(2) The last quarter of the 18th century. Within that series of years public thought in re lation to better processes of accounting for mu nicipalities quickened. Serious consideration was by no means universal. The efforts were sporadic rather than general, but at the close of the century sentiments had, to a considerable degree, crystallized and in a general way the movement assumed measurable success and tan gible form. It is, for the lack of a better term, characterized as the period of °awakening." (3) The third epoch comprises the first 18 years of the 20th century. Within those years rapid and substantial progress was made in se curing, in a great number of municipalities, de cided and materially improved methods of ac counting developed along comprehensive, logical lines. The period of °accomplishment" is a suitable designation for that time.
In England, no impetus characterized the action toward municipal ac counting reform until at or near the middle of the 19th century, and it was some years later before energetic thought and attention was ad dressed to the subject by or on behalf of Amer ican municipalities. And then the movement was tardy, inactive, sluggish. The principal reasons which contributed to the attitude of In difference and retarded the development of the work in this country are as follows: (a) The country was relatively new, the population very largely rural, the form of or ganization comparatively simple, the scope of municipal activity exceedingly narrow, the tax rates insignificant when compared with present day standards and accounts matters of indiffer ence.
(b) Absolute necessity— the mother of in ventipn and progress— did not force attention to the desirability of better methods. Improve ment in private accounting methods did not de velop of its own volition nor was it prompted by the unstimulated energy of those engaged in keeping private business accounts. It was forced on them. Competition and strife in every line of business endeavor made it impera tive that the head of a business enterprise should have available every essential financial fact concerning the business. To fail to have it resulted in the loss of funds or, frequently, the bankruptcy of the concern. The compelling need which business experienced did not af fect municipalities in the same way. They could not become insolvent. If their officers were wasteful, extravagant or inefficient and the treasury was emptied, the matter could be remedied by raising more taxes. If the same
governmental service cost twice as much in one place as in another, that fact was not known, and, if known, it would have mattered little be cause actual competition was non-existent.
(c) The prevailing form of government usually provided for the election of the chief fiscal and accounting officers by popular vote, and, as was to be expected, they were more fre quently selected by reason of their popularity and vote-getting ability rather than for their talent in and knowledge of municipal finance and accounting. More often than otherwise, those officials entertained something akin to contempt for new, advanced or improved ac counting ideas. Where such feelings were ab sent, they displayed a complacent attitude to ward established methods, due, no doubt, to the thoughts that tenure of office was insecure; that the holding of public office was a reward for political service; that to attempt to revise the accounts would entail a tremendous amount of hard work; that no money compensation or re ward in the form of thanks or praise would be forthcoming; and, in short, that the easiest course was to let matters drift as they had in the past, take the compensation and honor inci dent of the position and at the end of the term deliver the office to the successor in much the same condition as it was received.
(d) And, finally, the taxpayers — the stock holders in the corporation — demanded no bet ter methods, no more accurate, detailed and scientific statement of financial facts showing sources of revenue, objects of expenditure and the financial condition of their common busi ness. The business man of capacity and af fairs had been too busy with his personal mat ters to devote time and thought to the con cerns and activities of government. That was left to the officers selected by the political or ganizations and their recognized heads.
Viewed in the perspective, it seems that in this era accounts were kept with one principal or primary object in mind—that of showing whether or not the fiscal officer had stolen money. In form, they indicated the liability of that officer to the municipality and appear to have been predicated on the assumption that the municipality would keep its own accounts. They utterly failed to display essential finan cial facts relative to revenues and expenses, what was owned, due or owed, or to tell any of the material stories concerning fiscal trans actions which accounts should relate.