonius Datus, hydraulic engineer of the Third Legion, who had designed a water supply tunnel for Saldae, in Mauritania, a Roman colony in North Africa. Following an absence of four years from the work on other duty, he returned to inspect it in 152 A.D. and this is what he discovered:

I found everybody sad and despondent. They had given up all hopes that the two opposite sections of the tunnel would meet, because each section had already been excavated beyond the middle of the mountain.

As always happens in these cases, the fault was attributed to me, the engineer, as though I had not taken all precautions to insure the success of the work. What could I have done better! I began by surveying and taking the levels of the mountain. I marked most carefully the axis of the tunnel across the ridge. I drew plans and sections of the whole work, which I handed over to Petronius Celar, Governor of Mauritania; and to take extra precaution I summoned the contractor and his workmen and began the excavation in their presence with two gangs of experienced veterans, namely, a detachment of Marines and a detachment of Alpine troops. What more could I have done?

After four years absence, expecting to hear every day the good tidings that water had been brought to Saldae, I arrive. The contractor and his assistants have made blunder upon blunder. In each section of the tunnel they had diverged from a straight line, each towards the right; and had I waited a little longer before coming, Saldae would have possessed two tunnels instead of one.

In general, "engineering" meant military engineering until about the sixteenth or early seventeenth century. Whatever acclaim was heard was directed toward the military engineer. It was as such that Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), first became honoured and famous. While this extraordinary man, sometimes spoken of as "the greatest engineer that ever lived," proposed and carried out the construction of many works and machines for the general human benefit, it was his work as a military engineer that brought him prestige and preferment. His knowledge and achievements as an architect, an anatomist, a poet, a painter, were overlooked in the false emphasis that was placed, upon works for the use of the soldier.

In a later period, the prestige of Vauban (1633-1707), the French military engineer, mounted to great heights. His forts represented the last word in the stern field of defence. They were impregnable against any method of attack, except the one that Vauban himself devised. He it was that organized companies of sappers and miners, prototypes of many valiant soldiers of later wars.

What had so far taken place in the field of engineering was expressive of the continental idea of fortification and preparation for war or defence. A new note was now sounded, one that forecast the maritime or commercial interests of the West Harbours, light-houses, drainage, reclamation, roads the things that time has associated with the civilian, or civil, engineer—engaged the attention of the constructor.

It was not until the middle of the eighteenth century that non-military engineers were accorded a designation that until then had been the exclusive possession of ingenious men in the armies of the world. John Smeaton (1724-92) whose work in the design and construction of the Eddystone Lighthouse is an engineering classic, was the first man to be called a "civil engineer." This meant that he performed tasks analogous to those laid upon military engineers but that they were for civilian uses. A long line of eminent successors followed, such as Thomas Telford, John Rennie, and George and Robert Stephenson. The dynasty became secure.

9. The Architect and the Engineer

The term "architect," meaning literally "chief builder," was applied by the Greeks and Romans to civilian planners and constructors of buildings, monuments, ships, machines, waterworks, drains, canals, irrigation, and other public works. Architecture was considered as including civilian engineering until about the eighteenth century. That practice doubtless arose from the public inability to conceive of a group of persons operating in the civilian field in effective rivalry with those who had with so great distinction practised the arts of military engineering.

10. What is a Profession?

Those who seek to qualify themselves for service in a learned profession should understand clearly at the outset the nature and characteristics of pro­fessions generally. It would be regrettable if such persons approached it with a conception of the implied duties and obligations that belong to the field of skilled crafts or trades rather than to the professional one.

A basic characteristic of all true professions is that they demand of their members and practitioners a broad and deep general education, rather than a narrow and highly specialized training directed to the mastery of specific techniques. Certain callings that without public sanction have assumed professional status lack the foundation of a sound and broad general education. There are no unlearned professions.

The most fundamental requisite for a profession, without which it has no justification whatever for existence, is the technical competency of the practitioner. One who engages a surgeon does so not by reason of any liberal education that he may have received, or because of his social status or political influence, but because he is highly skilled in the performance of the particular service that is required of him. For a like reason an engineer will not survive professionally if he is unable to provide his client or employer with certain expert technical services. He must possess a knowledge and a skill that will equip him to perform tasks that are beyond the capacity of a layman, however well educated, or of a member of any other profession.

