text:
Page:Earth-Hunger and Other Essays.djvu/37

Rh and opinionated. It makes them the easy victims of fads and fallacies and makes them stubborn in adhering to whims which they have taken up. It makes them impervious to reason and argument because they hold to their pet ideas with a pertinacity which has a great deal of vanity in it. It makes them quick to talk and slow to think or study. We sometimes rejoice in the amount of reading that our people do in newspapers, magazines, and light literature, and we are multiplying libraries and reading-rooms with an easy confidence that it is all in the right direction. It is like other human devices, however; it is in the main good, but it is not all good. There is one disturbing reflection which we must take earnestly to heart. If a people's desire for literary food is met by light literature, it is satisfied and put at rest by light literature, and then there is no desire or energy to get anything better. The argument against novel reading which we used to hear forty years ago, has almost entirely died out, but it had some sense in it, on this ground if no other. The consumption of vast masses of diluted literary food destroys the tone of the intellect and the moral stamina also.

Such observations and reflections as these force us back again to our resources of moral strength. Where do they lie? Without disparaging the value of homiletical instruction and exhortation, it will be admitted by everybody that it takes character above everything else to make character. Here is where the personality of the teacher has a transcendent function in connection with imparting book-learning. The school educates the teacher quite as much as it educates the scholars. The life and work together under forms which involve discipline and orderly co-operation cannot go on without friction which tells upon both parties. The


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Grant, (Hiram) Ulysses Simpson

GRANT, (Hiram) Ulysses Simpson, American general and 18th President of the United States: b. Point Pleasant, Clermont County, Ohio, 27 April 1822; d. Mount McGregor, N. Y., 23 July 1885. He was the eldest of the six children of Jesse R. Grant and Hannah Simpson Grant and on the paternal side is supposed to have been of remote Scottish descent. In 1823, a year after the birth of Ulysses, the family moved to Georgetown, Ohio, where Ulysses was brought up, working on his father's farm in summer and attending school in the winter. He detested the tanning trade, in which business his father was engaged, but was fond of agriculture and loved horses, becoming a remarkably proficient rider and teamster at an early age. After an elementary education in John D. White's subscription school at Georgetown, he was sent to Maysville Seminary, Maysville, Ky., which he attended in 1836-37, and in 1838-39 was provided with a winter term at an academy at Ripley, near Georgetown. In 1839 his father obtained for him an appointment to the Military Academy at West Point, but in making the application for Grant, Congressman Hamer erroneously called him “Ulysses Simpson Grant” instead of Hiram Ulysses, and thus his name appeared on the muster-roll. The young man was not displeased by the change and after a few years himself discarded the Hiram, which he had always disliked.

Grant's record at West Point was excellent in mathematics and engineering and fair in other studies but he surpassed all in horsemanship; he graduated in 1843, 2lst in a class of 39, was commissioned brevet second lieutenant, assigned to the Fourth United States Infantry, and sent to Jefferson Barracks, near Saint Louis, Mo. In May 1844 his regiment was ordered to the south western frontier and in September 1845 to Texas as a part of the army under Zachary Taylor. On 30 Sept. 1845 he was promoted to full second lieutenant; in May 1846 took part in the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma (qq.v.); in August, at Camargo, was appointed regimental quartermaster and commissary; in September was present at the battle of Monterey (q.v.), where he performed a daring ride under fire to obtain new supplies for the troops on the firing line; and in December was sent with his regiment to the mouth of the Rio Grande. He participated in all the battles of General Scott's march to Mexico City — Vera Cruz, Cerro Gordo, Contreras, Churubusco, Molina del Rey and Chapultepec (qq.v.), being made first lieutenant for bravery at Molino del Rey and brevetted captain at Chapultepec. His regiment was at Mexico City until June 1848, when it was ordered to Mississippi, but Grant obtained leave of absence and returned home to be married (22 August) to Miss Julia T. Dent. In July 1852 after four years of garrison duty at Detroit and Sackett's Harbor, the regiment was transferred by way of Panama to Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River; while there he endeavored to increase his income by farming,

cattle-raising and other enterprises, but in- variably failed to improve his fortunes. On 5 Aug. 1853 he was promoted to a captaincy and ordered to Fort Humboldt, Cal., where he served until April 1854, but becoming disheartened by the never-ending vista of barrack life and far removed from the wholesome influence of wife and family, he fell into evil ways, began to drink and finally, was directed to resign or stand trial on charges. Accordingly he resigned from the service 11 April 1854 to take effect 31 July, and returned to Saint Louis.

Frederick Dent, who lived near Saint Louis, had given his daughter (Grant's wife) 80 acres of land, and on Grant's return loaned him $1,000 with which to engage in farming. On this property Grant built a log cabin, which he called “Hard Scrabble,” and lived there until 1858, clearing the land, hauling wood, plowing, hoeing and enduring all the hardships and privations of a small farmer. In 1858, however, he abandoned farming because of illness and returned to Saint Louis, where, during the next two years, owing to his inaptitude for ordinary business life and carelessness in money matters, he earned only a scanty subsistence in the real estate business. In 1860 he removed to Galena, Ill., where his father had established a leather store (a branch of his tanning business at Covington, Ky.), and there he worked at an annual salary of $800 until the outbreak of the Civil War.

When a war meeting was held to secure enlistments Captain Grant was made chairman of the meeting but declined an offer of the captaincy of the company enlisted, saying “I have been a captain in the regular army. I am fitted to command a regiment.” On 25 April, however, he accompanied the troops to Springfield, where on 8 May he was attached to the adjutant-general's office as mustering officer, mustering in several regiments, among which was the 7th District Regiment (later the 21st Illinois). On 24 May 1861 he tendered his services to the War Department at Washington, suggesting that he was competent to command a regiment, but received no reply and had almost abandoned hope of making any headway in the military service when (17 June) he was appointed colonel of the above regiment, though compelled to borrow money to purchase the proper officer's outfit. He served with his regiment under Pope in Missouri (endeavoring to suppress guerilla warfare), until 7 August, when he was appointed by Lincoln brigadier-general of volunteers, on 4 September assuming command of the district of southeastern Missouri and western Kentucky, with headquarters at Cairo. Immediately on his arrival be seized Paducah, Ky., a town of great strategic importance at the junction of the Tennessee and the Ohio rivers, on 25 September occupied Smithland, and then spent several weeks in organization and drill, in fortifying important locations and in reconnaissances against the enemy. On 7 November he attacked and captured the Confederate camp at Belmont, Mo., but the arrival of Confederate reinforcements compelled him to retire to his transports.

In February 1862, after much persuasion. Gen. H. W. Halleck allowed Grant to proceed against Fort Henry on the east bank of the Tennessee. Accordingly, with 15,000 troops, and accompanied by the gunboat flotilla under

A. H. Foote, Grant set out, and on the 6th, after a terrific bombardment by the gunboats, compelled the fort to surrender. He then invested Fort Donelson, on the west bank of the Cumberland River, 12 miles away. A Confederate sortie on the 15th failed to loosen Grant's grip and on the 16th Gen, S. B. Bnckner proposed an armistice and the appointment of commissioners to settle terms of capitulation, but Grant replied: “No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.” Buckner surrendered the fort and about 15,000 troops and Grant became famous as “Unconditional Surrender Grant.” This brilliant piece of work was the first important victory for the Union cause and its moral effect was tremendous. In spite of the jealousy of Halleck and his efforts to belittle and humiliate Grant, who afterward for a time was virtually under arrest, Lincoln nominated Grant as major-general of volunteers, to date from the surrender, and the Senate confirmed the appointment. See .

