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