The Project Gutenberg EBook of Scientific American Supplement, No. 530, February 27, 1886, by Various This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: Scientific American Supplement, No. 530, February 27, 1886 Author: Various Release Date: September 8, 2004 [EBook #13399] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN *** Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Don Kretz and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT NO. 530 NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 27, 1886 Scientific American Supplement. Vol. Vol. XXI, No. 530. Scientific American established 1845 Scientific American Supplement, $5 a year. Scientific American and Supplement, $7 a year. TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. CHEMISTRY ETC.—Decomposition and Fermentation of Milk. II. ENGINEERING AND MECHANICS.—The Ethics of Engineering Practice.—An address by Mr. JAS. C. BAYLES, before the American Institute of Mining Engineers. Lifting a 40-inch Water Main.—With engraving. The Inter-oceanic Canal Question. The Mersey Tunnel. Improved Revolver.—With 4 figures. Motors for Street Railways.—Results of experiments on mechanical motors for tramways made by the jury on railway appliances at the Antwerp Exhibition.—By Capt. DOUGLAS GALTON. III. TECHNOLOGY.—Alizarine Dyes.—Process of dyeing.—Recipes for various colors. Cement Paving.—Composition made by the Wilkes' Metallic Flooring Company.—Other compositions. A New Bleaching Process.—The "Mather-Thompson" system. Instruments for Drawing Curves.—By Prof. C.W. MACCORD—1. The Hyperbola—2 figures. Experiments with Fibers.—By Dr. THOS. TAYLOR.—Detection of Fraud.—Method employed. —Cotton mixed with linen.—Experiments with flax.—Wool tested with acid.—Tests of dyed black silk. Orthochromatic Plates.—By CH. SCOLIK. A New Photographic Apparatus.—With engraving. IV. ELECTRICITY, PHYSICS, ETC.—On the Theory of the Electro-magnetic Telephone Transmitter. —By E. MERCADIER. On the Theory of the Receiver of the Electro-magnetic Telephone.—By E. MERCADIER. Frew's Improved Pyrometer.—With engraving. Dew.—Abstract of a paper read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh.—By Mr. AITKEN.— Source of dew.—Observations of the temperature of the ground.—Experiments.—Effects of wind. —Excretion of drops of liquid by plants.—Radiating power of different surfaces at night. V. ASTRONOMY.—Meteorites.—The Dhurmsala Meteorite. Telescopic Search for the Trans-Neptunian Planet.—By DAVID P. TODD. VI. ARCHITECTURE.—The New "Burgtheater" in Vienna.—With full page engraving. The New German Bookdealers' Exchange in Leipzig.—With engraving. VII. MISCELLANEOUS.—Notes on Manual Spelling.—By JAS. C. GORDON.—Origin of Finger Spelling.—Finger alphabets.—With engraving of American alphabet. Fruits and Seeds for Dress Trimming.—Origin of the use of Fruits and Seeds.—Preparation by MR. COLLIN. VIII. BIOGRAPHY.—Hon. Hiram Sibley.—The founder of the Sibley College of Mechanic Arts of Cornell University.—With portrait. HON. HIRAM SIBLEY. Hon. Hiram Sibley, of the city of Rochester, a man of national reputation as the originator of great enterprises, and as the most extensive farmer and seedsman in this country, was born at North Adams, Berkshire County, Mass., February 6, 1807, and is the second son of Benjamin and Zilpha Davis Sibley. Benjamin was the son of Timothy Sibley, of Sutton, Mass., who was the father of fifteen children—twelve sons and three daughters; eight of these, including Benjamin, lived to the aggregate age of 677 years, an average of about seventy-five years and three months. From the most unpromising beginnings, without education, Hiram Sibley has risen to a postion of usefulness and influence. His youth was passed among his native hills. He was a mechanical genius by nature. Banter with a neighboring shoemaker led to his attempt to make a shoe on the spot, and he was at once placed on the shoemaker's bench. At the age of sixteen he migrated to the Genesee Valley, where he was employed in a machine shop, and subsequently in wool carding. Before he was of age he had mastered five different trades. Three of these years were passed in Livingston County. His first occupation on his own account was as a shoemaker at North Adams; then he did business successfully as a machinist and wool carder in Livingston County, N.Y.; after which he established himself at Mendon, fourteen miles south of Rochester, a manufacturing village, now known as Sibleyville, where he had a foundry and machine shop. When in the wool carding business at Sparta and Mount Morris, in Livingston County, he worked in the same shop, located near the line of the two towns, where Millard Filmore had been employed and learned his trade; beginning just after a farewell ball was given to Mr. Filmore by his fellow workmen. Increase of reputation and influence brought Mr. Sibley opportunities for office. He was elected by the Democrats Sheriff of Monroe County in 1843 when he removed to Rochester; but his political career was short, for a more important matter was occupying his mind. From the moment of the first success of Professor Morse with his experiments in telegraphy, Mr. Sibley had been quick to discern the vast promise of the invention; and in 1840 he went to Washington to assist Professor Morse and Ezra Cornell in procuring an appropriation of $40,000 from Congress to build a line from Washington to Baltimore, the first put up in America. Strong prejudices had to be overcome. On Mr. Sibley's meeting the chairman of the committee having the matter in charge, and expressing the hope that