whether it can or cannot, is it not the thing wanted, and if so, is it
not an object worth striving for? One tool maker says that all machine
tools, engines, and machinery should set on solid stone foundations.
Should they?

They do not always, for in substantial Philadelphia some machine tools
used by machine builders stand upon second floors, or, perhaps, higher
up. And of these machine tools none, or few at least, except those
mounted upon a single pedestal, are free from detrimental torsion
where the floor upon which they rest is distorted by unequal loading.
But, to first consider those of such magnitude as to render it
absolutely necessary to erect them--not rest them--on masonry, is due
consideration always taken to arrange an unequal foundation to support
the unequal loads?--and they cannot be expected to remain true if not.
When one has the good fortune to have a machine to design of such
extent that the masonry becomes the main part of it, what part of the
glory does he give to the mason? Is the masonry part of it always
satisfactory, and is not this resorting to the mason for a frame
rather than a support adopted on smaller machines than is necessary?
Is it necessary even in a planing machine of forty feet length of bed
and a thirty foot table? Could not the bed be cast in three pieces,
the center a rectangular box, 5 or 6 or 7 feet square, 20 feet long,
with internal end flanges, ways planed on its upper surface, and ends
squared off, a monster, perhaps, but if our civil engineers wanted
such a casting for a bridge, they'd get it. Add to this central
section two bevel pieces of half the length, and set the whole down
through the floor where your masonry would have been and rest the
whole on two cross walls, and you would have a structure that if once
made true would remain so regardless of external influences. Cost?
Yes; and so do Frodsham watches--more than "Waterbury."