A distinctive quality of a profession and one that sharply differentiates it from business or commercial callings, is that of trusteeship on behalf of an employer or client. A physician, on being engaged, undertakes to perform to the very best of his ability the services that are required in the circumstances and to spare no effort to serve his patient as faithfully as he would serve his own interests if he were patient. He will seek out the best remedies and the most modern procedures known to medicine. Makeshifts can have no place in his programme. When a client engages the services of a solicitor he places his case, and perhaps his personal fortune, unhesitatingly in the hands of a professional legal adviser. He is in no position to judge of the soundness of the steps that are being taken by that adviser in his behalf. The lawyer is a trustee on whom he must implicitly rely. Similarly, when a client or an employer engages an engineer he must place himself in the hands of that engineer, since he himself lacks the knowledge and technical competency to provide whatever structures, machines, or processes are needed or to form an opinion of the sufficiency of what the engineer proposes.

The obligation of the professional man to serve his client or employer as he would serve himself or a member of his family, does not rest in like measure upon the world of business and commerce. A merchant, in full conformity with established business ethics, is not called upon to inform his poten­tial customer that the same article may be obtained at a lower price a few doors down the street, or that a better article could be had for the same price. There is in business a general acceptance of the doctrine of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. No such principle could be recognized by the professions.

An essential of all true professional life is that the practitioner accepts in full measure his share of public and social responsibility. He is not merely a worker for the advancement of his own fortunes. Superior educational training and strict conformity to the principle of trusteeship engender in a professional man an attitude of conscientious regard for the welfare and good fortune of others. He must give a portion of his time for the advancement of that welfare. John Smeaton, one of. the greatest engineering philosophers of his own or any other time, expressed his firm conviction of that obligation in the observation that "the abilities of the individual are a debt due to the common stock of public well-being."

11. Personal Qualifications for Success in Engineering

(1.) Aptitude. It is essential for success in engineering that the aspirant shall possess personal fitness for scientific and technological pursuits. Without it the young man would be forced to struggle against an inclination or capacity that would logically lead him in another direction. No doubt on this score hampered the enthusiastic pursuit of engineering science by John Smeaton. Throughout his professional career he was a constant student and one of the most prolific contributors to the proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

James Watt could not look upon any instrument or machine without being seized with a desire to understand its meaning, to unravel its mystery, and to master the rationale of its uses.

James Clerk Maxwell, celebrated mathematical physicist, insisted at the age of three upon being shown the manner of working of every new device that met his gaze.

(2) Robustness. Physical, mental, and moral robustness are prerequisites for high success in the profession. of engineering. They bring in their train the persistence and tenacity that will see a young man through to the successful achievement of his goal. Lord Wavell, who in the Western Desert first pointed the way to ultimate victory in the dark days of the Second World War, considered robustness as the first essential of success in a general. The ability to stand the shocks and distractions of war is an ability that equally orients an engineer in the direction of success.

To Alfred Noble the American public owes much. Against an overwhelming majority of opinion he resolutely framed the celebrated minority report of the International Commission of Engineers on the construction of the Panama Canal. He believed firmly that a sea-level canal was impracticable, and so great was the confidence in his opinion that the waterway was actually built as a lock canal against the recommendation of the majority report.

To George Westinghouse much of the safety and comfort in rail travel and much of the efficiency of power utilization is due. He pushed on with his air brake despite the sneer of old Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt who, when he heard that the inventor proposed to stop railway trains with wind, remarked curtly that he had "no time to waste on fools."

A stimulating example of clear thinking and resolute action on the part of a great Canadian engineer is found in the long services of Sir John Kennedy as chief engineer of the port of Montreal. Against openly expressed doubts he advocated the construction of 1,000-foot piers for that port and time justified his views. The enormous traffic now passing down the St. Lawrence and through the port of Montreal is in very considerable measure based upon the sound judgment and enlightened views of that distinguished engineer who so long guided the constructional policies of the Montreal port authorities.

(3) Intellectual Keenness. Without intellectual keenness and the ability to analyse and to reason quantitatively, the young man will not go far in engineering. Lack of this quality cannot be offset by manual dexterity or an interest in devices or technical equipment. The "tinkering" habit does not of itself indicate ultimate success as a professional engineer.

Clear thinking is a primary essential to success. Decisions and recommendations must rest on a frank analysis of the facts in the case and not on what a client would like to hear.

Sir Sandford Fleming (1827-1915) was the last man to be deviated from this course. The soundness of his views and the value of his advice to this country might well be crystallized in the characteristic incident of the selection of a passage through the Rocky Mountains for the Canadian Pacific Railway. In his famous report on the surveys for the C.P.R. he recommended the Yellowhead Pass on the ground of easy grades and the avoidance of a corner of the great American desert jutting up into Canada. When the Canadian Pacific Railway Company took over the enterprise from the government of Canada it selected the Kicking Horse Pass, partly with desire to keep the, American railroads from crossing the border. The grades, however, necessitated on this route, which might be considered as politically located, were such that the government refused to grant the subsidy on eight miles of the line between Hector and Field. To this day the handicap on Canadian transport thus imposed persists, in that basic freight rates are founded on the haulage costs over the C.P.R. rather than on the easier grades of the Canadian National through the Yellowhead Pass.