the application would be granted, he received for answer: "We had made up our minds to allow the appropriation, when the Professor came in and upset everything. Why! he undertook to tell us that he could send ten words from Washington to Baltimore in two minutes. Good heavens! Twenty minutes is quick enough, but two minutes is nonsense. The Professor is too radical and visionary, and I doubt if the committee recommend the sum to be risked in such a manner." Mr. Sibley's sound arguments and persuasiveness prevailed, though he took care not to say what he believed, that the Professor was right as to the two minutes. Their joint efforts secured the subsidy of $40,000. This example stimulated other inventors, and in a few years several patents were in use, and various lines had been constructed by different companies. The business was so divided as to be always unprofitable. Mr. Sibley conceived the plan of uniting all the patents and companies in one organization. After three years of almost unceasing toil, he succeeded in buying up the stock of the different corporations, some of it at a price as low as two cents on the dollar, and in consolidating the lines which then extended over portions of thirteen States. The Western Union Telegraph Company was then organized, with Mr. Sibley as the first president. Under his management for sixteen years, the number of telegraph offices was increased from 132 to over 4,000, and the value of the property from $220,000 to $48,000,000. In the project of uniting the Atlantic and Pacific by a line to California, he stood nearly alone. At a meeting of the prominent telegraph men of New York, a committee was appointed to report upon his proposed plan, whose verdict was that it would be next to impossible to build the line; that, if built, the Indians would destroy it; and that it would not pay, even if built, and not destroyed. His reply was characteristic; that it should be built, if he had to build it alone. He went to Washington, procured the necessary legislation, and was the sole contractor with the Government. The Western Union Telegraph Company afterward assumed the contract, and built the line, under Mr. Sibley's administration as president, ten years in advance of the railroad. HIRAM SIBLEY. Not satisfied with this success at home, he sought to unite the two hemispheres by way of Alaska and Siberia, under P. McD. Collins' franchise. On visiting Russia with Mr. Collins in the winter of 1864-5, he was cordially received and entertained by the Czar, who approved the plan. A most favorable impression had preceded him. For when the Russian squadron visited New York in 1863—the year after Russia and Great Britain had declined the overture of the French government for joint mediation in the American conflict—Mr. Sibley and other prominent gentlemen were untiring in efforts to entertain the Russian admiral, Lusoffski, in a becoming mariner. Mr. Sibley was among the foremost in the arrangements of the committee of reception. So marked were his personal kindnesses that when the admiral returned he mentioned Mr. Sibley by name to the Emperor Alexander, and thus unexpectedly prepared the way for the friendship of that generous monarch. During Mr. Sibley's stay in St. Petersburg, he was honored in a manner only accorded to those who enjoy the special favor of royalty. Just before his arrival the Czar had returned from the burial of his son at Nice; and, in accordance with a long honored custom when the head of the empire goes abroad and returns, he held the ceremony of "counting the emperor's jewels;" which means an invitation to those whom his majesty desires to compliment as his friends, without regard to court etiquette or the formalities of official rank. At this grand reception in the palace at Tsarskozela, seventeen miles from St. Petersburg, Mr. Sibley was the second on the list, the French ambassador being the first, and Prince Gortchakoff, the Prime Minister, the third. This order was observed also in the procession of 250 court carriages with outriders, Mr. Sibley's carriage being the second in the line. On this occasion Prince Gortchakoff turning to Mr. Sibley, said: "Sir, if I remember rightly, in the course of a very pleasant conversation had with you a few days since, at the State department, you expressed your surprise at the pomp and circumstance attending upon all court ceremony. Now, sir, when you take precedence of the Prime Minister, I trust you are more reconciled to the usage attendant upon royalty, which was so repugnant to your democratic ideas." Such an honor was greatly appreciated by Mr. Sibley; for it meant the most sincere respect of the "Autocrat of all the Russias" for the people of the United States, and a recognition of the courtesies conferred upon his fleet when in American waters. Mr. Sibley was duly complimented by the members of the royal family and others present, including the ambassadors of the great powers. Mr. Collins, his colleague in the telegraph enterprise, shared in these attentions. Mr. Sibley was recorded in the official blue book of the State department of St. Petersburg as "the distinguished American," by which title he was generally known. Of this book he has a copy as a souvenir of his Russian experience. His intercourse with the Russian authorities was also facilitated by a very complimentary letter from Secretary Seward to Prince Gortchakoff. The Russian government agreed to build the line from Irkootsk to the mouth of the Amoor River. After 1,500 miles of wire had been put up, the final success of the Atlantic cable caused the