Grant's next important battle was at Shiloh (q.v.) or Pittsburg Landing. At that point were five divisions of Grants army, while he himself was at Savannah, nine miles away, awaiting the arrival of an army under Don Carlos Buell. On 6 April the Confederate army, under Gen. A. S. Johnston, attacked the Union troops at the Landing and beat them back to the Tennessee River with great loss; but Grant, having been reinforced by Buell's army, reformed his lines, renewed the battle on the 7th and drove the Confederates, now under Beauregard, Johnston having been killed in action, back to Corinth, Miss. The highly colored reports of this battle in the newspapers of the North called forth the most violent and acrid denunciations of Grant, who was charged with neglecting his army through dissipation, with recklessly exposing his men and with being in the rear at a critical time; moreover the public was dismayed by the large loss of life, this being the bloodiest battle up to that time in the history of the country. But Lincoln, unswayed by the widespread clamor for Grant's removal, resolutely rejected all such demands, saying “I can't spare this man, he fights.” On 11 April Halleck arrived at the Landing and in a spirit of petty jealousy took personal command of the army, much to Grant's chagrin, and the latter, though nominally second in command, was completely ignored in the following ludicrous campaign against Corinth (q.v.), which was occupied by the Union troops 30 May. Grant was so disgusted by what he deemed an unwarranted displacement that he contemplated leaving the army but was dissuaded by Sherman. On 11 July, however, Halleck was called to Washington and left Grant in charge of the district of West Tennessee, embracing the territory west of the Cumberland River, with headquarters at Corinth. On 19-20 September Grant forced Price to retreat at Iuka (q.v.), on 3-4 October a part of his army under Rosecrans signally defeated Price and Van Dorn at Corinth (q.v.) and on the 2Sth he was placed in command of the Department of the Tennessee, charged with the special duty of taking Vicksburg.

By November 1862 Grant was in sufficient

force to undertake an offensive campaign. Sending Sherman to attack Vicksburg in front, Grant went to the interior to cut off escape by the rear. First came the reverse at Holly Springs (q.v.) 20 December and on the 29th the sanguinary battle of Chickasaw Bayou (q.v.) was fought, but on 10-11 Jan. 1863 Sherman managed to capture Arkansas Post or Fort Hindman (q.v.) and thus saved from utter failure a campaign that had been planned on an unsound basis and subjected to considerable interference by a series of political intrigues. Nevertheless Grant possessed the energy and persistency necessary to accomplish the task before him; the plan of campaign was changed several times without appreciable result, but finally, after months of seemingly hopeless work, by a series of brilliant manœuvres, a regular siege of Vicksburg was instituted in May and on 4 July 1863 the fortress and town were surrendered with over 30,000 troops, the largest body of soldiers that had been captured on this continent up to that time. (See ). Grant was now the “man of destiny” and a national hero; on 16 July Lincoln wrote a personal letter of congratulation and nominated him as major-general in the regular army; and in October he was placed in command of the Military Division of the Mississippi.

The fall of Vicksburg severed the Confederacy and in October, as little opposition was expected in that quarter, Grant proceeded to Chattanooga where Rosecrans, after the Tullahoma campaign (q.v.), and the disastrous battle of Chickamauga (q.v.) 19-20 Sept. 1863, was beleaguered by the Confederates under Bragg, while shortly afterward Burnside was besieged by Longstreet at Knoxville. By a series of swift and dramatic battles, 23-25 November, Grant captured Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge (see ) and completely routed Bragg (see ), then sending Sherman to Burnside's relief at Knoxville (see ; ; victory opened the way for Sherman's Meridian expedition (q.v.), his capture of Atlanta and his subsequent “March to the Sea.” At its next session Congress not only passed a vote of thanks to Grant and his army and ordered a gold medal to be struck in his honor, but also on 29 Feb. 1864 revived the grade of lieutenant-general and on 2 March confirmed Lincoln's nomination of Grant to that position. A few days later Grant proceeded to Washington and assumed command of the armies of the United States, making his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac and immediately formulating plans to defeat the army under Gen. R. E. Lee and capture Richmond.
 * ). This

ULYSSES SIMPSON GRANT

Eighteenth President of the United States

Grant's first movements, though unsuccessful in their main design, resulted in crippling the enemy but only at disheartening sacrifices of troops. He pursued a merciless policy of attrition and proposed to exhaust Lee's army, even though his gains were not commensurate with the unprecedented cost of these operations, in spite of repeated partial reverses and tremendous losses in killed and wounded, he never relaxed his hold on Lee's army, but slowly and

inexorably drove it back upon Petersburg and Richmond. Grant sent Sherman against Johnston who was protecting Atlanta and ordered B. F. Butler with the Army of the James to threaten Richmond from the southeast, while he himself, with the Army of the Potomac under Gen. G. G. Meade, attacked Lee. On 4 May 1864, with an army approximately twice the size of Lee's, Grant crossed the Rapidan, and on 5-6 May fought the bloody battle of the Wilderness (q.v.), suffering far greater loss than he inflicted (see also ). Sheridan was then sent with the cavalry on a raiding expedition toward Richmond (q.v.; see also ); and on 10-12 May, Grant engaged in the hardest and closest fighting of the war in the series of battles including the “Bloody Angle” at Spottsylvania Court House (q.v.). In spite of Hancock's success at the “Angle,” Grant failed in his main purpose to break through Lee's centre, roll up his flanks and thus destroy the fighting morale of his army. But Grant had said: “I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer,” and accordingly continued to hammer at Lee, though for some time the latter managed to fight the Union army to a standstill and to frustrate every effort to draw him from his almost impregnable position (see ; ; ). By this time also Gen. Franz Sigel had been defeated at New Market (q.v.) and Butler had been bottled up at Bermuda Hundred (see Lee was safe from attack on that quarter and the Shenandoah Valley was open. On 3 June Grant tried to break through Lee's lines at Cold Harbor (q.v.) but the enormous loss of life in this unsuccessful assault convinced him that flanking movements were futile and too costly and that his only hope of capturing Richmond lay in taking Petersburg, Gen. J. H. Wilson led two cavalry divisions around Petersburg, destroying large sections of the Weldon and Southside railroads (q.v.) and Sheridan made a raid toward Trevilian (q.v.), but the midsummer heat prevented extended offensive operations (see ; On 30 July occurred the explosion of the Petersburg mine and the disastrous and abortive assault of the Confederate works. During the next few weary months attention was centred on the operations in the Shenandoah Valley (q.v.) where Jubal A. Early came in contact with Sheridan and finally on 19 Oct. 1864 was defeated by him at Cedar Creek (q.v.); on Sherman's campaign against Hood, resulting in the capture of Atlanta on 2 September and of Savannah on 22 December (see ); on Schofield's failure at Franklin (q.v.) 30 November, and on Thomas' overwhelming defeat of Hood at Nashville (q.v.) 15-16 December.
 * ), wherefore

During this time Grant was constantly tightening his hold on Lee's lines (see ; ) and waiting for Sherman and Sheridan to cut off Lee's sources of supplies from the south and west, planning thereby to starve him out. On 25 Jan. 1865 Fort Fisher (q.v.) was captured.

Sherman advanced from Savannah and pierced the Carolinas (see : ), and in March, after the battle of Hatcher's Run (Dabney's Mill and Armstrong's Mill, q.v.), Grant began his great offensive against the Petersburg lines, first repulsing a sortie by Lee at Fort Stedman (q.v.) 25 March. On 31 March and 1 April, Sheridan won victories at Dinwiddie Court House, White Oak Road and Five Forks (qq.v.), wherefore on the night of 2-3 April, Lee abandoned his untenable position at Petersburg and ordered his troops to concentrate at Amelia Court House, south of Appomattox. The next day (3 April) Richmond was evacuated and the Union forces occupied the city, Grant continuing to pursue the Confederates, then in a desperate plight because their supply trains had been sent to the wrong place. By the 8th Lee was almost surrounded (see ; ) and therefore on the 9th, realizing the utter hopelessness and futility of further resistance, he surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House. Grant afterward stated that he “felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly and had suffered so much for a cause,” and therefore his terms of surrender were very generous, winning for him the respect and admiration of the Southern people. Subsequently, when a question arose as to whether Lee could be prosecuted for treason. Grant promptly declared that the terms of surrender included Lee and if such a course were pursued he would resign his commission and appeal to the country. Grant returned to Washington amid the rejoicing of the entire nation, soon to be plunged into despair by Lincoln's assassination. On 23-24 May he reviewed the army parade at Washington and then visited many Northern cities, receiving innumerable gifts from admiring citizens and honorary degrees from Harvard University and other institutions.

