LETTERS
December 10, 1975 To the Editor:

. . . I was especially interested in the “profile” of Perry Mason, appearing in your Summer 1975 issue. . . . That his forebears were musical was obvious, as Perry had extraordinary musical ability and could have made a good living as a professional. He could play any instrument but was a virtuoso on the piano. He could accompany a singer beautifully even if he had never seen the music till he sat down on the piano stool. One reason he retired early from the Institute was to devote himself to his beloved music, including com-position. Unfortunately his death from cancer came soon after his retirement.

To say that Perry “was not a forceful person” doesn’t do him justice. He was a dominating and vigorous person in the classroom, and made his presence felt in committee and other meetings. I agree, however, that he was not the pushing type.

The major weakness in the “profile” is lack of reference to Perry’s great musical talent, which was well known among his many friends. . . .
W. A. Paton

Graduate School of Business
The University of Michigan
(Vol, 3, No. 1, p, 4, 1976)

To the Editor:

I wish to call attention to a couple of errors which appeared in Chandra and Paperman’s article on direct costing in the Winter, 1976 issue of The Accounting Historian.
In footnote number 6 these authors make the mistake of many accountants and other writers when they state that Pacioli “is gen¬erally acknowledged by the historians as the first written work on accounting.” Even the embryo historian should know that there is a difference between writing and publishing and printing. Cotrugii’s manuscript was written in 1458 and is believed by some to have been the basis for Pacioli. However, it does not appear that his work was disseminated to any great extent. The authors of the above paper should correct their footnotes.

Another matter which caused me some confusion was footnote number 3 which read N.A.C.C. Bulletin, April, 1958, p. 1083. . . .
Not to be repulsed by this setback I pursued the search further and eventually came up with the correct reference which is:
Direct costing, N.A.C.A. Bulletin, April, 1953, Section 3, p. 1083. . . .

There is another reference to N.A.A. Bulletin of January 15, 1936, which is incorrect. At that time the association was N.A.C.A. . . .
Sincerely, Jimmy Jones

(Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 2, 1976)