getting their pound of flesh out of the workman by compelling him to labor long hours for meager compensation. Today, the laboring man is beginning to come into his own; but if he unwisely takes too great advantage of his growing power, he will "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs," and this will ruin his chance of securing comfort and happiness for himself and his family.

The first step requisite for quieting the existing widely spread popular unrest and returning to normally prosperous conditions is to bring together, so that they may operate in harmony, the financier, the employer, and the laborer; and this must be accomplished primarily by establishing some method of contract-letting and profit-sharing which will be just and equitable to all parties interested. For some time, the author has been endeavoring to formulate and develop, through communications to the technical press, an ideal method of accomplishing this desideratum; and later herein he will indicate clearly of what it consists. First, however, he will discuss in detail not only the suggestions offered by Mr. Clarke in his timely paper, but also those of various engineers and political economists who have of late been treating the matter in print.

Various Methods of Contract-Letting. The common ways of contract-letting are the following:

A. Lump sum for complete construction.

B. Schedule rates for all materials in place.

C. Actual cost plus a percentage, with some kind of allowance for overhead expenses.

D. Actual cost of labor and materials plus a percentage, with no allowance for overhead expenses.

E. Actual cost plus a lump sum, with some kind of allowance for overhead expenses.

F. Actual cost of labor and materials plus a lump sum, with no allowance for overhead expenses.

G. Actual cost plus a profit based on small unit prices agreed upon in the contract, as advocated of late by Mr. G. H. Hailey.

H. Various methods of profit sharing between the client and the contractor.

Method A generally appeals best of all to the client, because it fixes in advance what the construction is going to cost him, unless, perchance, there are important variations in the estimated total quantities of materials, due to lack of sufficient preliminary information or to the encountering of conditions that could not well have been foreseen. It is by no means as satisfactory to the contractor, however, who has to run the risk of being actually out of pocket on the job, in addition to the loss of personal time and effort.

Method B is quite an improvement on Method A, in that the contractor does not have to guarantee the correctness of the estimated quantities of materials; but the prime objection to Method A holds good for Method B,