Respecting the reconstruction, Grant at first favored President Johnson and at his request made a tour of inspection of North and South Carolina and Georgia in the fall of 1865, reporting that “the mass of thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good faith.” He also accompanied the President on his famous “swing around the circle” in 1866, though he took no active part in the President's propaganda in favor of his reconstruction policy. Having been commissioned General of the Armies of the United States (25 July 1866), Grant was now the foremost citizen of the republic and as he had become an available candidate for the Presidential nomination, the leaders of both political parties sought to secure his adherence, since it was probable that his popularity would influence a considerable independent vote. But President Johnson involved Grant in the struggle over reconstruction measures and by his course drove him into the radical ranks. In August 1867 Johnson suspended Secretary of War Stanton (q.v.) and appointed Grant Secretary ad interim, but on 13 Jan. 1868 the Senate disapproved of Stanton's suspension, whereupon Grant vacated the office. A dispute arose over Grant's actions in this connection, Johnson questioning his good faith, thus driving him into bitter opposition to Johnson and making him an advocate of impeachment. Hence,

in May 1868 Grant was unanimously nominated for the Presidency by the Republican convention at Chicago, and though taking little part in the campaign, defeated his Democratic opponent (Gov. Horatio Seymour), receiving 214 of the 294 electoral votes.

Grant's inexperience in civil administration was conceded, his lack of political finesse was admitted and his reticence and taciturnity were pronounced, but his strong will was also known and his rugged patriotism had been proven. He caused much criticism in forming his Cabinet owing to the preponderance of millionaires and personal friends and by making his personal appointments in the President's household largely from the military staff. However, he possessed the confidence of the people and this was increased by the negotiation of the Treaty of Washington (q.v. See also ; but his persistent efforts to annex Santo Domingo led to much ill feeling and also to a rupture of relations with Charles Sumner (q.v.). Grant was deeply interested in South and Central American affairs and desired to recognize the Cuban insurgents but was dissuaded from so doing by Secretary Fish; in the subsequent Virginius affair, however, popular indignation was so thoroughly aroused that Grant put the navy on a war footing and later Spain rendered adequate reparation. The most important domestic problem during his first term, aside from his peaceful Indian policy and civil service reform, was the reconstruction of the Southern States, but as the actual work of reorganization was almost finished, the President was inclined to leave the completion of the task to the newly formed State governments (see ). Still there was a growing conviction that the administration was inefficient, that the civil service was neglected and abused and that in his appointments Grant was yielding too frequently to the importunities of politicians; accordingly in 1872 a great reform movement was inaugurated, the instigators of which called themselves Liberal Republicans. Grant was charged with nepotism because of his numerous appointments to public office of relatives of his own and of the Dent families and with being “notoriously loaded down with presents;” and the Gould-Fisk attempt to corner gold, culminating in Black Friday (q.v.), was attributed to a New York speculator who had married into the President's family. But in 1872, despite these and other irregularities, such as the Crédit Mobilier scandal (q.v.), ordinarily regarded as weaknesses in a candidate, Grant easily defeated his Democratic-Liberal-Republican opponent, Horace Greeley (q.v.), obtaining a plurality of over 700,000 and an electoral vote of 286. The new administration was almost immediately confronted with financial disaster and panic but the President rendered a great service to the country when he vetoed a bill passed by Congress for the inflation of the paper currency and urged the passage of the bill for resuming specie payments. The last years of his Presidency mark the lowest ebb ever reached in the political morale of the country. The “Salary Grab” (q.v.), the Whisky Ring Frauds (q.v,), the scandal in

the Treasury Department regarding the Sanborn contracts, the Safe-Burglary frauds, the Seal-Lock frauds, the Subsidy frauds, the impeachment of Secretary of War Belknap (q.v.) and other malodorous affairs aroused universal indignation and protest, though the President personally was in no way implicated. Probably never was Grant so low in the popular estimation as in the summer and fall of 1876. As a result the Democratic candidate (Samuel J. Tilden) received a majority of the popular vote in 1876, but the Republican candidate was placed in office by the decision of the ../Electoral Commission/ (q.v. See also ). During this time numerous threats were made of an appeal to arms, but Grant's disposition of the army prevented disorder and his influence counted for peace and restraint.

At the close of his second term in 1877 Grant, with his wife and youngest son, Jesse, made a tour of the world; he returned in September 1879 and in the spring of 1880 an effort was made to secure for him a third nomination for the Presidency, but the sentiment against a third term could not be overcome. Shortly afterward he moved to New York city and, besides accepting the unsalaried presidency of the Mexican Southern Railway, became a special partner in the firm of Grant & Ward; his name and property were used in the business but he took no active part in the management. In 1884 this firm failed, ruining Grant and other members of his family, and an unsuccessful effort was made to hold him personally liable. To satisfy his creditors he surrendered all his property, including the unique collection of souvenirs, swords and other mementoes gathered during his tour, and this collection eventually became the property of the nation. Every token of respect was shown him and in March 1885, by special legislation, Congress restored him to the rank of General (since he had resigned to become President) and retired him on full pay. When the first storm of criticism had passed, Grant undertook to write his memoirs, hoping that the sale would furnish a competence for his wife, and then began the most heroic year of his life. Though suffering almost ceaseless pain, owing to a cancerous growth in his throat, he continued steadily at this work, dictating when he could and writing when speech was impossible, and ultimately produced a work that took rank as one of the great martial biographies of the world. In June 1885 he was moved to Mount McGregor, near Saratoga, N. Y., in the hope that the change would benefit him, but the march of the fatal disease could not be stayed and he died on 23 July. His body found its final resting place in the great mausoleum on Riverside Drive, New York city, overlooking the Hudson.

Bibliography. — Among biographies of Grant, varying in merit, are those by A. W. Alexander (Saint Louis 1897); W. Allen (Boston 1901); Matthew Arnold (Boston 1887); Adam Badeau (Hartford 1887 and New York 1885); W. C. Church (New York 1897); F. L. Coombs (New York 1916); H. Coppée (New York 1866 and 1868); N. Cross (New York 1872); C. A. Dana and J. H. Wilson (Springfield, Mass., 1868); F. S. Edmonds (Philadelphia 1915); T.

G. Frost (New York 1909); Hamlin Garland (New York 1898); P. C. Headley (New York 1866); Charles King (Philadelphia 1914); A. D. Richardson (Hartford 1868); N. Smith (Milwaukee 1909); W. O. Stoddard (New York 1886); W. H. Van Orden (New York 1896): J. G. Wilson (New York 1897); and O. Wister (Boston 1901). Consult also ‘Battles and Leaders of the Civil War’ (New York 1884-87); Childs, G. W., ‘Recollections of General Grant’ (Philadelphia 1890); Cramer, J. G. (ed.), ‘Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to his Father and his Youngest Sister, 1857-78’ (New York 1912); Dodge, G. M., ‘Personal Recollections of General Grant and his Campaigns in the West’ (in Journal of the Military Service Institute, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 39-61, New York 1905); Douglass, F., ‘U. S. Grant and the Colored People’ (Washington 1872); Dunmng, W. A., ‘The Reconstruction’ {New York 1907); Eaton, John, ‘Grant, Lincoln and the Freedman’ (New York 1907); Force, M. F., ‘From Fort Henry to Corinth’ (New York 1881); Farman, E. E., ‘Along the Nile with General Grant’ (New York 1904); Fiske, John, ‘The Mississippi Valley in the Civil War’ (Boston 1900); Grant, U. S, ‘Personal Memoirs’ (New York 1885-86); Garland, Hamlin, ‘Grant in the Mexican War’ (in McClure's Magazine, pp. 366-380, New York 1897); Grant, F. D., ‘Reminiscences of Gen. U. S. Grant’ (in Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Vol. VII, pp. 72-76, Springfield, Ill., 1914), and ‘With Grant at Vicksburg’ (in The Outlook, Vol. LIX, pp. 533-543, New York 1898); Humphreys, A. A., ‘The Virginia Campaign of '64 and '65’ (New York 1883); Keating, J. M., ‘With Grant in the East’ (Philadelphia 1879); McClellan, C., ‘The Personal Memoirs and the Military History of U. S. Grant versus the Record of the Army of the Potomac’ (Boston 1887); Mosby, J. S., ‘Personal Recollections of General Grant’ (in Munsey's Magagine, Vol. LXIV, pp. 161-166, New York 1911); Nicolay and Hay, ‘Abraham Lincoln, a History’ (New York 1890); Porter, Horace, ‘Campaigning with Grant’ (New York 1897); Ropes and Livermore, ‘Story of the Civil War’ (New York 1894-1913); Rhodes, J. F., ‘History of the United States’ (New York 1892-1906); Swinton, William, ‘Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac’ (New York 1866); Shrady, G. F., ‘General Grant's Last Days’ (in Century Magazine, Vol. LXXVI, pp. 102-113, 411-429, New York 1908); Vincent, J. H., ‘The Inner Life of Ulysses S. Grant’ (in The Chautauquan, Vol. XXX, pp. 634-638, Meadville, Pa., 1900); Wilkin, J. W., ‘Personal Reminiscences of General U. S. Grant’ (in ‘Publications of the Illinois State Historical Library,’ No. 12, pp. 134-140, Springfield, Ill., 1908); Wilson, J. H., ‘Under The Old Flag’ (New York 1912); Woolley, E. C., ‘Grant's Southern Policy’ (in ‘Studies in Southern History and Politics,’ New York 1914); Young, J. R., ‘Around the World with General Grant’ (New York 1879); the article ‘The Truth about Grant’ (in The Army and Navy Journal, Vol. XLV, p. 1100, 6 June 1908); and the biographies and memoirs of the soldiers and statesmen of the period, and works describing the war in its entirety and also the individual battles.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Earth-Hunger and Other Essays.djvu/38

