The Globe. TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 672, 15 August 1876, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1876.

The Canterbury Chamber of Commerce has, at various times, devoted a considerable amount of consideration to the state of the Bankruptcy Act, and will no doubt have occasion to do so again, the law relating to the position of Debtors and Creditors not being satisfactory. In connection with this very difficult question, it occurs to us as a matter of surprise that no attempt has been made to define the qualifications necessary to entitle persona to assume the title of professional accountants. When a trader finds his affairs becoming embarrassed, he naturally calls in the aid of a person supposed to be skilled in the science of keeping accounts, in order to ascertain his true position. This is more particularly the case with retailers in a small way of business, who, as a rule, are not able to keep their books in such a manner as to show reliably the profit or loss being made. Now, at the present time, it is open to anyone to call himself an accountant and undertake the unravelling of complicated accounts, without being called upon to produce any proof that he possesses the necessary ability. Before anyone can practice as a lawyer or doctor, he is required by the law to obtain credentials from duly qualified authorities, certifying that has undergone the necessary training, and is therefore a person in whose skill the public may reasonably confide. Could not some similar provision be made, by which persons seeking the public confidence as professional accountants, might be made to prove their fitness to undertake so important an office ? A case occurred in the Supreme Court recently which serves clearly to illustrate our argument. A young gentleman, whose summers cannot number much over twenty, was under examination in a caseiovolving intricate accounts, dealing with some thousands of pounds, and in reply to counsel pronounced himself, with great confidence, to be an “ experienced accountant!” It strikes us that some means should be devised to protect the public from imposition, by providing for the examination by competent authorities of candidates for public patronage in this important calling, and we commend our remarks on this subject to the careful consideration of the Chamber of Commerce. The Lyttelton Times, although never looked up to as an authority on politics, used at any rate to bear the ch trader of being a respectably conducted newspaper. This character for repectability, we are sorry to say, is in danger of being lost. On Saturday last our contemporary treated its readers to the following choice illustration of the old adage respecting the fallen foe : “ City Council Chamber.— The portraits of the successive Chairmen aud Mayors of the City Council have for some time past formed a prominent feature in the adornments of the City Council Chamber, but a vacant space has lately made its appearance in the line of portraits, and given rise to no little curiosity. The missing portrait is that of the first Mayor of the city.” It is generally understood that recent ocrences in the Supreme Court induced the City Council, or some person connected with that body, to cause the removal of the portrait referred to. By what right such a course was pursued, we do not propose to enquire, but simply contentourselves with condemning the action of the Lyttelton Times in giving the matter unnecessary publicity, as mean in the extreme. On the termination of the case above referred to, our other morning contemporary devoted a leading article to the subject, discussing it on public grounds, which, although admitted to be temperate in its tone, was looked upon by many persons as quite severe enough. The Lyttelton Times, however, remained silent until the nine days’ wonder had subsided, and then raked it up again in the paragraph quoted above. Apart from the fact that the news was stale, our contemporary, in publishing it could not plead the excuse that he had a good object in view, for no attempt was made to point a moral. This un-English mode of “ twice slaying the slain ” merits, and is sure to receive, the condemnation of all right minded persona.