Reviews of Books Commission, Washington, D.C.
Mr.
Packer has prepared a brief on the power of Congress to impose an abso lute liability irrespective of negligence. He considers numerous decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States and other authorities and concludes: — English Common Law started with absolute liability, irrespective of negligence, for harmful acts.
That such liability was modified from time to time by judicial decision and statute to suit the prevailing ideas of social policy. That in accordance with such social policy such abso lute liability remained for certain classes of acts. That it exists today for the Custody and ownership of dangerous things, such as fire. That a man acts at his peril in certain situa tions, such as in creating a dangerous reservoir on his land (Rylamls v. Fletcher) and that a rule of absolute liability is moreover attached to
641
regulate the relations of master and servant in interstate and foreign commerce as regards accidents in that commerce. Can it then be doubted that the Supreme Court would uphold the power of Congress, if in so doing it should see fit to adopt a rule of absolute liability irre spective of negligence for accidents to employees incident to such commerce, a rule that the whole
experience of the civilized world has adopted as both expedient and just — thereby discarding the rule which requires proof of negligence, which that experience has proved to be inex pedient and unjust.
HOCHHEIMER'S MANUAL OF CRIMINAL LAW A Manual of Criminal Law, including Forms and Precedents. By Lewis Hochheimer. of the Baltimore Bar. King Brothers, Baltimore. Pp. 270 and table of uses and index 65.
NE takes up so thin a book as this on so large a subject with a feeling
certain contractural relations and mllings, such
that it must be superficial.
However,
as carriers of goods and apparently innkeepers. In the United States, too, it is seen that the
Supreme Courts of certain of the states have adopted the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher, and admitted the existence in their common law of instances of absolute liability, irrespective of
negligence. That the Supreme Court of the United States in decisions later than the Nitro glycen'n case, has given recognition to the fact that such instances of liability irrespective of negligence exist under the English Common Law (Zernieke case), and exist in the texture of our law (as in the rule of master's responsibility for competent agent's negligence). It will be seen also that state statutes imposing an abso~
lute liability have been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, citing as justifica tion, reasons of policy, such as protection of employees and safety of the public (Maekey case), and the difficulty of proving negligence, and justice (Mathews case- just when both parties equally faultless duty of insuring against loss should rest on railroad, which creates the peril for its own profit), under the police power, as well as under the power of a state over corpora tions. From’statements made by the Supreme Court, it would appear, too, that development of the law in accordance with the needs of the times is not to be discouraged. It has recently been decided in the Employers’ Liability cases (207 U. S. 463), that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to
the present volume is an exception.
It
does not aim at any historical exposition
of criminal law, nor does it attempt to expound any of the disputed or doubtful propositions that prove so puzzling and close in criminal law. The author has set himself the task of presenting the existing law "in terse phrase and com prehensive form, incorporating no irrele vant statement and omitting no essential
detail." The definitions are not in the time honored phrases established by the old masters and reiterated by generations of lawyers, but the author has boldly
struck out, regardless of past authori ties, and uses everyday language of his
own that gives point and character to his accurate statement of the essentials of each crime. Thus, for example, his definition of embezzlement: "Embezzle ment means the fraudulent misappro
priation of a thing by a person to whom it has been entrusted. The term is applied to ofi'enses created by statutes, variant in their terms, but having the
common design to make punishable,
