Discussions - Of Mr. Hammond’s Paper on Professional Ethics (see Trans., xxxix., 620)

Prof. HEnRy Louis, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Eng. (communication to the Secretary*):—I welcome Mr. Hammond's paper as an attempt to give definiteness to the best modern professional practice. Such a codification of our professiollal ethics is urgently needed, seeing how widely the views of nlining engineers direr on some of the points raised; for example, I have no hesitation in performing a class of work, as to which Mr. Hammond seems to entertain some doubts, and, on the other hand, I strongly condemn a practice which he appears to recommend. I have not the least hesitation in making reports for vendors of mining-properties, and am constantly doing so; the best justification for this practice may be found in the fact that such reports have been repeatedly accepted by buyers as giving a correct representation of the facts of the case, which is all that should be demanded from any report. On the other hand, Mr. Hammond advocates that mining engineers should take payment for their reports in shares of a company to be floated upon the basis of such reports. I hold that this is ethically wrong, as even themost honest of men is liable to be unconsciously biased under these conditions. Indeed, I go much further, and maintain that a mining engineer who reports or advises upon mining-properties should never hold any mining-shares at all, or be himself interested in any mine, and this has been my consistent practice for many years. A man who hold shares in a mine, and is called upon to report upon a neighboring property or a similar mine, can never be wholly unbiased; and even if he could be, he would always lay himself open to the suspicion that he was giving a favorable report 80 as to enhance the value of the property in which he himself is interested, or an unfavorable report so as to stifle competition. It is quite as bad for the manager of a mine or the consulting manager to be interested, because he will have access