whereas the engineer may consider both screening and washing as necessary. It would be better to state that the stone shall be screened and washed in a certain way and by a certain kind of plant. The uncertainty in the contractor's figure is thus largely eliminated.

It seems to the speaker that the same effort which is now apparently being devoted to the inclusion of an arbitration clause would produce much better practical results if devoted to the securing of better and more detailed plans and specifications.

CHAIRMAN POOLE: Is there any further discussion?

MR. ELLISON: May I have the privilege of the floor for one moment?

CHAIRMAN POOLE: Yes.

MR. ELLISON: I simply want to say in response to what Mr. Hatton has said, I think he will recall, as I stated, in fifty years of construction work the company I am connected with has never had but one lawsuit, and have obtained in all cases without lawsuits substantial justice from the engineers. I would have no anxiety whatever in undertaking a contract which would be handled under the direction of men of the type of men of Hatton, Horner and other men here present. The thing we do have to contend with in construction work is young and inexperienced men who, when they are through with their college training, get out with the idea that their sole function in life is to protect the owner against the crooked and rapacious contractor. And that is the only thing they have got to watch. It takes some years of experience for an engineer to learn that his proper function is that of an umpire, between the owner and contractor, as to what constitutes fair treatment for both. In the case of municipal engineering I think I can say very candidly I believe there is less necessity for an arbitration clause than in a great many other types of construction work, and I have simply presented my views with all due respect to the municipal engineers and all other engineers in the country, and what I have to say here is not in criticism of or in a spirit of hostility to the engineering profession.

PRESIDENT-ELECT HATTON: I think Mr. Ellison answers the whole question. He says in his experience of fifty years he has only had one case where they needed arbitration. Now that is a pretty good record. I say in forty years I have only had three cases where arbitration was necessary. Now why upset our whole methods of municipal contracts for such few cases? We both claim we have had in our forty or fifty years' experience only those few cases. Yes, and you had the engineer with you in the one case you had. You would not have gained your case if you hadn't. (Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN POOLE: Is there any further discussion?

MR. CHRISTY: You might be interested in a little sidelight on this arbitration discussion. When the Conference convened in Washington the question of arbitration was about the first point raised. It was not raised by the contractors, who were sitting rather meekly to one side, out-numbered seven to one, but by the architects. They stated to the Board they had had arbitration in their contract for several years, did not want to take a step backward by eliminating it. They considered withdrawing from the conference if there was any intention of drafting a standard contract without arbitration. They stated that one of the chief values of arbitration was psychological. Representatives of the A. I. A., who were present, said they had never had a case of arbitration under the institute clause, but the presence of the clause had caused them to reach agreement with the contractor in many issues that might have reached court.

PRESIDENT-ELECT HATTON: When you are dealing with architects you are dealing with temperamental persons. (Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN POOLE: Is there any further discussion? If not, we will vote upon Mr. Horner's motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried.

Chapter XX

REPORTS OF REPRESENTATIVES IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

REPORT ON COMMITTEE C-3, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS

By Geo. F. Fisk, Representative.

Your representative on Committee C-3, American Society for Testing Materials, respectfully submits the following report:

The annual meeting of Committee C-3 on Brick, American Society for Testing Materials, was held at Atlantic City, N. J., on June 23rd, 1925.

The Committee recommended that the action of the conference on the Elimination of Unnecessary Sizes and Types of Paving Brick, organized by the United States Department of Commerce, be approved by the Society, and that the appendix to the Standard Specifications for paving brick be amended accordingly.

A similar conference on standard sizes for sand lime brick has resulted in the promulgation by the Department of Commerce of Simplified Recommendation No. 37. Inasmuch as the size recommended in this document is the same as now called for in the Standard Specifications for Building brick A. S. T. M. (C-21-20) the Committee recommended that the above recommendation be approved by the Society.

Mr. Perkins, reporting for the Chairman of Sub-committee 4 on Paving Brick, presented a standard specification for paving brick which is intended eventually to replace the present standard specification for this material. The Secretary was intended to send the new specifications to letter ballot for acceptance as tentative.

The Committee also recommended that the Standard Specifications for building brick be continued as tentative without revision, in order that the Committee might have time to study the available test data.

The study of the strength of the old brick work is progressing, but it will be some years before the Committee can report any definite conclusions.

The definition of the word "Brick" was the subject of spirited discussion; three definitions have been proposed and are now under consideration.

The Committee was asked to decide whether or not the present standard specifications for building brick applies to face brick, and it was decided that this brick lies within the jurisdiction of Sub-committee 7 on Clay Building Brick.

The question on the advisability of making a transverse test on paving brick less than three inches thick was brought up in the Committee, and the subject matter referred to Sub-committee 4 on Paving Brick.

Respectfully submitted,

GEO. F. FISK.

REPORT ON THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE VITRIFIED PAVING CONFERENCE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

By Geo. F. Fisk, Representative.

Your representative on the Standing Committee of the Vitrified Paving Conference, United States Department of Commerce, respectfully submits the following report:

The Permanent Committee on Simplification of Varieties of Paving Brick held its fourth revision conference in Washington, D. C., March 20th, 1925.

Owing to the death of Mr. Will P. Blair, representative of the American Society for Testing Materials, the change in duties of Mr. L. G. Herrick, representative of the American Association of State Highway Officials, and the resignation of Mr. Wm. A. Durgin, Chief of Division of Simplified Practice, successors were appointed by these groups.

The following represents the standing committee of the conference. An asterisk indicates the absentees at the meeting held on March 20, 1925.

*P. St. J. Wilson, Bureau of Public Roads, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

*Col. R. K. Compton, American Society of Civil Engineers, City Hall, Richmond, Va.

*Geo. F. Fisk, American Society for Municipal Improvements, Municipal Bldg., Buffalo, N. Y.

O. W. Renkert, American Ceramic Society, Lord Hall, O. S. U., Columbus, Ohio.

Edward E. Duff, Jr., Secretary National Paving Brick Manufacturers' Association, Engineers' Bldg., Cleveland, Ohio.

Prof. T. R. Lawson, American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.

E. W. McCullough, U. S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D. C.

P. H. Bates, Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.