(4) Idealism. For the engineer, as for any other professional man, a high concept of the ultimate goal should be kept constantly in mind. Professional engineering is not merely a trade or a means of earning a livelihood. Abbott Lawrence Lowell, sometime President of Harvard University, well said that "Anyone who sees in his own occupation merely a means of earning money, degrades it; but he that sees in it a service to mankind ennobles both his labour and himself." F. L. Mayer has put it in this way: "Nothing really worth while can ever be done except under the inspiration of something much greater than material achievement or personal gain.... 'Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.'"

The inner vision that directs in engineer to high concepts of the dignity of his profession almost always leads him at the same time to cultural interests and expression. Isambard Kingdom Brunel was a rare judge of artistic achievement, with a particularly keen sense of form and colour. Ralph Modjeski, distinguished American bridge engineer, was an accomplished pianist and, as might have been expected of the son of the great Shakespearean actress, Modjeska, a discerning observer of the drama. John Lyle Harrington, another noted, American engineer, made it a practice to read one non-technical book a week.

(5) Originality. Almost everything that the engineer does involves in some measure the need for originality. No two enterprises are alike and each one of them calls for a measure of invention or original creation. Provided the engineer never allows his feet to leave the ground, there is no risk from an excess of originality. Charles F. Kettering, vice-president of the General Motors Corporation in charge of research, has stated that: "The trouble with us is not the over-production of goods but the under-production of ideas."

James B. Eads, skilful manipulator of the currents of the Mississippi River to the betterment of its channels, was ill in England when his assistants vainly tried to effect the closure of the main arch in the great bridge at St. Louis. They cabled an inquiry as to what should be done. His reply was simply—"Pack the rib in ice." The opposing ends fitted together perfectly.

(6) Imagination. Linked with originality is the essential quality of imagination. Engineering cannot always function as a rigorous science. It remains in some respects essentially an art. Visualization, appreciation of the essential relation of parts, and a clear realization of what the goal should be, are elements that cannot be overlooked in the professional development of an engineer. The contemplative vision of the builder is a vision that should be sought by him. Cecil Rhodes, on being reminded that no one then living would see full grown the oak saplings that he was planting on his estate at Bulawayo, quietly replied: "I can see the people now, walking up and down under their shade."

The reach and vividness of imagination displayed by James B. Eads brought many influential but hesitant persons to the support of his schemes, many of which appeared visionary. It was the role of a superb thinker in the realm of electrical mathematics that placed the physically-frail Charles Proteus Steinmetz amongst the immortals.

(7) Initiative. The vital ability to get things in motion is a prime requisite for success in an engineer. A somewhat faulty solution of a problem is better than no proposal at all. A very distinguished Canadian engineer, the late Cecil B. Smith, once remarked, when he asked an overly-cautious junior in an urgent situation for a rough and rapid design, that he-did not care very much whether it was right or wrong. He needed something immediately which could form the basis of preliminary discussions. Necessary corrections and adjustments could follow if anything should come of the proposed enterprise. When Major-General George W. Goethals, builder of the Panama Canal, was a young army officer, a superior significantly remarked: "Whatever I gave him to do I immediately dismissed from my mind. I knew it would be done right."

(8) Self-reliance. No single quality is more essential in an engineer than that of self-reliance. Confidence, resourcefulness, and a willingness to accept responsibility must imbue him. While these characteristics are in large measure a matter of personal endowment, a young man may develop them to a marked degree by early imposing upon himself a definite and continuing responsibility for his own education. The less he counts upon others and the more he endeavours to educate himself, the greater will be his professional independence.

Sir Sandford Fleming never doubted his own capacity to deal with a situation. Had he not possessed complete self-reliance he would never have been able to carry through the many exciting enterprises with which he was associated. The "battle of the bridges" is characteristic. Against the intense opposition of his commissioners he persisted until an order-in-council was issued whereby all bridges on the international Railway were to be built of iron.

(9) Integrity. The professional life of an engineer demands strict integrity and dependability, however trying the circumstances may be. He is a trustee acting in the interests of his employer or client and in the discharge of that trust unswerving conformity to the principles of professional and private honour must be observed. Thomas Telford (1757-1834), distinguished Scottish civil engineer, recounted that throughout his life he was impressed with the truth of the maxim, "an honest man may look the devil in the face without being afraid." On one occasion he declined a remunerative appointment as chief engineer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway as it might prejudicially affect the interests of his many canal company clients.