12 of the schoolroom easily provoke the temper or the vanity, the jealousy or the rancor of the teacher. Who does not know what pitiless critics scholars are, how sharply they detect evidences of human weakness, and what severe standards they employ? Even parents are exposed to no such criticism. They are shielded, and presumptions are created in their favor which teachers do not enjoy. When it comes to demands upon character there is no profession and no relation in life which makes such heavy demands as teaching.

It would, of course, be absurd to make superhuman demands on teachers, and exaggerated demands could have no other effect than to discourage. Such is not the point to which my thoughts tend. On the contrary I have in mind, in what I say, the encouraging fact that a faithful teacher who is always trying to do the best possible is sure to enjoy a large measure of success of which he or she is not conscious. When I look back to my own school-days I know that two or three of my teachers had decisive effect upon my character and career, yet I have no reason to suppose that any one of them knew that it was so or was to be so. We had one teacher whom I never saw put in a difficult position but what he extricated himself from it in such a way that we all felt that that was just the right way to act in an emergency of that kind. That is the way in which character is educated by character. Its fruits are abundant, and the crop of them is produced over and over again for many a year afterwards, and it is planted and gathered by many workers over many fields.

I was led into this line of thought by my recollections of our honored guest. I think that the reflections I have suggested may be welcome to him in the retrospect of a long career, during which, no doubt, he has had many


text:
Page:Earth-Hunger and Other Essays.djvu/39

Rh failures and disappointments to lament. Like all the rest of us he has, no doubt, felt that the results of his labors were not what he hoped for and had a fair right to expect. Let me assure him that there has been more fruition than he has been aware of. It is the chief purpose of this meeting to assure him of it and to give him that explicit proof of it to which he is entitled.


text: Page:Earth-Hunger and Other Essays.djvu/40


text: Page:Earth-Hunger and Other Essays.djvu/41


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Destructors


text: Index:The castellated and domestic architecture of Scotland from the twelfth to the eighteenth century (1887) - Volume 2.djvu


text:
Page:Earth-Hunger and Other Essays.djvu/43

 THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE OF MIND I undertaken the duty of addressing you for a few moments in order to welcome you to this society and also to make some suggestions which seem appropriate to the beginning of your connection with it. What we expect this society to do for you is, that it shall confirm your devotion to true science and help to train you in scientific methods of thought and study.

Let us begin by trying to establish a definite idea of what science is. The current uses of the term are both very strict and very loose or vague. Some people use the term as a collective term for the natural sciences; others define science as orderly knowledge. Professor Karl Pearson, in his Grammar of Science, does not offer any definition of science, but he tells the aim of science and its function.

"The classification of facts and the formation of absolute judgments upon the basis of this classification—judgments independent of the idiosyncrasies of the individual mind—is peculiarly the scope and method of modern science. The scientific man has above all things, to strive at self-elimination in his judgments, to provide an argument which is as true for each individual mind as for his own. The classification of facts, the recognition of their sequence and relative significance is the function of science, and the habit of forming a judgment upon those facts unbiased by personal feeling is characteristic of what we shall term the scientific frame of mind." These


text:
Author:Irving Everett Rines

As editor

 * Lectures on the growth and development of the United States, illustrated. Editors Edwin Wiley and Irving E. Rines.

title: Author:Irving Everett Rines


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/120

 exercised in the application of refuse fuel to steam-raising. When its value as a low-class fuel was first recognized, the idea was disseminated that the refuse of a given population was of itself sufficient to develop the necessary steam-power for supplying that population with the electric light. The economical importance of a combined destructor and electric undertaking of this character naturally presented a somewhat fascinating stimulus to public authorities, and possibly had much to do with the development both of the adoption of the principle of dealing with refuse by fire, and of lighting towns by electricity. However true this phase of the question may be as the statement of a theoretical scientific fact, experience so far does not show it to be a basis upon which engineers may venture to calculate, although, as will be seen later, under certain circumstances of equalized load, which must be considered upon their merits in each case, a well-designed destructor plant can be made to perform valuable commercial service to an electric or other power-using undertaking. Further, when a system, thermal or otherwise, for the storage of energy can be introduced and applied in a trustworthy and economical manner, the degree of advantage to be derived from the utilization of the waste heat from destructors will be materially enhanced.

The composition of house refuse, which must obviously affect its calorific value, varies considerably in different localities, according to the condition, habits and pursuits of the people. Towns situated in coal-producing districts invariably yield a refuse richer in unconsumed carbon than those remote therefrom. It is also often found that the refuse from different parts of the same town varies considerably—that from the poorest quarters frequently proving of greater calorific value than that from those parts occupied by the rich and middle classes. This has been attributed to the more extravagant habits of the working classes in neglecting to sift the ashes from their fires before disposing of them in the ash-bin. In Bermondsey, for example, the refuse has been found to possess an unusually high calorific value, and this experience is confirmed in other parts of the metropolis. Average refuse consists of breeze (cinder and ashes), coal and coke, fine dust, vegetable and animal matters, straw, shavings, cardboard, bottles, tins, iron, bones, broken crockery and other matters in very variable proportions according to the character of the district from which it is collected. In London the quantity of house refuse amounts approximately to 1 million tons per annum, which is equivalent to from 4 cwt. to 5 cwt. per head per annum, or to from 200 to 250 tons per 1000 of the population per annum. Statistics, however, vary widely in different districts. In the vicinity of the metropolis the amount varies from 2.5 cwt. per head per annum at Leyton to 3.5 cwt. at Hornsey, and to as much as 7 cwt. at Ealing. In the north of England the total house refuse collected, exclusive of street sweepings, amounts on the average to 8 cwt. per head per annum. Speaking generally, throughout the country an amount of from 5 cwt. to 10 cwt. per head per annum should be allowed for. A cubic yard of ordinary house refuse weighs from 12 to 15 cwt. Shop refuse is lighter, frequently containing a large proportion of paper, straw and other light wastes. It sometimes weighs as little as 7 cwt. per cubic yard. A load, by which refuse is often estimated, varies in weight from 15 cwt. to 1 tons.

