Public accounting practice and the nature of the accounting profession itself has, in the years under consideration, been shaped by a series of external forces. The Great Depression stimulated codification and regulation of practice. Further refinements of auditing procedures were introduced in the wake of the McKesson & Robbins case. The basic question of who was authorized to practice received almost continuous attention, and was the subject of much legislation and some important legal action. World War II introduced new practices, added responsibilities, and certain difficulties. And finally, the emergence of a strong national organization provided the profession with a means for achieving internal consistency and the capacity for co-ordinated reaction to rapid external change.

This timely account of the hunching of the Suez Canal project reveals both sides of the coin of innovation. It is, on the one hand, a study of the character and methods of one of the most famous innovators of the nineteenth century. Ferdinand DeLesseps was not a politician, a financier, an engineer, a promoter (in the common sense of the word), or a businessman. Yet he succeeded brilliantly in a venture requiring consummate mastery of all these professional fields. On the other hand is revealed the waterway itself — vital to one civilization, useless and neglected in another, and then of transcendent importance as world history marched on. Realization of the grand scheme envisaged by the Pharaohs came at last when economic and political factors momentarily aligned in a pattern of opportunity for a unique set of entrepreneurial qualifications.

In the early days of the Republic, opposition to a national bank derived from fear, ignorance, and a basic cleavage of prophecy. To many persons banks were synonymous with speculation; others viewed them as “aristocratic engines” designed to advance the interests of the few over those of the many. Most important, however, was the discrepancy of viewpoints between those who envisaged an agricultural nation and those who already sensed the embryonic stirrings of a vast industrial economy. To the htter, a strong central bank seemed indispensable. The struggle to establish the First Bank of the United States emphasized the rural-urban cleavage that was to influence much nineteenth-century history. It was also a conspicuous early recourse to implied Constitutional powers, anathema to States' Rights defenders and a great hope of businessmen in a still feeble nation.

The attitudes and preoccupations of businessmen at any given time are deemed important by historians both as clues to and reasons for business action. The year 1900 is a promising one in which to probe those attitudes and preoccupations because at that time a great many important characteristics of the business community were undergoing rapid change. Examination of business literature of the day suggests that the businessman of 1900 was preoccupied with the merger movement and with labor agitation, with shifting distribution patterns, and with trade association activity. His concern with financial techniques and public relations was intense, if erratic, and he was preoccupied with problems of administrative structure. He was, in short, concerned with those developments commonly emphasized by historians, but with so much more besides as to suggest several new research avenues. Surprising results emerge when business attitudes and preoccupations of 1900 are compared with those of 1956.

This article goes beyond the usual easy generalization that the coming of the railroad brought profound economic and social changes. Here a broad panorama is revealed, but with specific features in sharp focus, These features include the conflicting impact of the railroads on local craftsmen and tradesmen; the initial stimulus to extreme concentration and then to dispersion of population; the influence upon industrial decentralization; the changing railroad attitude toward passenger traffic; the rise of dormitory suburbs and their conversion into integrated communities; the social implications of the new mode of conveyance; the significance in labor reform of the railroads as large employers. Students of American transportation will find much of interest in this British pattern and in the method by which it is set forth.

J.J Cole, of Indianapolis, was one of the small group of entrepreneurs who successfully passed from carriage manufacture to automobile assembly. His initial success in the new field derived from technical competence, style consciousness, and marketing ability. These three attributes were not, however, subsequently exercized with equal and consistent effectiveness, and Cole, the talented individualist, did not survive the era of integration and combination in the 1920's. His firm passed from the scene, not as a bankrupt but as a typical founder-dominated organization that seemingly spent its energies in surviving one major transition and was unwilling or unable to face up to another.

The distinguishing aspect of business in modern times, particularly in the United States, is that it has permeated the entire fabric of civilization. Historical interpretations of this circumstance have been in sharp conflict and have tended toward extremes. The wave of national self-criticism of the early twentieth century focused attention on the shortcomings of business, ignoring its constructive aspects. On the other hand, the modern revisionist school of historians, depicting the businessman not as a “robber baron” but as an “architect of material greatness,” has been prone to stress ends ahead of means and to overlook the deeper implications of the businessman's role in society as a whole. True perspective is not afforded by either of these opposing academic positions, nor is it likely to be gained by further blind amassing of facts-in-isolation on the part of business historians. A general theory of business evolution is needed — one that neither praises nor blames the businessman but seeks to locate him in the larger context of human experience.

This article traces the birth and early growth of a major industry. Before Imperial Leduc No. 1 brought in the Edmonton field in 1947, Canadian oil producing operations had been sporadic. The Edmonton and subsequent discoveries in western Canada created an industrial giant overnight, providing historians and economists with a remarkable, documented, accessible case study of the process of industrial growth. Imperial Leduc No. 1 generated economic impulses that surged through a nation. The immediate effects were felt by the Canadian oil industry itself, which crystallized into a new pattern of integration. The domestic consumer of petroleum products was vitally affected, and his counter-reactions created new necessities. Canadian economic development in general was immediately and largely influenced; the flow of oil touched off a chain reaction in state and national fiscal affairs, in agriculture, in population trends, in education, in public expenditures, and in Dominion politics. Nor was the end here. The impulse for change swept across international boundaries, affecting monetary exchange and the competitive alignments of the world petroleum industry.