rintending 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 invo