The question how a town’s refuse shall be disposed of must be considered both from a commercial and a sanitary point of view. Various methods have been practised. Sometimes the household ashes, &c., are mixed with pail excreta, or with sludge from a sewage farm, or with lime, and disposed of for agricultural purposes, and sometimes they are conveyed in carts or by canal to outlying and country districts, where they are shot on waste ground or used to fill up hollows and raise the level of marshland. Such plans are economical when suitable outlets are available. To take the refuse out to sea in hopper barges and sink it in deep water is usually expensive and frequently unsatisfactory. At Bermondsey, for instance, the cost of barging is about 2s. 9d. a ton, while the material may be destroyed by fire at a cost of from 10d. to 1s. a ton, exclusive of interest and sinking fund on the cost of the works. In other cases, as at Chelsea and various dust contractors’ yards, the refuse is sorted and its ingredients are sold; the fine dust may be utilized in connexion with manure manufactories, the pots and pans employed in forming the foundations of roads, and the cinders and vegetable refuse burnt to generate steam. In the Arnold system, carried out in Philadelphia and other American towns, the refuse is sterilized by steam under pressure, the grease and fertilizing substances being extracted at the same time; while in other systems, such as those of Weil and Porno, and of Defosse, distillation in closed vessels is practised. But the destructor system, in which the refuse is burned to an innocuous clinker in specially constructed furnaces, is that which must finally be resorted to, especially in districts which have become well built up and thickly populated.

Various types of furnaces and apparatus have from time to time been designed, and the subject has been one of much experiment and many failures. The principal towns in England which took the lead in the adoption of the refuse destructor system were Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Heckmondwike, Warrington, Blackburn, Bradford, Bury, Bolton, Hull, Nottingham, Salford, Ealing and London. Ordinary furnaces, built mostly by dust contractors, began to come into use in London and in the north of England in the second half of the 19th century, but they were not scientifically adapted to the purpose, and necessitated the admixture of coal or other fuel with the refuse to ensure its cremation. The Manchester corporation erected a furnace of this description about the year 1873, and Messrs Mead & Co. made an unsatisfactory attempt in 1870 to burn house refuse in closed furnaces at Paddington. In 1876 Alfred Fryer erected his destructor at Manchester, and several other towns adopted this furnace shortly afterwards. Other furnaces were from time to time brought before the public, among which may be mentioned those of Pearce and Lupton, Pickard, Healey, Thwaite, Young, Wilkinson, Burton, Hardie, Jacobs and Odgen. In addition to these the “Beehive” and the “Nelson” destructors became well known. The former was introduced by Stafford and Pearson of Burnley, and one was erected in 1884 in the parish yard at Richmond, Surrey, but the results being unsatisfactory, it was closed during the following year. The “Nelson” furnace, patented in 1885 by Messrs Richmond and Birtwistle, was erected at Nelson-in-Marsden, Lancashire, but being very costly in working was abandoned. The principal types of destructors now in use are those of Fryer, Whiley, Horsfall, Warner, Meldrum, Beaman and Deas, Heenan and Froude, and the “Sterling” destructor erected by Messrs Hughes and Stirling.

—Fryer’s Destructor.

The general arrangement of the destructor patented by Alfred Fryer in 1876 is illustrated in fig. 1. An installation upon this principle consists of a number of furnaces or cells, usually arranged in pairs back to back, and enclosed in a rectangular block of brickwork having a flat top, upon which the house refuse is tipped from the carts.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/120


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Almanac

ALMANAC, a table or calendar, in which are set down the revolutions of the seasons, the rising and setting of the sun, the phases of the moon, the most remarkable conjunctions, positions and phenomena of the heavenly bodies, for every month and day of the year; also the several fasts and feasts to be observed in the Church and state, etc. The history of the almanac, and even the etymology of the word, are involved in considerable obscurity. It is generally derived from the Arabic article at and the verb manach, to count The modern almanac answers to the fasti of the ancient Romans. Almanacs became generally used in Europe within a short time after the invention of printing; and they were very early remarkable, as some are now in England, for the mixture of truth and falsehood which they contained. In 1579 their effects in France were found so mischievous, from the pretended prophecies which they published, that an edict was promulgated by Henry III forbidding any predictions to be inserted in them relating to civil affairs, whether those of the state or of private persons. No such law was ever enacted in England. It is singular that the earliest English almanacs were printed in Holland on small folio sheets; and these have occasionally been preserved from having been pasted within the covers of old books. In the reign of James I letters patent were granted to the two universities and the Stationers' Company for an exclusive right of printing almanacs. These, in 1775, were declared to be illegal. During the civil wars of Charles I and thence onward, English almanacs were conspicuous for the unblushing boldness of their astrological predictions and their determined perpetuation of popular errors. The Stationers' Company, who had managed to retain a monopoly notwithstanding the invalidity of the letters patent in their favor, were guided merely by commercial principles in supplying the market, and accordingly adapted their almanacs to the taste of the public, which, on one occasion, when the trial was actually made, refused to purchase them without the predictions. Gradually, however, a better taste began to prevail, and in 1828 the Society for

the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge had the merit of taking the lead in the production of an unexceptionable almanac in Great Britain. The example thus set has been almost universally adopted. Almanacs, from their periodical character and the frequency with which they are referred to, are now more and more used as vehicles for conveying statistical information. Regiomontanus was the first person in Europe who prepared almanacs in their present form, without the predictions, which were in all probability introduced into Europe from the Persians. Once they were almost entirely filled with subjects of a religious character. At another time they overflowed with astrological calculations and predictions. In the time of Napoleon an almanac was published in France in which, to every day, an achievement of the Emperor, or something else relating to him, was added. Almanacs in the petty principalities of Germany exhibit the endless genealogical tables of the princes. Some almanacs in modern Greek, printed at Venice, where formerly all books in this language were published, are quite full of astrological superstition and matters relating to the Greek Church. A modern Persian almanac contains a list of fortunate days for certain purposes; as, for example, to buy, to sell, to take medicine, to marry, etc.; and predictions of events, as earthquakes, storms, political affairs, etc. One of the most curious almanacs is an Italian one exhibiting Italian vivacity in a striking manner. To the entry 30 July is added, Sudano ancora le ossa! (Even the bones sweat); to 11 August, Oh! che noia! (Oh! how distressing!); to 12 July Cascano le braccia (The arms fall); to 2 January, Stivali e ombrello! (Leggings and umbrellas!) In Germany, almanach is the name given to annuals like those which used to appear in England and the United States under the names of ‘Souvenir,’ ‘Forget-me-not,’ etc. In France a work once appeared annually entitled ‘Almanach des Gourmands,’ which was conducted with much spirit and is in high repute among epicures. Some of the almanacs that are regularly published every year are extremely useful and are indeed almost indispensable to men engaged in official, mercantile, literary or professional business. Such in Great Britain are ‘Oliver & Boyd's Edinburgh Almanac,’ ‘Thom's Official Directory’ and the ‘British Almanac,’ with its ‘Companion.’ ‘Whitaker's Almanac’ is also known as a very comprehensive and valuable compendium. The ‘Almanach de Gotha,’ which has appeared at Gotha since 1764, contains in small bulk a wonderful quantify of information regarding the reigning families and governments, the finances, commerce, population, etc., of the different states throughout the world. It is published both in a French and in a German edition. ‘The Nautical Almanac’ is an important work published annually by the British government, two or three years in advance, in which is contained much useful astronomical matter, more especially the distances of the moon from the sun, and from certain fixed stars, for every three hours of mean time, adapted to the meridian of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich. By comparing these with the distances carefully observed at sea the mariner may with comparative ease infer his longitude with sufficient accuracy in case he has no chronometer

for keeping Greenwich time. This almanac was commenced in 1767 by Dr. Maskelyne, astronomer royal. The French ‘Connaissance des Temps’ is published with the same views as the English ‘Nautical Almanac’ and nearly on the same plan. It commenced in 1679. Of a similar character is the ‘Astronomisches Jahrbuch,’ published at Berlin. The ‘American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac’ is issued annually since 1855 by the United States government.

The first American almanac was that of William Pierce of Cambridge, published in 1639. The most famous of American almanacs was ‘Poor Richard's,’ published in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin under the pseudonym of “Richard Saunders.” This almanac was probably imitated from that of Thomas, of Dedham, Mass., which was kept for a good many years and contains many pleasant and witty verses, jests and sayings. The information printed in these almanacs seems to have been the only means of carrying news to the more distant parts of the country. ‘The American Almanac’ appeared between 1830-61, and a second publication under the same name was edited for several years by Ainsworth R. Spofford. Several of the largest newspapers in the United States now issue almanacs which are marvels of condensed information. See .


