ABSTRACT
The trick resorted to by ostriches when closely pressed by their pursuers, of burying their heads in the sand, apparently under the impression that by shutting their own eyes no one can see them, has amused generations of schoolboys. But there are some “children of a larger growth” who, forgetful of lessons the moral of which is patent to boys, think that the vain artifice of the ostrich may be successfully tried in actual business, and in regard to business affairs. In another part of our columns will be found extracts from the newspaper reports of the meeting of a certain public company, the heading of which, as of these remarks, is borrowed from a leading financial organ of the city. We will do our contemporary the justice to say that its heading, if sarcastic, is a perfectly true description of the proceedings. It would be affectation more contemptible than the stupidity of the ostrich, for chartered accountants to pretend for a moment that the “auction” in question is not very damaging to professional accountants. It has been publicly commented on. It would be only bare justice to other members of the Institute if Mr. T. W. Read, F.C.A., and Messrs. Kellas, Johnstone & Nasmyth, at once made any explanation they have to offer in extenuation of the fact that, in the absence of contradiction, their names, and the credit of the body to which they belong, have been dragged in the mire in this fashion? In business affairs we do not believe in hair-splitting or logic-chopping. A man must live, and he is worse than an infidel if he does not work for himself and those who rely on him; and to lay down fine rules for conduct in all the varying circumstances of business, is beyond the editor of a journal or any other man. But looking at things broadly, taking a not too narrow view of business and the method in which it should be conducted, the effect of a perusal of the report in question must be to create disgust not in the minds of accountants solely — that is the smallest item for consideration—but in the minds of business men, who must think that if one chartered accountant asks £100 for what another says he will do for £40, one of the pair must be a peculiar individual; and when later on the man who originally asked £100 is willing to take £40, the peculiarity gets more marked. We are aware that the shareholders who proposed the respective auditors may not have had express authority. But silence gives consent. We are not aware that either accountant has disavowed the discreditable business, and the language of the shareholders in question, does not sound like the language of unauthorised, or uninspired agents.
