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