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 39.djvu/320

 Muntz down). To their development Muntz devoted much of his energies, aud realised a large fortune by the manufacture and extended application of what is known as ‘Muntz metal.’ The invention closely resembled that of James Keir [q. v.], who patented in 1779 ‘a compound metal, capable of being forged when red hot or when cold, more fit for the making of bolts, nails, and sheathing for ships than any metals heretofore used or applied for those purposes.’ The similarity of the Keir to the Muntz metal was first noticed in 1866 in the ‘Birmingham and Midland Hardware District’ volume of Reports, and in the discussions which followed it was shown that in the autumn of 1779 Matthew Boulton brought the invention to the notice of the Admiralty. Whether Muntz knew of Keir's efforts is uncertain, but he first introduced the metal into universal use. In 1837 he became a partner with the copper smelters, Pascoe, Grenfell, & Sons of London and Swansea, but his principal metal works were at French Walls, near Birmingham. In 1832 he took out two patents (Nos. 6325 and 6347), one for ‘Muntz's metal,’ and one for ‘ships' bolts of Muntz's metal,’ and in 1846 a patent for an ‘alloy for sheathing ships’ (cf., Birmingham Inventors and Inventions, privately printed, 1881).

From his youth upwards Muntz interested himself in public affairs, adopting liberal opinions. He studied specially the ‘currency question,’ and was an ardent disciple of the ‘Birmingham school.’ In 1829 he wrote letters on currency to the Duke of Wellington, which aroused attention, and was associated with Thomas Attwood and others in helping to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts, and in advocating catholic emancipation and reform of parliament. In 1829, in conjunction with Attwood and Joshua Scholefield, he founded the ‘Political Union for the Protection of Public Rights’ and sought to alleviate the distress of the poorer population. On 5 Jan. 1830 he signed a memorial to the high bailiff of Birmingham (William Chance) asking him to call a meeting to consider the ‘general distress,’ and ‘to form a general political union between the lower and the middle classes of the people,’ for the ‘further redress of public wrongs and grievances’ by ‘an effectual reform in the Commons House of Parliament.’ The high bailiff refused, but a meeting of fifteen thousand persons was held, and approved Muntz's principles. Muntz was chairman. Numerous meetings followed on ‘Newhall Hill’ till the Reform Bill was passed. Muntz's ‘burly form, rough and ready oratory, his thorough contempt for all conventionalities, the heartiness of his objurgations, all made him a favourite with the population, and an acceptable speaker at all their gatherings.’ When the Duke of Wellington was especially unpopular, Muntz ‘thundered to the ears of thousands’ ‘To stop the duke, go for gold,’ and dangerous ‘runs’ on the banks followed just before the duke resigned (November 1830). Warrants for the arrest of Attwood, Scholefield, and Muntz were found in the home office, filled up, but unsigned.

On 24 May 1840 Muntz was elected M.P. for Birmingham in succession to Attwood, and he retained the seat, despite serious opposition, till his death. Although a radical, and almost a republican, he gloried in being ‘independent,’ and often offended his best friends and colleagues. ‘As a speaker he was not notable. He often spoke obscurely and enigmatically, and was frequently charged with speaking one way and voting another. He uttered strong, rugged sentences in a deep diapason.’ His legislative achievements included only an Act for the Prevention of Explosions on Steamers, but he induced a reluctant minister to adopt the system of perforated postage stamps, and to give a substantial sum to the inventor. In local politics he was a determined enemy to church rates. At one of the Easter vestry meetings in St. Martin's Church, Birmingham, he demanded to see the books, and was refused access to them. He proposed that the rector should be removed from the chair, and a riot ensued. An application was made to the court of queen's bench against him and three others, and the case was tried at Warwick on 30 March 1838 before Mr. Justice Parke for ‘unlawful and riotous assembly.’ After three days' trial they were virtually acquitted, but Muntz was found guilty of ‘an affray,’ and acquitted on twelve other counts. The proceedings were appealed against, and the court decided that ‘the proceedings were illegal, and that the prosecution should never have been instituted.’ ‘The costs were 2,500l., but Muntz refused any aid in paying them.’

Early in May 1857 signs of internal disease appeared. The death of a daughter greatly distressed him in his last years. Muntz's mother, who survived him, had a presentiment that he would die on the same day as his father, 31 July, and he himself held the same opinion. He ‘died within a few hours of the dreaded day,’ 30 July 1857, in his sixty-third year. He resided latterly at Umberslade Hall, Warwickshire. He married Eliza, daughter of John Pryce, and had six sons and two daughters. His manly figure and handsome face, with its huge black beard,


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/121

—Horsfall’s Improved Destructor.

A large main flue, which also forms the dust chamber, is placed underneath the furnace hearths. The Fryer furnace ordinarily burns from 4 to 6 tons of refuse per cell per 24 hours. It will be observed that the outlets for the products of combustion are placed at the back near the refuse feed opening, an arrangement which is imperfect in design, inasmuch as while a charge of refuse is burning upon the furnace bars the charge which is to follow lies on the dead hearth near the outlet flue. Here it undergoes drying and partial decomposition, giving off offensive empyreumatic vapours which pass into the flue without being exposed to sufficient heat to render them entirely inoffensive. The serious nuisances thus produced in some instances led to the introduction of a second furnace, or “cremator,” patented by C. Jones of Ealing in 1885, which was placed in the main flue leading to the chimney-shaft, for the purpose of resolving the organic matters present in the vapour, but the greatly increased cost of burning due to this device led to its abandonment in many cases. This type of cell was largely used during the early period of the history of destructors, but has to a considerable extent given place to furnaces of more modern design.

- Meldrum’s Destructor at Darwen.

A furnace patented in 1891 by Mr Henry Whiley, superintendent of the scavenging department of the Manchester corporation, is automatic in its action and was designed primarily with a view to saving labour—the cells being fed, stoked and clinkered automatically. There is no drying hearth, and the refuse carts tip direct into a shoot or hopper at the back which conducts the material directly on to movable eccentric grate bars. These automatically traverse the material forward into the furnace, and finally push it against a flap-door which opens and allows it to fall out. This apparatus is adapted for dealing with screened rather than unscreened refuse, since it suffers from the objection that the motion of the bars tends to allow fine particles to drop through unburnt. Some difficulty has been experienced from the refuse sticking in the hopper, and exception may also be taken to the continual flapping of the door when the clinker passes out, as cold air is thereby admitted into the furnace. As in the Fryer cell, the outlet for the products of combustion into the main flue is close to the point where the crude refuse is fed into the furnace, and the escape of unburnt vapours is thus facilitated. Forced draught is applied by means of a Roots blower. The Manchester corporation has 28 cells of this type in use, and the approximate amount of refuse burnt per cell per 24 hours is from 6 to 8 tons at a cost per ton for labour of 3.47 pence.

Horsfall’s destructor (fig. 2) is a high-temperature furnace of modern type which has been adopted largely in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe. In it some of the general features of the Fryer cell are retained, but the details differ considerably from those of the furnaces already described. Important points in the design are the arrangement of the flues and flue outlets for the products of combustion, and the introduction of a blast duct through which air is forced into a closed ash-pit. The feeding-hole is situated at the back of and above the furnace, while the flue opening for the emission of the gaseous products is placed at the front of the furnace over the dead plate; thus the gases distilled from the raw refuse are caused to pass on their way to the main flue over the hottest part of the furnace and through the flue opening in the red-hot reverberatory arch. The steam jet, which plays an important part in the Horsfall furnace, forces air into the closed ash-pit at a pressure of about to 1 in. of water, and in this way a temperature varying from 1500° to 2000° F., as tested by a thermo-electric pyrometer, is maintained in the main flue. In a battery of cells the gases from each are delivered into one main flue, so that a uniform temperature is maintained therein sufficiently high to prevent noxious vapours from reaching the chimney. The cells being charged and clinkered in rotation, when the fire in one is green, in the others it is at its hottest, and the products of combustion do not reach the boiler surfaces until after they have been mixed in the main flue. The cast iron boxes which are provided at the sides of the furnaces, and through which the blast air is conveyed on its way to the grate, prevent the adhesion of clinker to the side walls of the cells, and very materially preserve the brickwork, which otherwise becomes damaged by the tools used to remove the clinker. The wide clinkering doors are suspended by counterbalance weights and open vertically. The rate of working of these cells varies from 8 tons per cell per 24 hours at Oldham to 10 tons per cell at Bradford, where the furnaces are of a later type. The cost of labour in stoking and clinkering is about 6d. per ton of the refuse treated at Bradford, and 9d. per ton at Oldham, where the rate of wages is higher. Well-constructed and properly-worked plants of this type should give rise to no nuisance, and may be located in populous neighbourhoods without danger to the public health or comfort. Installations were put down at Fulham (1901), Hammerton Street, Bradford (1900), West Hartlepool (1904), and other places, and the surplus power generated is employed in the production of electric energy.

