Trial-and Error: A Reply

Abstract

The object of a book review or review article is to put subject of it under scrutiny. It is a trial, of a sort. But it can be a wayward or a disciplined trial. A book may be judged for what it claims to be. Or it may be judged for what a reviewer believes it should have claimed to be. Or it may be judged for what a reviewer thinks was claimed, but what was in fact disclaimed. Indeed, a review may be a summary execution, without much in way of trial. Which of these possibilities resembles critique of Anderson and Leftwich (A & L) reader may presently judge. Securities and Obscurities is substantially a book of (p. 7). Of what? As subtitle suggests, evidence of necessity of reform of the law of company accounts. The book could be attacked, therefore, on ground that it makes no case for reform of law. It is odd that A & L make no reference to this, primary (and obvious) function of book. They pass no judgment on whether book is what it claims to be. There is, in title, an implied indication that practice under law, as it stands, is far from satisfactory. And book presents a great deal of evidence to point. But does it establish point? The closest A & L seem prepared to go on this is a vague allusion embedded in other comment-if we prepared to assume that evidence may support hypothesis. It is a neat way of damning evidence without appraising it. Criticism without some suggestion for reform has seemed to me to be only half job. So book cites a substantial amount of evidence in favor of accounting for assets on a market price basis. But A & L are not prepared to evaluate suggested reform or evidence for it solely on ground that contemporary impounds more information than products of traditional accounting. Thus, on three