best materials and proper construction. The property owners in most cases are now willing to have the type of pavement to be constructed decided upon a sound engineering basis, but in whatever type is constructed, they want only first class materials and first class work. I think we may safely say that Ann Arbor has returned to good standard engineering practice in the construction of pavements.

Mr. Teed: We will change the order of the program a little bit. We will hear a paper by Professor Johnston on "The Status of Engineers and Engineering in Michigan."

Mr. C. T. Johnston: I wish to say I have followed this subject through for 20 or 25 years and have had some experience in State administrations and also something to do with the licensing of engineers. I might also say I have written this paper several times before at various years and have drawn it over. What I have to present you today is what I have got together hastily within the last two or three months. It has been re-written several times during that period. It is a subject I believe you should all be interested in.

The Status of the Engineer and Engineering

CLARENCE T. JOHNSTON

Member M. E. S.

INTRODUCTORY

Among ourselves, we must admit that the engineer has not gained that position where he can command the esteem and confidence of the public. Whenever we pause to reflect on some of the broader phases of our work, we wonder whether the rough trail of yesterday is to open up into a plain and safe highway tomorrow. Those who claim to understand us, say that we analyze everything from a mathematical standpoint, and, in pursuit of things technical, we lose sight of the really important matters that should concern us as educated men and citizens. We must admit that the engineer fails to organize for his own protection, that he pays but little attention to and seemingly has but little concern for the reputation of the profession he represents and that he is generally tardy when called upon to support measures which concern the public welfare. An individual among engineers, may now and then display some signs of altruism, but as members of the most important profession of the day, engineers are not a positive force in the solution of problems which concern them and their communities. There is no class so disorganized, regardless of all of their organizations, as the engineers of America. Aside from their failure to protect themselves and to take an active part in matters of government, engineers merit general support and respect, because they build and develop. They are deserving of a broader field of usefulness, since they must be relied upon, finally, to bridge the gap between man-made and natural law.

If some foreign engineer were to ask us as to our stand on some matter of public policy, we would have to admit frankly that as a body we have no policy. Because we have never agreed on a policy, neutral, offensive, or defensive, we receive but little

recognition from those who take an active part in the affairs of government. This attitude of the engineer may make him a good servant, but it robs him of the attributes of leadership and reacts generally to his detriment. The matters herein outlined for your consideration, are submitted with a full appreciation of our common failings, but with the hope that we may finally get together and say in unison, "This is engineering, this is what the engineer must stand for, this is what we are to demand and this is what we are to obtain."

The engineer has never protected any field that he has occupied. He has never demanded that the law specify that his work be performed in a way to reflect credit on himself and his associates. He has demanded but little recognition from the State or from lesser subdivisions of government. The early engineer was almost exclusively a surveyor. Surveying would offer a most attractive field for the engineer today, if there were some positive requirements calling for uniformly good work. Without such requirements, the surveyor must meet the competition of the irresponsible and the untrained. Employers cannot judge. between the competent and the incompetent because they cannot judge the work itself.

The early engineer, who recognized the distressing features of this kind of work, could not well handle the situation alone. Organization for mutual protection seemed impossible then. He was not only in competition with an irresponsible element, but he had the unfortunate examples of the general government to overcome. He soon left the field of land surveying and possibly entered the service of some railroad company. There he seemed to have better prospects. For reasons that may be plain to the man who has had experience in railroad work, this field soon became unsatisfactory and the engineer quietly departed in search of other employment. Some went from the railroad to the city. Others went into the service of the government. Some became connected with the operating departments of railroads where they performed duties having but little relation to the work for which they were trained. The engineer is still moving. Each ten years opens up a new field for him. Each time he changes his employment his disdain for his earlier activities is inclined to increase. He is so much concerned with the duties of the hour

that he forgets the fate of many of his brethren who are still struggling in the ruts of his early path. He works under the theory that when his present field becomes unattractive he will withdraw and try something else. He generally feels confident that there is opportunity ahead of him and his concern for the general welfare of all engineers is slight indeed. He does not seem to realize that when he abandons a field, without a sign of resistance, he is something of a traitor to his profession and to the public. It would be more difficult for him to secure some protection under the law by which all who presumed to practice in his field would be obliged to conform with specifications which would bring uniformly good results. It would be even more difficult, possibly, to compel all who proposed to practice to show, by examination or otherwise, that they were qualified. It is easier to leave a field than to defend it. The engineer has been retreating for fifty years. It is time that he faces about and recovers ground already lost.

No other profession has had this experience. We know how men of other professions protect themselves and we heartily approve of the stand they have taken, because, in accomplishing this first result, they also protect the public. The engineer has as close a relation to the public as have the men of any other profession. We pause today to take stock and to inquire as to our future. We cannot say that we wish to continue to follow the rough road which the engineer has traveled for the past fifty years. We do not wish to continue to educate young men for practice in a field that is presumed to offer them a life work only to compel them to struggle on for years in competition with the untrained and the irresponsible. We cannot command the respect of thinking men and of the public generally until we claim and secure a field that is exclusively our own. We are not deserving of much consideration from the public until we demonstrate by word and action that we, only, are able to produce results in that field which bring credit, protect every interest, and lay a foundation for mutual confidence and respect.

The civil engineer, especially, is not only responsible to his employer and to the profession he represents, but in no small way is he a servant of the public. The present condition of some of his work may be due to his failure to recognize that while

he has been employed by private parties, much of the work he has performed stands as a blessing or a curse to many a community. It may require some stamina to inform employers that the work prescribed by them must be done in a way to serve the public and to reflect credit on those who understand the technicalities involved. We know that in final analysis employers are not held responsible for the short-comings of engineers. Too often the engineer must shoulder a larger share of responsibility than ordinary reason would prescribe.

Let us go into a little detail, so that we may draw some conclusions with a feeling that our judgment is supported on a sound basis.

LAND SURVEYING

Something has already been said as to surveying. The land surveyor was the pioneer of Michigan. He came here to subdivide the lands and to report as to their quality, as to their general topography and as to the natural features of the country, such as lakes, rivers, timber growth and general surface conditions. Apparently, the general government was not aware of the importance of this work. It did not organize public surveying on a sound basis. The politician soon broke down the plans outlined by Washington and Jefferson and while surveying is the main work of the General Land Office but little can be found in the law, or in the regulations based thereon, concerning scientific surveying and nothing appears relative to the qualifications of the surveyor.

The surveyor appeared. Some of these early men were fairly well qualified for the kind of work imposed upon them. Others had no scientific qualifications. Even the latter were as good as the system under which they worked. They made surveys and the settler followed them. Many of the surveyors became settlers and later practiced surveying in the new communities they had, in a way, made possible. Surveying received a blow, under this system, from which it will not fully recover during the next century. The work done was usually good enough to enable settlers to ascertain their approximate boundaries at the time. But few permanent marks were left on the ground. After the lapse of a few years, only an expert detective could find many of the