Warner’s destructor, known as the “Perfectus,” is, in general arrangement, similar to Fryer’s, but differs in being provided with special charging hoppers, dampers in flues, dust-catching} arrangements, rocking grate bars and other improvements. The refuse is tipped into feeding-hoppers, consisting of rectangular cast iron boxes over which plates are placed to prevent the escape of smoke and fumes. At the lower portion of the feeding-hopper is a flap-door working on an axis and controlled by an iron lever from the tipping platform. When refuse is to be fed into the furnace the lever is thrown over, the contents of the hopper drop on to the sloping firebrick hearth beneath, and the door is at once closed again. The door should be kept open as short a time as possible in order to prevent the admission of cold air into the furnace at the back end, since this leads to the lowering of the temperature of the cells and main flue, and also to paper and other light refuse being carried into the flues and chimney. The flues of each furnace are provided with dampers, which are closed during the process of clinkering in order to keep up the heat. The cells are each 5 ft. wide and 11 ft. deep, the rearmost portion consisting of a firebrick drying hearth, and the front of rocking grate bars upon which the combustion takes place. The crown of each cell is formed of a reverberatory firebrick arch having openings for the emission of the products of combustion. The flap dampers which are fitted to these openings are operated by horizontal spindles passing through the brickwork to the front of the cell, where they are provided with levers or handles; thus each cell can be worked independently of the others. With the view of increasing the steam-raising capabilities of the furnace, forced draught is sometimes applied and a tubular boiler is placed close to the cells. The amount of refuse consumed varies from 5 tons to 8 tons per cell per 24 hours. At Hornsey, where 12 cells of this type are in use, the cost of labour for burning the refuse is 9d. per ton.

The Meldurm “Simplex” destructor (fig. 3), a type of furnace which yields good steam-raising results, is in successful operation at Rochdale, Hereford, Darwen, Nelson, Plumstead and Woolwich, at each of which towns the production of steam is an important consideration. Cells have also been laid down at Burton, Hunstanton, Blackburn and Shipley, and more recently at Burnley, Cleckheaton, Lancaster, Nelson, Sheerness and Weymouth. In general arrangement the destructor differs considerably from

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/121


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/122

 those previously described. The grates are placed side by side without separation except by dead plates, but, in order to localize the forced draught, the ash-pit is divided into parts corresponding with the different grate areas. Each ash-pit is closed airtight by a cast iron plate, and is provided with an air-tight door for removing the fine ash. Two patent Meldrum steam-jet blowers are provided for each furnace, supplying any required pressure of blast up to 6 in. water column, though that usually employed does not exceed 1 in. The furnaces are designed for hand-feeding from the front, but hopper-feeding can be applied if desirable. The products of combustion either pass away from the back of each fire-grate into a common flue leading to boilers and the chimney-shaft, or are conveyed sideways over the various grates and a common fire-bridge to the boilers or chimney. The heat in the gases, after passing the boilers, is still further utilized to heat the air supplied to the furnaces, the gases being passed through an air heater or continuous regenerator consisting of a number of cast iron pipes from which the air is delivered through the Meldrum “blowers” at a temperature of about 300° F. That a high percentage (15 to 18%) of CO2 is obtained in the furnaces proves a small excess of free oxygen, and no doubt explains the high fuel efficiency obtained by this type of destructor. High-pressure boilers of ample capacity are provided for the accumulation during periods of light load of a reserve of steam, the storage being obtained by utilizing the difference between the highest and lowest water-levels and the difference between the maximum and working steam-pressure. Patent locking fire-bars, to prevent lifting when clinkering, are used in the furnace and have a good life. At Rochdale the Meldrum furnaces consume from 53 ℔ to 66 ℔ of refuse per square foot of grate area per hour, as compared with 22.4 ℔ per square foot in a low-temperature destructor burning 6 tons per cell per 24 hours with a grate area of 25 sq. ft. The evaporative efficiency of the Rochdale furnaces varies from 1.39 ℔ to 1.87 ℔ of water (actual) per 1 ℔ of refuse burned, and an average steam-pressure of about 114 ℔ per square inch is maintained. The cost of labour and supervision amounts to 10d. per ton of refuse dealt with. A Lancashire boiler (22 ft. by 6 ft. 6 in.) at the Sewage Outfall Works, Hereford, evaporates with refuse fuel 2980 ℔ of water per hour, equal to 149 indicated horse-power. About 54 ℔ of refuse are burnt per square foot of grate area per hour with an evaporation of 1.82 ℔ of water per pound of refuse.

—Beaman and Deas Destructor at Leyton.

The Beaman and Deas destructor (fig. 4) has attracted much attention from public authorities, and successful installations are in operation at Warrington, Dewsbury, Leyton, Canterbury, Llandudno, Colne, Streatham, Rotherhithe, Wimbledon, Bolton and elsewhere. Its essential features include a level-fire grate with ordinary type bars, a high-temperature combustion chamber at the back of the cells, a closed ash-pit with forced draught, provision for the admission of a secondary air-supply at the fire-bridge, and a firebrick hearth sloping at an angle of about 52°. From the refuse storage platform the material is fed into a hopper mouth about 18 in. square, and slides down the firebrick hearth, supported by T-irons, to the grate bars, over which it is raked and spread with the assistance of long rods manipulated through clinkering doors placed at the sides of the cells. A secondary door in the rear of the cell facilitates the operation. The fire-bars, spaced only in. apart, are of the ordinary stationary type. Vertically, under the fire-bridge, is an air-conduit, from the top of which lead air blast pipes 12 in. in diameter discharging into a hermetically closed ash-pit under the grate area. The air is supplied from fans (Schiele’s patent) at a pressure of from 1 to 2 in. of water, and is controlled by means of baffle valves worked by handles on either side of the furnace, conveniently placed for the attendant. The forced draught tends to keep the bars cool and lessen wear and tear. The fumes from the charge drying on the hearth pass through the fire and over the red-hot fire-bridge, which is perforated longitudinally with air-passages connected with a small flue leading from a grated opening on the face of the brickwork outside; in this way an auxiliary supply of heated oxygen is fed into the combustion chamber. This chamber, in which a temperature approaching 2000° F. is attained, is fitted with large iron doors, sliding with balance weights, which allow the introduction of infected articles, bad meat, &c., and also give access for the periodical removal of fine ash from the flues. The high temperatures attained are utilized by installing one boiler, preferably of the Babcock & Wilcox water-tube type, for each pair of cells, so that the gases, on their way from the combustion chamber to the main flue, pass three times between the boiler tubes. A secondary furnace is provided under the boiler for raising steam by coal, if required, when the cells are out of use. The grate area of each cell is 25 sq. ft., and the consumption varies from 16 up to 20 tons of refuse per cell per 24 hours. In a 24-hours’ test made by the superintendent of the cleansing department, Leeds, at the Warrington installation, the quantity of water evaporated per pound of refuse was 1.14 ℔, the average temperature in the combustion chamber 2000° F. by copper-wire test, and the average air pressure with forced draught 2 in. (water-gauge). At Leyton, which has a population of over 100,000, an 8-cell plant of this type is successfully dealing with house refuse and filter press cakes of sewage sludge from the sewage disposal works adjoining, and even with material of this low calorific value the total steam-power produced is considerable. Each cell burns about 16 tons of the mixture in 24 hours and develops about 35 indicated horse-power continuously, at an average steam-pressure in the boilers of 105 ℔. The cost of labour at Leyton for burning the mixed refuse is about 1s. 7d. per ton; at Llandudno, where four cells were laid down in connexion with the electric-light station in 1898, it is 1s. 3d., and at Warrington 9d. per ton of refuse consumed. Combustion is complete, and the destructor may be installed in populous districts without nuisance to the inhabitants. Further patents (Wilkie’s improvements) have been obtained by Meldrum Brothers (Manchester) in connexion with this destructor.

