Harvard Law Review Volume 30 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1917 edition. Excerpt: ...Compensation Acts."'0 What are the objects to be aimed at in arranging and classifying the law? '1 When is it expedient to make changes in existing classifications or in legal nomenclature? Some of the best modern writers assert that the object of classi fication is practical convenience, not logical or scientific order, and that changes from the existing arrangement or nomenclature should be made only for very weighty reasons. "The end sought," it is said, "is a purely practical one"; "not symmetry, elegantia, or logical order for its own sake." The existing classification should " The great majority of these statutes do not purport to apply only to extrahazardous occupations. See 27 HARV. L. REV. 344-45, 348, 363. " "Such inconsistencies must eventually lead to a change that will assimilate the rules of liability in the different cases." Judge Swayze, 25 YALE L. J. 6. ' 27 HARV. L. REV. 235, 344. Special reference may be made to pages 250, 251, 363, first sentences on page 367, and last paragraph on page 368. '1 As to the subject of classification, it has recently been said. "As a matter of fact there is a remarkable poverty in English legal literature of works dealing with the subject at all." Mr. H. J. Randall, 28 L. QUART. Rm. 304. "The legal literature of England has many merits, but it is singularly deficient in orderly statements of broad principles." 22 L. QUART REV. I00. "English law possesses no received and authentic scheme of orderly arrangement. Exponents of this system have commonly shown themselves too little careful of appropriate division and classification, and too tolerant of chaos. Yet we must guard...