restrictions which tend to lessen the contractor's power to take advantage of the client; but their enforcement would be very troublesome, and would generally involve litigation with its attendant delay and expense.

Most people will acknowledge that the percentage of truly conscientious contractors is not overwhelmingly large, but how much smaller is that of truly conscientious workmen! The author does not deny that there are workmen who always give a quid pro quo and who are upright and honorable in all their dealings; but, alas, they are sadly in the minority. Their number is so small that they are unable to induce their co-laborers to exert themselves any more than they are compelled to, unless they are paid by the job instead of by the day or hour.

By the way, when it is practicable, such a scheme of paying the workmen is an improvement on that of time compensation, because it provides a great incentive to effort; but, at the same time, it also serves as a strong temptation to scamp the work. With close supervision, however, and a strict enforcement of the clause in the specifications relating to the taking out and replacing of defectively built work, the employees soon learn, through the fines and penalties enforced by the contractor, that scamping does not pay, and that the old adage of honesty being the best policy is just as applicable now as it was when first enunciated.

Method G involves only a very slight modification of that of "cost plus a lump sum," the said lump sum being replaced by another sum obtained by adding together the products of the actual quantities of all the materials by certain small unit prices agreed on in the contract. Although the author concedes that this method is undoubtedly the best of all the straight "cost-plus" methods, it possesses all the serious objections inherent thereto.

In addition to those previously indicated, there might be mentioned the fact that any straight "cost-plus" basis effectively cuts out competition, and advantages a favored few of the larger and more experienced contractors, rendering it difficult for the smaller and less experienced ones to secure any work, except through some other method of letting. It ought to be evident to anyone possessed of ordinary vision that such a method will militate toward cutting the "small fry" contractors out of bidding; for when an owner is willing to let a piece of work on any straight "cost-plus" basis, he naturally will want to award it to a large contractor of means, who has an established reputation for fairness and efficiency. That would practically mean letting all contract work without competition, and American contractors, as a body, would object seriously to any such procedure. It is true that the owner might call for competitive bids on the basis of having each bidder name a lump-sum as a fixed net fee, and awarding the contract to the competitor who quotes the lowest figure; but the adoption of such a method would often result in serious trouble, delay, and expense, and would not ensure that the work would go to the most desirable bidder.