abandonment of the line, at a loss of $3,000,000. This was a loss in the midst of success, for Mr. Sibley had demonstrated the feasibility of putting a telegraphic girdle round the earth. In railway enterprises the accomplishments of his energy and management have been no less signal than in the establishment of the telegraph. One of these was the important line of the Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana Railway. His principal efforts in this direction have been in the Southern States. After the war, prompted more by the desire of restoring amicable relations than by the prospect of gain, he made large and varied investments at the South, and did much to promote renewed business activity. At Saginaw. Mich., he became a large lumber and salt manufacturer. He bought much property in Michigan, and at one time owned vast tracts in the Lake Superior region, where the most valuable mines have since been worked. While he has been interested in bank and manufacturing stocks, his larger investments have been in land. Much of his pleasure has been in reclaiming waste territory and unproductive investments, which have been abandoned by others as hopeless. The satisfying aim of his ambition incites him to difficult undertakings, that add to the wealth and happiness of the community, from which others have shrunk, or in which others have made shipwreck. Besides his stupendous achievements in telegraph and railway extension, he is unrivaled as a farmer and seed grower, and he has placed the stamp of his genius on these occupations, in which many have been content to work in the well-worn ruts of their predecessors. The seed business was commenced in Rochester thirty years ago. Later, Mr. Sibley undertook to supply seeds of his own importation and raising and others' growth, under a personal knowledge of their vitality and comparative value. He instituted many experiments for the improvements of plants, with reference to their seed-bearing qualities, and has built up a business as unique in its character as it is unprecedented in amount. He cultivates the largest farm in the State, occupying Howland Island, of 3,500 acres, in Cayuga County, near the Erie Canal and the New York Central Railroad, which is largely devoted to seed culture; a portion is used for cereals, and 500 head of cattle are kept. On the Fox Ridge farm, through which the New York Central Railroad passes, where many seeds and bulbs are grown, he has reclaimed a swamp of six hundred acres, making of great value what was worthless in other hands, a kind of operation which affords him much delight. His ownership embraces fourteen other farms in this State, and also large estates in Michigan and Illinois. The seed business is conducted under the firm name of Hiram Sibley & Co., at Rochester and Chicago, where huge structures afford accommodations for the storage and handling of seeds on the most extensive scale. An efficient means for the improvement of the seeds is their cultivation in different climates. In addition to widely separated seed farms in this country, the firm has growing under its directions several thousands of acres in Canada, England, France, Germany, Holland, and Italy. Experimental grounds and greenhouses are attached to the Rochester and Chicago establishments, where a sample of every parcel of seed is tested, and experiments conducted with new varieties. One department of the business is for the sale of horticultural and agricultural implements of all kinds. A new department supplies ornamental grasses, immortelles, and similar plants used by florists for decorating and for funeral emblems. Plants for these purposes are imported from Germany, France, the Cape of Good Hope, and other countries, and dyed and colored by the best artists here. As an illustration of their methods of business, it may be mentioned that the firm has distributed gratuitously, the past year, $5,000 in seeds and prizes for essays on gardening in the Southern States, designed to foster the interests of horticulture in that section. The largest farm owned by Mr. Sibley, and the largest cultivated farm in the world, deserves a special description. This is the "Sullivant Farm," as formerly designated, but now known as the "Burr Oaks Farm," originally 40,000 acres, situated about 100 miles south of Chicago, on both sides of the Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railroad. The property passed into the hands of an assignee, and, on Mr. Sullivant's death in 1879, came into the possession of Mr. Sibley. His first step was to change the whole plan of cultivation. Convinced that so large a territory could not be worked profitably by hired labor, he divided it into small tracts, until there are now many hundreds of such farms; 146 of these are occupied by tenants working on shares, consisting of about equal proportions of Americans, Germans, Swedes, and Frenchmen. A house and a barn have been erected on each tract, and implements and agricultural machines provided. At the center, on the railway, is a four-story warehouse, having a storage capacity of 20,000 bushels, used as a depot for the seeds grown on the farm, from which they are shipped as wanted to the establishments in Chicago and Rochester. The largest elevator on the line of the railway has been built, at a cost of over $20,000; its capacity is 50,000 bushels, and it has a mill capable of shelling and loading twenty-five cars of corn a day. Near by is a flax mill, also run by steam, for converting flax straw into stock for bagging and upholstery. Another engine is used for grinding