ninety per cent in favor and ten per cent opposed to the proposed standard.

Next the pamphlet was published and distributed quite generally among those engineers interested in the subject of bridges, a copy being sent not only to every one who had replied to the ballots, but also to every railroad chief engineer in the United States, Canada, and Mexico whose address was given in Poor's Manual. To these chief engineers there was also sent another circular letter with a ballot that read as follows:

I Agree/Do Not Agree to use the "Compromise Standard System of Live Loads for Railway Bridges" when calling for bids on railroad-bridge work, or when having plans prepared for railroad bridges.

I Agree/Do Not Agree to specify that the "Equivalent Uniform Load Method" is to be used in computing stresses in the bridges that are to be designed for my road.

                    Signature of Voter.

.................................

                   Chief Engineer of the

.................................

Over one hundred chief engineers thus addressed voted in favor of both propositions, and very few were opposed.

The pamphlet has now been in use more than four years, and has been in such demand that the first edition (a large one) has been exhausted. All those who have used its methods indorse heartily both the loads specified and the Equivalent Uniform-Load Method.

METHOD OF UTILIZING THE EQUIVALENT LOADS.

In calling for bids on bridge-work to he accompanied with designs for the structures, a railroad engineer can nominate any bridge specifications whatsoever, standard or otherwise, and at the  same  time  specify  that  the  live  loads are to be