Reviews the book "Regulation of Utility Valuation in Pennsylvania," by William Roy Buckwalter

Almost all the states at present require examination in the subjects of accounting theory, accounting practice, auditing, and law. In some states separate examinations are given in each subject. In many others accounting theory and practice are combined as one for grading purposes even though the examination is given in two parts. In still other states, subject matter from all these fields is included in the examination given, although not separately listed in the same four divisions. A few states give examinations in these subjects and additional examinations in other subjects. Since forty-six of the fifty-two states and territories use the American Institute of Accountants' examination questions, it may be said that the stated objective with reference to subject matter is now substantially reached. Laws and regulations, however, do not reveal the extent to which uniformity actually exists. Reference to the four general subjects is made either by law or regulation (mainly in the law itself) in forty-six states. Many refer to the combination of accounting theory and practice as one subject; a few refer to the use of American Institute examination questions; some list the four major subjects and also state that other subjects will be covered if deemed necessary or desirable by the board

The subject of internal auditing is receiving increasing attention because of the recognition given by accounting authorities and governmental regulations to its importance in determining the scope of audit necessary as a basis for an independent accountant's certificate. Sometimes people are inclined to think of accounting and auditing standards as those of large business concerns and forget that the majority of business organizations are relatively small. Most public accounting work is with relatively small business concerns. It is well to look at the highest possible accounting standards that can be developed and what can be done where cost is not a major controlling factor. Yet one must remember that small business enterprises still exist and furnish a problem of what can be done best to meet their needs. Hence one need to consider internal audit and control in the small as well as in the large business. Manifestly, if the independent auditors, in making their examination and tests, find that every feature of the accounting has been subject to a careful and adequate internal audit, the auditors can place much reliance on the internal auditing and correspondingly shorten their own work

The term "cartel" is used here to include all kinds of horizontal associations of independent firms with the purpose of influencing market conditions through common action. As long as cartels limit their activities to term-fixing or price-fixing they do not have any accounting problems of their own. The situation is different when they begin to regulate production or sales directly. Although the law does not permit such organizations in the U.S., shortage of materials and the need for allocating their use create problems which in some respect resemble those confronting cartels. A discussion of some cartel accounting questions may, therefore, have more than academic interest. The cartels under consideration may be conveniently grouped into those which merely fix output or sales of their individual members, and those which in addition act as central distributing or selling agencies. For all of them a threefold task in involved, first, to determine the relative participation of the individual member, the quota; second, to decide upon the total volume to be produced within a given period; third, to control production or sales of the members, to take care of deviations from the scheduled volume, and, for syndicates, to distribute the collected receipts among the partners. It is particularly this last function which calls for an elaborate cartel accounting system. Estimates of future demand based on present market conditions and businessmen's experience are the main factors involved

In 1887 the Interstate Commerce Commission, was established by act of U.S. Congress. The railroad problem was not new in 1887, nor were attempts to solve it unknown. The Congress and the courts had long been troubled by the contentions of railroad companies and the complaints of shippers. It was hoped that by setting up a permanent administrative body with suitable powers the regulatory intent of the Congress might be accomplished more reasonably and effectively. In this way began the experiment with the commission as a device for dealing with economic situations and procedures which are thought to call for government control. The establishment of the Federal Trade Commission in 1913 seemed to indicate that the type of agent to exercise governmental control in the various fields of business would take the form of a Federal commission. Federal commission as the principal agency for the regulation of business, and that any extension of government control of business is likely to result in the granting of new powers to old commissions or in the creation of new commissions. The problems involved in the relation of the commissions to the courts have given the commissions a legalistic procedure which, if undesirable, is still inescapable. The strength of the commission system lies in an adequate and competent staff. It is likely that in the future relationships between commissions will be more important than in the past. That is, the commissions are likely to become a regulatory network rather than simple, unrelated adventures