Long range shots;

              ATLANTA HASKINS & SELLS NEW YORK
PHILADELPHIA
BALTIMORE CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS PITTSBURGH
BOSTON PORTLAND
BUFFALO SAINT LOUIS
CHICAGO SALT LAKE CITY
CINCINNATI BULLETIN SAN FRANCISCO
CLEVELAND SEATTLE
DALLAS TULSA
DENVER WATERTOWN
DETROIT KANSAS CITY
LOS ANGELES
MINNEAPOLIS HAVANA
LONDON
PARIS
NEWARK E X E C U T I V E OFFICES SHANGHAI
NEW ORLEANS HASKINS & SELLS BUILDING
37 WEST 39TH ST., NEW YORK
VOL. VI NEW YORK, MARCH, 1923 No. 3
Long Range Shots
IN the practice of accountancy it fre-quently
happens that the scene of the
field work is at a point considerably distant
from the location of the client to whom the
report is to be rendered. An engagement
of this character calls for unusually careful
head work if success in satisfying the client
is to be achieved.
Clients often make it apparent, either by
direct statement or implication, that, re­gardless
of the terms of the engagement,
information of a certain character is ex­pected
in reports. They see no reason
why reports should not cover discussion,
criticism, or recommendations concerning
the organization, operation, management,
system, methods, or personnel.
The accountant, on the other hand,
shrouded in painful experience of the past
wherein some timid suggestion has been
thrown back at him as gratuitous, draws
with precision his lines of demarcation
which prescribe the boundaries of various
types of engagements. An audit calls for
a review of the accounts with the purpose
of verifying the financial condition and
result of operations. It does not contem­plate
a criticism of the stores distributing
system, or the review of routine methods
whereby salary payments are effected.
True, the work of audit usually gives the
accountant an insight into many aspects
of clients' affairs, and from many angles,
and puts him in a position to offer con­structive
criticism and suggestion. But he
may quite properly refrain from offering
this information unless it is requested by
the client or to be furnished by arrange­ment
under the terms of the engagement.
Viewing from this angle an engagement
arising at one point and calling for execu­tion
at another, with a report to be sent to
the place of origin, it would seem to follow
that the hard and fast rule of giving the
client only that for which he asks should
be tempered by common sense and judg­ment.
Putting himself in the position of
the client and looking at matters from the
client's point of view, the accountant
might be pardoned if he were to conclude
that information of whatever character
might be welcomed by the client because of
the circumstances surrounding the case.
It is a most inconceivable that the officials