feed. Within four years there has sprung up on the property a village containing one hundred buildings, called Sibley by the people, which is supplied with schools, churches, a newspaper, telegraph office, and the largest hotel on the route between Chicago and St. Louis. A fine station house is to be erected by the railway company. Mr. Sibley is the president and largest stockholder of the Bank of Monroe, at Rochester, and is connected with various institutions. He has not acquired wealth simply to hoard it. The Sibley College of Mechanic Arts of Cornell University, at Ithaca, which he founded, and endowed at a cost of $100,000, has afforded a practical education to many hundreds of students. Sibley Hall, costing more than $100,000, is his contribution for a public library, and for the use of the University of Rochester for its library and cabinets; it is a magnificent fire-proof structure of brownstone trimmed with white, and enriched with appropriate statuary. Mrs. Sibley has also made large donations to the hospitals and other charitable institutions in Rochester and elsewhere. She erected, at a cost of $25,000, St. John's Episcopal Church, in North Adams, Mass., her native village. Mr. Sibley has one son and one daughter living—Hiram W. Sibley, who married the only child of Fletcher Harper, Jr., and resides in New York, and Emily Sibley Averell, who resides in Rochester. He has lost two children—Louise Sibley Atkinson and Giles B. Sibley. A quotation from Mr. Sibley's address to the students of Sibley College, during a recent visit to Ithaca, is illustrative of his practical thought and expression, and a fitting close to this brief sketch of his practical life: "There are two most valuable possessions which no search warrant can get at, which no execution can take away, and which no reverse of fortune can destroy; they are what a man puts into his head—knowledge; and in to his hands—skill."—Encyclopædia of Contemporary Biography. HYDRASTIS IN DYSPEPSIA.—Several correspondents in The Lancet have lauded hydrastis as a most useful drug in dyspepsia. THE ETHICS OF ENGINEERING PRACTICE. At the Pittsburg meeting of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, held from the 16th to the 19th of February, Mr. James C. Bayles, the President, delivered the following address: GENTLEMEN OF THE INSTITUTE: Having availed myself somewhat liberally during the past two years of the latitude which is accorded the president in the selection of the topics presented in addresses from the chair, I do not need to plead safe precedent as my warrant for devoting the address which marks the conclusion of my service in the dignified and honorable office to which, through your unmerited favor, I have been twice chosen, to the consideration of some of the questions in casuistry the answers to which will be found to furnish a basis for a code of professional ethics. It is not asking too much of the engineer that his professional morality shall conform to higher standards than those which govern men who buy and sell with no other object than the getting of gain. The professional man stands in a more confidential relation to his client than is supposed to exist between buyer and seller in trade. He is necessarily more trusted, and has larger opportunities of betraying the confidence reposed in him than is offered the merchant or the business agent. For the reason that he cannot be held to the same strict accountability which law and usage establish in mercantile business, he is under a moral obligation to fix his own rules of conduct by high standards and conform to them under all circumstances. Whatever the measure of his professional success—whether wealth and reputation crown his career, or disappointment and poverty be his constant and unwelcome companions —no taint of suspicion should attach to any professional act or utterance. Not only should we be able to write above the wreck of bright hopes, "Honor alone remains," but upon our great and successful achievements should it be possible for others to inscribe the legend, "In honor wrought; with honor crowned." It is frequently and confidently asserted that at no time in the history of the world were the standards of business honor so high as now. The prevalence of dishonesty, in one form or another, is held to show that there is a great deal of moral weakness which is unequal to the strain to which principle is subjected in the keenness of business competition, and in the presence of the almost unlimited confidence which apparently characterizes commercial intercourse. The enormous volume of the daily transactions on 'change, where a verbal agreement or a sign made and recognized in the midst of indescribable confusion has all the binding force of a formal contract; the real-estate and merchandise transactions effected on unwitnessed and unrecorded understandings; the certification of checks on the promise of deposits or collaterals, and a hundred other evidences of confidence, are cited as proof that the accepted standards of business honor are high, and are kept so by public opinion. All of this is true, in a certain limited sense; but the confidence which is the basis of all business creates opportunities for dishonesty which changes its shape with more than Protean facility when detected and denounced. The keenness of competition in all departments of professional and business enterprise presents a constant temptation to seize every advantage, fair or unfair, which promises immediate profit. It is unfortunately true that the successful cleverness which sacrifices honor to gain