Professional Ethics

Discussion of the paper of John Hays Hammond, presented at the Chattanooga meeting, October, 1908, and published in Bi.-Monthly Bulletin., No. 24, November, 1908, pp. 1171 to 117S. PROF. HENRY Louis, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, En j. (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 professional ethics is urgently needed, seeing how widely the views of mining engineers differ on some of the point-,. raised, for example, I have no hesitation it) 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 mitring engineers should take payment for their reports tin shares of a company to be floated upon the basis of such reports. I hold that this is ethically wrong, as even the most honest of men is liable to be unconsciously biased under these conditions. Indeed, I go much further, and maintain that a mining engineer who re¬ports 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 holds 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 lie could be, he would always lay himself open to the suspicion that he was giving a favorable report so as to-enhance the value of the property in which he himself is interested, or an unfavorable report so as to stifle competi-