In accordance with the request that this session be a discussion of practical problems of teaching elementary accounting, the author of this paper tries to be as practical as possible. Far from hoping to present anything entirely new, either as to problems or solutions, he treats of a situation which merits consideration chiefly because it is old, and consequently of common occurrence. It is a problem with which most instructors are only too well acquainted. The instructor of beginning accounting at most small colleges faces a dilemma. This dilemma is the necessity, and at the same time the difficulty, of teaching in one class two widely different types of students, those who are taking only the one course as part of their general education; and those who intend it as a groundwork for further study toward a major in accounting. The student, who is planning to continue with accounting as his field of work, needs above all else a solid foundation for the more advanced courses. Possibly if a group of accounting instructors were to name just two results as the most valuable to be desired from the beginning course, they would specify first, thoroughness, and second, accuracy.
The purpose of this article, concisely expressed, is to present capital stock and surplus relations. Relation can be taken either as expressing the affinity or dissimilarity of one thing to another, of one idea to another, as the word is commonly interpreted, or it may be taken to mean the expression or narration, the relating, of that which has been brought to one's notice, concerning the topic-matter. The second meaning is developed in the following pages. Various contrasts, similarities, or affinities may obtain between things. A selection must be made. The writer has been interested primarily in the legal significance of these relations, and, secondarily, in the effect of the law, thus arrived at, upon accounting. The terms capital stock and surplus are technical terms closely associated with corporations. Hence the boundaries of this article contain at least part of the subject matter of corporations and do not extend beyond. One further limitation of subject-matter may be mentioned. The treatment is very largely confined to mercantile and manufacturing corporations, operating as going concerns.
The article discusses the right to devaluation and damages. The Supreme Court of the United States, in its decision in Perry versus the United States, handed down February 18, 1935, holds that the government did not have the right to repudiate its promise to the holder of a liberty bond to pay in dollars of 25.8 grains of gold as fine. The court holds that the owner of the bond is not entitled to enrichment. He is entitled only to damages. He is denied damages by this decision because he does not possess the legal right to use gold, and because he is denied the right to sue in the Court of Claims. But the question of damages is very important because these rights might sometime be restored. Changes in the price level, as shown by index numbers, are only a generalization. As far as any individual owner of dollars is concerned, a change in their purchasing power depends upon the changes in prices of the particular things he purchases. Individual prices may he higher or lower or remain the same as before devaluation, and in order to be actually damaged the identical thing purchased must be higher in price.