is more easily condoned by public opinion than honest dullness which is caught in the snares laid for it by the cunning manipulators of speculation. The man who fails to deliver what he has bought, to meet his paper at maturity and make good the certifications of his banker, loses at once his business standing, and is practically excluded from business competition; but if he keeps his engagements and is successful, the public is kindly blind to the agencies he may employ to depreciate what he wants to buy or impart a fictitious value to what he wants to sell. Viewed from this standpoint, it may be questioned whether the accepted standards of business morality are not, after all, those fixed by the revised statutes. In so far as the engineer is brought in contact with the activities of trade, he cannot fail to be conscious of the fact that serious temptations surround him. Such reputation as he has gained is assumed to have a market value, and the price is held out to him on every side. It should not be difficult for the conscientious engineer, jealous of his professional honor, to decide what is right and what is not. He does not need to be reminded that he cannot sell his independence nor make merchandise of his good name. But as delicate problems in casuistry may mislead or confuse him, it is to be regretted that so little effort has been made to formulate a code of professional ethics which would help to right decisions those who cannot reach them unaided. Standing in the presence of so many of those who have dignified the profession of engineering, I should hesitate to express my views on this subject did I not believe that many earnest and right-minded young men in our active and associate membership will be glad to know what rules of conduct govern those whose example they would willingly follow, and how one not a practicing engineer, but with good opportunities of observation and judgment, would characterize practices which have been to some extent sanctioned by custom. To those who have yet to win the gilded spurs of professional knighthood, but who cherish a high and honorable ambition, my suggestions are chiefly addressed. An ever present stumbling block in the path of the young engineer is what is lightly spoken of as the "customary commission"—a percentage paid him on the price of machinery and supplies purchased or recommended by him. That manufacturers expect to pay commissions to engineers who are instrumental in effecting the sale of their products is a striking proof that the standards of business morality are quite as low as I have assumed them to be; that engineers do not unite in indignant protest against the custom, and denounce as bribe-givers and bribe-takers those who thus exchange services, shows that the iron has entered the souls of many who may be disposed to resent such plain terms as those in which I decree it my duty to describe transactions of this kind. The young man who is tendered a commission will naturally ask himself whether he can accept and retain it, and may, perhaps, reason somewhat in this way: "My professional advice was given without expectation of personal profit other than that earned in my fee, and it expressed my best judgment. The price at which the goods were purchased was that which every consumer must pay, and was not increased for my advantage. The transaction was satisfactory to buyer and seller, and was concluded when payment was made. I am now tendered a commission which I am at liberty to accept or to decline. If I decline it, I lose something, my client gains nothing, and the remaining profit to the seller is greater than he expected by that amount. If I accept it, I do my client no wrong. If it is the custom of manufacturers to pay commissions, it must be the custom of engineers to receive them; and there is no reason why I should be supersensitive on a point long since decided by usage." This is false reasoning, based upon erroneous assumptions. Why do manufacturers pay commissions? Is it probable they make it a part of their business policy to give something for nothing? Is it not certain that they expect an equivalent for every dollar thus disbursed, and that in paying the engineer a commission they are seeking to establish relations with him which shall warp his judgment and make him their agent? It may be urged in the case of reputable manufacturers that they yield to this custom because other manufacturers have established it, and that in following the pernicious example they have no other object than to equalize the influences tending to the formation of professional judgment. This reasoning does not change in the least the moral aspects of the question from the manufacturer's standpoint, but what engineer with a delicate sense of professional honor could offer or hear such an explanation without feeling the hot blush of shame suffuse his cheeks? The plain truth about the commission is that the manufacturer or dealer adds it to the selling price of his goods, and the buyer unconsciously pays the bribe designed to corrupt his own agent. Can an engineer receive and retain for his own use a commission thus collected from his client without a surrender of his independence, and having surrendered that, can he conscientiously serve the client who seeks disinterested advice and assistance in the planning and construction of work? It is possible, perhaps, for a man to dissociate his preferences from his interests; so, also, is it possible for one to walk through fire and not scorch his garments but how few are able to do it! The young man in professional