sound reason, and
does not urge his own opinion.

Instead of being a statement of personal opinion for which confirmation
is desired, the paper is a simple statement of facts and tests which
demonstrate the error of practices exhibited in a large majority of
reinforced concrete work and held up in the literature on the subject as
examples to follow. Mr. Turner has made no attempt to deny or refute any
one of these facts, but he speaks of the burden of proof resting on the
writer. Further, he makes statements which show that he fails entirely
to understand the facts given or to grasp their meaning. He says that
the writer's idea is "that the entire pull of the main reinforcing rod
should be taken up apparently at the end." He adds that the soundness of
this position may be questioned, because, in slabs, the steel frequently
breaks at the center. Compare this with the writer's statement, as
follows:

"In shallow beams there is little need of provision for taking
shear by any other means than the concrete itself. The writer has
seen a reinforced slab support a very heavy load by simple
friction, for the slab was cracked close to the supports. In slabs,
shear is seldom provided for in the steel reinforcement. It is only
when beams begin to have a depth approximating one-tenth of the
span that the shear in the concrete becomes excessive and provision
is necessary in the steel reinforcement. Years ago, the writer
recommended that, in such beams, some of the rods be curved up
toward the ends of the span and anchored over the support."

It is solely in providing for shear that the steel reinforcement should
be anchored for its full value over the support. The shear must
ultimately reach the support, and that part which the concrete is not
capable of carrying should be taken to it solely by the steel, as far as
tensile and shear stresses are concerned. It should not be thrown back
on the concrete again, as a system of stirrups must necessarily do.

The following is another loose assertion by Mr. Turner:

"Mr. Godfrey appears to consider that the hooping and vertical
reinforcement of columns is of little value. He, however, presents
for consideration nothing but his opinion of the matter, which
appears to be based on an almost total lack of familiarity with
such construction."

There is no excuse for statements like this. If Mr. Turner did not read