George Stephenson (1781-1848), in recommending a type of rail for the Stockton and Darlington Railway, definitely specified a rail other than the cast iron one on which he held a patent, although he might have profited to the extent of a very considerable sum had he cared to use his own rail.

When unforeseen conditions encountered at the Asyut barrage in Egypt made it necessary so to change the design that the existing contract was no longer applicable, Sir Benjamin Baker (1840-1907), as consulting engineer, advised the Egyptian government to cancel the contract and instruct Sir John Aird, the contractor, to finish the work at the earliest possible moment, regardless of cost, leaving the contractor's profit to be settled by him. Sir John agreed. The work was finished a year before the expiration of the contract time, and a year's additional supply of water was secured for Egypt with an economic gain to the country of $3 million. On completion of the undertaking Sir John stated publicly that while on one or two occasions his company had not shared the views of Sir Benjamin, th'e latter's judgments had always been sound and considerate and that on handing the work over to the Egyptian government, no outstanding differences whatever remained. No more remarkable tribute could be paid to the integrity of a great engineer.

Alfred Noble was characterized by J. Waldo Smith, another eminent American engineer, as the most conscientious engineer that he had ever known. Noble never rendered a snap judgment, even on matters of small importance. He was more anxious to be correct than to appear brilliant. Any advice given or judgment pronounced was always the result of the most careful consideration. He repeatedly refused lucrative engagements for the sole reason that he felt he could not give them the study and attention which they demanded.

(10) Courage. There are occasions in the life of almost every engineer when physical courage will be put to the test.

On the first irruption of water in the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the younger Brunel personally descended in a diving bell to examine the extent of disturbance of the river bed and the injury, if any, to the brickwork. Since the bell could not be lowered deep enough he dropped out of it, holding on by a rope.

Sir Francis Fox took similar risks when underpinning Westminster Cathedral.

Sir Benjamin Baker would never ask a man to do a job that he would not be willing to attempt himself.

John F. Stevens, then a young man, sought long for a route by which the Great Northern Railway could pass through the Rocky Mountains. Under the direct threat of the hostile Blackfeet Indians that if he should get through he would never return alive, he found and fixed the location through the Marias Pass.

(11) Co-operative Spirit. An essential ingredient of success in engineering is the exercise of a spirit of co-operation. Great enterprises in the field of construction or manufacture demand that the engineer work harmoniously with others. Without that ability the degree of success obtained will be meagre. The Dean of an important engineering school in the United States on ope occasion recalled a brilliant but erratic chemist who had worked with him during the First World War. Ten years later the chemist was nearly down, and out, not because of lack of mental capacity or training, but due to his inability to get along with others and especially to the fact that he could not control a bitter tongue.

In this matter of co-operation, it is essential that others should be allowed a place in the sun and that their proposals and undertakings should be granted the consideration that their merits would warrant. An illustration of the lack of co-operation in this respect was cited in his autobiography by Robert Ridgway, celebrated subway and tunnel engineer, in revealing the complete lack. of cooperation between the Transit Commission ap­pointed by New York State, and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of New York City. Anything that might be proposed by the Commission was rejected or ignored by the Board. Mr. Ridgway, commenting regretfully upon this state of affairs, observed that: "There is a kink in political human nature that makes them act that way. Both sides wanted good rapid transit but did not want the other fellow to accomplish it."

(12) Loyalty. There is a loyalty that every engineer owes to his superiors, his associates, and his subordinates. He may not approve of his employer's policies, may not like his habits or his methods, but he must remain loyal to the chief as long as he is in his service. If he cannot work in the existing atmosphere he should resign, but not seek to undermine his employer while occupying a position of trust under him.

(13) Leadership. A much to be desired quality amongst engineers, or in any occupational group for that matter, is the ability to secure enthusiastic support without hesitancy or friction. The success of those who organize and rule is in part due to the power they possess of inspiring quiet and sustained effort. As Colonel Willard Chevalier, an eminent American observer of the engineer and his ways, has aptly pointed out, leadership is not a right it is a power. It will be exercised by those who are competent to exercise it. The fact that a man is a doctor, or a lawyer, or an engineer, or a politician, or a clergyman, has nothing to do with his leadership. No matter what a man's training, or background, or occupation may be, he will be a leader if he possesses and applies the qualities of leadership. Many engineers lead but not merely because they are engineers. They do so because of personal qualifications that have been inherited or acquired through persistent effort.