life who begins by accepting commissions will soon find himself expecting and demanding them, and from that moment his professional judgment is as much for sale as pork in the shambles. I counsel the young man thus tempted to ask himself, Am I entitled to pay from the manufacturer who offers it? If so, for what? If not, will my self-respect permit me to become his debtor for a gratuity to which I 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 to procure drawings and specifications from manufacturers than to make them. Many manufacturers are very willing to furnish them, but those who do are careful to so frame the specifications that they can secure the contracts at prices to include the cost of the professional work for which the engineer is also paid. There is nothing unprofessional in recommending a patented article or process if it be, in the judgment of the engineer, the best for the purpose to be accomplished, but he will do it openly and with the courage of his convictions. The young engineer should, I think, have no difficulty in recognizing the important difference which inheres in the methods by which a given result is accomplished. In the relations of engineers to contractors there is many a snare and pitfall for the unwary feet of the beginner. In superintending 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 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 for its value upon the effect of his report in creating confidence in the public mind, takes a fearful risk. However honest he may be, he places himself in a position in which the danger is obvious and the advantage uncertain. If, having a contingent interest in the result of his work, he is afraid to say so in his report, he may safely consider his position unprofessional and unsafe. Contingent fees are a delusion and a snare, and in making it a rule to refuse them the young engineer will be likely to gain more than he loses. Reports intended to influence the public upon subjects concerning which the engineer knows himself unqualified to speak with authority are to be classed with other forms of charlatanry. No man can claim infallibility of judgment, nor is this expected of the engineer, whatever his position; but those who pay for professional services have a right to demand that the man who assumes to speak as an expert shall have the special knowledge which will command for his opinion the respect of those who are well informed. I consider it unprofessional for the engineer to enter upon the discharge of any duties for which he knows he is not qualified, if for the satisfactory discharge of those duties he must assume a knowledge he does not possess. There has been an immense amount of unprofessional work done in the field of reporting, and many reputations have been blasted by a failure to draw nice distinctions in questions of professional honor. The young engineer cannot be too careful in this matter, and he will be fortunate if, with all the prudence he can exercise, he is able to avoid disaster. Of a professional reputation dependent upon the accuracy as well as the honesty of reports ordered and used for speculative purposes, one may say as a marine underwriter lately said of an unseaworthy steamer, that he "would not insure her against sinking, from Castle Garden to Sandy Hook, with a cargo of shavings." In the matter of expert service in the courts I am disposed to speak guardedly. I see no reason why an engineer should not willingly go upon the witness stand to give expert testimony if he has made proper preparation and has an honest conviction that his testimony can be given with a conscientious regard for the obligations of his oath as a witness. It is his duty and his privilege to defend his opinions, for the man without opinions which he is prepared to defend is worthless as a witness and cannot properly be called an expert. But the conscientious engineer has no right to appear as a partisan of anything except what he believes to be the truth. If he finds himself parrying the questions of the cross-examination with a view to concealing the truth, if he realizes that he is a partisan of the side which retains him, and feels a temptation to earn his fee by falsehood, concealment, or evasion, he can be sure that he is in a position in which no man of honor has a right to be. The abuses of expert testimony in civil and criminal suits are many and grave; its uses are perhaps exaggerated, and the witness stand is not an inviting field for the young engineer seeking a satisfactory career. How far an engineer can properly use for his own advantage information gained in the discharge of duties of a confidential nature, is a question at once delicate and difficult. He cannot help knowing what he has learned, and his knowledge is his capital. He must be governed in this matter by the considerations which influence men of honor in the ordinary relations of life. Stock and real estate operations, on confidential information which belongs to one's principals, are usually in violation of the simplest rules of professional honor. The manager who advises his brokers by telegraph and his principals by mail cannot, I think, claim to have a very delicate sense of right and wrong. He can judge his own conduct by the standard he would apply in judging like infidelity on the part of those employed by him. In professional criticism of professional work, it is easy to fall into ways which are wrong, morally and professionally. Criticism which is designed merely to advertise the critic serves no good purpose, and savors of charlatanry or something worse. Only a small proportion of the current critical literature of engineering serves any good or useful purpose, since it has no other or higher object than to help the critics to climb into notoriety on the shoulders of the older and wiser men with whom they are brought into competition. I regard as unprofessional every effort to discredit honest and intelligent work, and every form of disguised advertising designed to give an engineer a greater prominence than he has earned by successful and creditable work, or is entitled to claim by virtue of fitness for more than average professional achievements. It is neither possible nor desirable to catalogue the unprofessional practices which in one way or another come to the notice of those observant of current happenings in the several departments of engineering. It is the contention of some that right and wrong are relative terms, applying to no action or line of conduct save as it is considered in relation to coincident and contingent circumstances. I will not deny that this may be true of all professional acts, but the impossibility of an arbitrary classification under the heads right and wrong, honorable and dishonorable, need not make it difficult for a man to formulate a code of professional ethics by which his own conduct shall be governed. There are certain broad ethical principles which never change. One is that a man cannot serve two masters having conflicting interests, and be faithful to each. Another is that, however skillfully one may juggle words to conceal meanings or evade responsibility, if the intent to deceive is there, he lies. Professional ethics are no different from the ethics of the Decalogue; they are specific applications of the rules of conduct which have governed enlightened and honorable men in all ages and in all walks of life. It is only when the moral sense is blunted or temptation presents itself in some new and unrecognized form that it is difficult to draw the line between right and wrong. I am aware that a delicate sense of honor often comes between a man and his opportunities of profit, and that a fine sensitiveness is rarely appreciated at its value by those who employ professional service. I know that in this busy world men of affairs do not always stop to weigh motives, and that confident assurance always commands respect, while modest merit is distrusted. But I do not know that a man can sell his honor for a price, and retain thereafter the right to stand erect in the presence of his fellows. I do not know that any engineer can make for himself a creditable and satisfactory career of whom it cannot be said that, whatever his mistakes or successes, his failures or triumphs, he has held his professional honor above suspicion. LIFTING A FORTY INCH WATER MAIN. RAISING A FORTY INCH MAIN ON THE BOSTON WATER WORKS. The sketch below, reproduced from a photograph, shows the general method adopted for lifting a 40 inch water main on Brookline Avenue, in Boston, Mass. Engineering News says: The work, which was commenced in June, 1884, included the raising of 1,000 feet of this main from to 18 feet to adjust it to a new grade in the avenue. The plan pursued by the Boston Water Department was about as follows: After the pipe was uncovered, piles were driven in pairs on each side, 5 feet 6 inches apart, and in bents 12 feet apart; the pile-heads were then tenoned, and a cap made of two pieces of 4 by 12 in. stuff was bolted on as shown, and the bents stayed longitudinally. The lifting was done with the pipe empty, by screws 8 feet long, working in square nuts resting on a broad iron plate on the cap pieces. After all preparatory work was completed, the lifting of the pipe to its new position was accomplished in about nine hours. After the pipe was raised, two more 4 by 12 inch pieces were bolted to the piles just under the pipe, and the bottoms of the piles were cross-braced. Stringers made of two 6 by 12 inch timbers were then placed on the caps, and a track of standard gauge put into place, upon which the dump cars used in filling the avenue were run out. The engineer in charge was Mr. Dexter Brackett, and we understand from him that a 48 inch main is to be raised in a somewhat similar manner during the present year. THE INTEROCEANIC CANAL QUESTION. Mr. J. Foster Crowell lately read a paper before the Engineers' Club of Philadelphia upon the Present Situation of the Inter-oceanic Canal Question, presenting the subject from a general standpoint. He sketched the history of the various past attempts to establish communication through the American Isthmus, and traced the developments in the different directions of effort, which finally concentrated the problem upon the three projects now before the world, summarizing the progress in each case, and stating the following propositions: I. That Panama is the only possible site for a Sea Level Canal, and that such treatment is the only feasible method at that place. II. That Nicaragua is the only practicable site for a Slack Water system (for a canal with locks), and that it is pre-eminently adapted by nature for such a use; that there are no obstacles in an engineering sense, and no physical drawbacks that need deter the undertaking. III. That the Ship Railway, as a mechanical contrivance, has the indorsement of the best authorities, and may be admitted to be the ne plus ultra as a means of taking ships from their natural element and transporting them over the land. IV. That none of these plans has as yet advanced sufficiently to warrant our considering its completion as beyond doubt. V. That, as the additional sum now asked for by De Lesseps (even if sufficient) to complete the Panama Canal is greater than the estimated cost of either Nicaragua Canal or the Ship Railway, it would be economical to abandon the Panama Canal, and the money sunk in it, to date, unless its location and form possess paramount advantages; and we therefore may profitably consider the relative merits of the three lines without regard to the past, from four standpoints, viz.: 1. Geographical convenience of location. 2. Adaptiveness to all marine requirements, present and future. 3. Political security. 4. Economy of construction and operation. He then discussed the comparative claims to excellence. In the first consideration, after classifying the several grand divisions of future ocean traffic, and noting especially the needs of the United States, he claimed that while there was little to choose, in this respect, between Nicaragua and Tehuantepec, either was far superior to Panama. In the second particular he maintained that owing to the characteristics of the Panama Canal and the practical impossibility of enlarging it hereafter, excepting at stupendous cost, it could not serve the purposes of the future, although it might, if completed, supply present need. He praised the ingenuity of the plans for the Ship Railway, but emphasized the fact that it will be the movement of the traffic, not merely the lifting and supporting of ships in transit, that will test the system, and suggested that even the beautiful application of mechanical force which had been contrived might be powerless to insure the high grade of service which is an absolute necessity. In this connection the general features of the Nicaragua Canal, in its latest form, were referred to, and the opinion expressed that even were all difficulties in the way of the Ship Railway eliminated, it could not be superior to the canal in respect of adaptiveness. In point of political security he claimed that both Tehuantepec and Nicaragua were reasonably free from doubts, with the advantage in favor of the latter, while at Panama no security, for United States interests at least, could be counted on, without the liability of a military expenditure far exceeding the cost of the canal itself. The matter of comparative cost of construction and operation was discussed generally, and in conclusion the author stated that "this all-important question is still an open one, of which the future needs of our country justify and demand at this time a most searching scrutiny, and moreover our interest and the interest of mankind require that before this century closes, the best possible pathway between the Atlantic and the Pacific shall be open to the navies of the world." The paper was illustrated with maps and diagrams. THE MERSEY TUNNEL. The Mersey Tunnel was lately opened by the Prince of Wales, and, as the London Standard says, after an infancy of troubles and failures, and a ten years' middle age of inaction, the Mersey Tunnel emerges into notoriety under the hands of Mr. James Brunlees and Mr. C.D. Fox, and of Mr. Waddell, the contractor, as a triumph of engineering skill. The tunnel is 1,250 yards in length. It is driven through solid, but porous, red sandstone, through which the water has percolated in volumes during construction, at a level of about 30 feet below the bed of the river. It is lined throughout with blue bricks, the brickwork of the invert being 3 feet in thickness. Its transverse section is a depressed oval 26 feet in width and 21 feet in height, and it contains two lines of railway. At a depth of about 18 feet below the main tunnel there is a continuous drainage culvert 7 feet in diameter, entered at intervals by staple shafts. There are two capacious underground terminal stations 400 feet long, 50 feet broad, and 38 feet high, and gigantic lifts for raising 240 passengers in forty seconds, from more than three times the depth of the Metropolitan Railway to the busy streets above. These splendid lifts, the finest in the world, are now, through the engineering skill of Messrs. Easton & Anderson, like the tunnel, accomplished facts; and their construction and working were tested and reported on in high terms of favor by the Government Inspector, General Hutchinson, a few weeks ago. At the Liverpool end the direct descent to the underground platform of the Mersey Railway is about 90 feet; at the Birkenhead end the depth is something more. The description of the Liverpool lifts will well suffice also for the Birkenhead lifts. The former are under James Street, where above ground, rising in lofty stateliness, is a fine tower for the hydraulic power, the water being intended to be stored in a circular tank near its summit, the dimensions of which will be 15 feet in diameter and its internal depth 9 feet. From the level of the rails of the Mersey Railway to the bottom of this water-tank the vertical distance is 198 feet. At the western side of the subterranean railway there is, above the arrival platform, a "lower booking-hall," or, more properly, a large waiting room, 32 feet square and 29 feet high, the access to which on this side is by a broad flight of steps rising 12 feet, and to and from which all passengers on the departure platform have communication by a lattice bridge 16 feet above the line of rails. From the western side of this hall the passengers will have access to the three lifts, and will thence ascend in large ascending rooms or cages, capable of containing one hundred persons each, to the upper booking-hall on the ground level of Jame...