The Heenan furnaces are in operation at Farnworth, Gloucester, Barrow-in-Furness, Northampton, Mansfield, Wakefield, Blackburn, Levenshulme, Kings Norton, Worthing, Birmingham and other places, and are now dealing with over 1200 tons of refuse per day. The general arrangement of this destructor somewhat resembles that of the Meldrum type. The cells intercommunicate, and the mechanical mixture of the gases arising from the furnace grates of the various cells is sought by the introduction of a special design of reverberatory arch overlying the grates. The standard arrangement of this destructor embodies all modern arrangements for high-temperature refuse destruction and steam-power generation.

Destructors of the “Sterling” type, combined with electric-power generating stations, are installed at Hackney (1901), Bermondsey (1902) and Frederiksberg (1903)—the first-named plant being probably the most powerful combined destructor and electricity station yet erected. In these modern stations the recognized requirements of an up-to-date refuse-destruction plant have been well considered and good calorific results are also obtained.

In addition to the above-described destructors, other forms have been introduced from time to time, but adopted to a less degree; amongst these may be mentioned Baker’s destructor, Willshear’s, Hanson’s Utilizer, Mason’s Gasifier, the Bennett-Phythian, Cracknell’s (Melbourne, Victoria), Coltman’s (Loughborough), Willoughby’s, and Healey’s improved destructors. On the continent of Europe systems for the treatment of refuse have also been devised. Among these may be mentioned those of M. Defosse and M. Helouis. The former has endeavoured to burn the refuse in large quantities by using a forced draught and only washing the smoke. Helouis has extended the operation by using the heat from the combustion of the refuse for drying and distilling the material which is brought gradually on to the grate.

Boulnois and Brodie’s improved charging tank is a labour-saving apparatus consisting of a wrought iron truck, 5 ft. wide by 3 ft. deep, and of sufficient length to hold not less than 12 hours supply for the two cells which it serves. The truck, which moves along a pair of rails across the top of the destructor, may be worked by one man. It is divided into compartments holding a charge of refuse in each, and is provided with a pair of doors in the bottom, opening downwards, which are supported by a series of small wheels running on a central rail. A special feeding opening in the reverberatory arch of the cell of the width of the truck, situated over the drying hearth, is formed by a firebrick arch fitted into a frame capable of being moved backwards and forwards by means of a lever. The charging truck, when empty, is brought under the tipping platform, and the carts tip directly into it. When one of the cells has to be fed, the truck is moved along, so that one of the divisions is immediately over the feeding opening, and the wheel holding up the bottom doors rests upon the central rail, which is continued over the movable covering arch. Then the movable arch is rolled back, the doors are released, and the contents are discharged into the cell, so that no handling of the refuse is required from tipping to feeding. This apparatus is in operation at Liverpool, Shoreditch, Cambridge and elsewhere.

Various forms of patent movable fire-bars have been employed

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/122


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/123

 in destructor furnaces. Among these may be mentioned Settle’s, Vicar’s, Riddle’s rocking bars, Horsfall’s self-feeding apparatus, and Healey’s movable bars; but complicated movable arrangements are not to be recommended, and experience greatly favours the use of a simple stationary type of fire-bar.

A dust-catching apparatus has been designed and erected at Edinburgh, by the Horsfall Furnace Syndicate, in order to overcome difficulties in regard to the escape of flue dust, &c., from the destructor chimney. Externally, it appears a large circular block of brickwork, 18 ft. in diameter and 13 ft. 7 in. high, connected with the main flue, and situated between the destructor cells and the boiler. Internally it consists of a spiral flue traversing the entire circumference and winding upwards to the top of the chamber. There is an interior well or chamber 6 ft. diameter by 12 ft. high, having a domed top, and communicating with the outer spiral flue by four ports at the top of the chamber. Dust traps, baffle walls and cleaning doors are also provided for the retention and subsequent weekly removal of the flue dust. The apparatus forms a large reservoir of heat maintained at a steady temperature of from 1500° to 1800° F., and is useful in keeping up steam in the boiler at an equable pressure for a long period. It requires no attention, and has proved successful for its purpose.

Travelling cranes for transporting refuse and feeding cells are sometimes employed at destructor stations, as, for example, at Hamburg. Here the transportation of the refuse is effected by means of specially constructed water-tight iron wagons, containing detachable boxes provided with two double-flap doors at the top for loading, and one flap-door at the back for unloading. There are thirty-six furnaces of the Horsfall type placed in two ranks, each arranged in three blocks of six in the large furnace hall. An electric crane running above each rank lifts the boxes off the wagons and carries them to the feeding-hole of each well. Here the box is tipped up by an electric pulley and emptied on to the furnace platform. When the travelling crane is used, the carts (four-wheeled) bringing the refuse may be constructed so that the body of the carriage can be taken off the wheels, lifted up and tipped direct over the furnace as required, and returned again to its frame. The adoption of the travelling crane admits of the reduction in size of the main building, as less platform space for unloading refuse carts is required; the inclined roadway may also be dispensed with. Where a destructor site will not admit of an inclined roadway and platform, the refuse may be discharged from the collecting carts into a lift; and thence elevated into the feeding-bins.

Other accessory plant in use at most modern destructor stations includes machinery for the removal, crushing and various means of utilization of the residual clinker, stoking tools, air heaters or regenerators for the production of hot-air blast to the furnaces, superheaters and thermal storage arrangements for equalizing the output of power from the station during the 24-hours’ day.

The general arrangement of a battery of refuse cells at a destructor station is illustrated by fig. 5. The cells are arranged either side by side, with a common main flue in the rear, or back to back with the main flue placed in the centre and leading to a tall chimney-shaft. The heated gases on leaving the cells pass through the combustion chamber into the main flue, and thence go forward to the boilers, where their heat is absorbed and utilized. Forced draught, or in many cases, hot blast, is supplied from fans through a conduit commanding the whole of the cells. An inclined roadway, of as easy gradient as circumstances will admit, is provided for the conveyance of the refuse to the tipping platform, from which it is fed through feed-holes into the furnaces. In the installation of a destructor, the choice of suitable plant and the general design of the works must be largely dependent upon local requirements, and should be entrusted to an engineer experienced in these matters. The following primary considerations, however, may be enumerated as materially affecting the design of such works:—

(a) The plant must be simple, easily worked without stoppages, and without mechanical complications upon which stokers may lay the blame for bad results. (b) It must be strong, must withstand variations of temperature, must not be liable to get out of order, and should admit of being readily repaired. (c) It must be such as can be easily understood by stokers or firemen of average intelligence, so that the continuous working of the plant may not be disorganized by change of workmen. (d) A sufficiently high temperature must be attained in the cells to reduce the refuse to an entirely innocuous clinker, and all fumes or gases should pass either through an adjoining red-hot cell or through a chamber whose temperature is maintained by the ordinary working of the destructor itself at a degree sufficient to exclude the possibility of the escape of any unconsumed gases, vapours or particles. The temperature may vary between 1500° and 2000°. (e) The plant must be so worked that while some of the cells are being recharged, others are at a glowing red heat, in order that a high temperature may be uniformly maintained. (f) The design of the furnaces must admit of clinkering and recharging being easily and quickly performed, the furnace doors being open for a minimum of time so as to obviate the inrush of cold air to lower the temperature

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/123


text:
Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/12

iv PART II.

PART III.

PART IV.

title: Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/12


text:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1967

联合国安理会第1967号决议


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 39.djvu/321

 his swinging walk, powerful and sonorous voice, and frankness of speech rendered his personality impressive.

MÜNTZ, JOHN HENRY (fl. 1755–1775), painter, was of Swiss origin, and originally served in the French army. After the disbandment of his regiment he was found in the island of Jersey by (1708-1782) [q. v.], who brought him to England, and introduced him to Horace Walpole at Strawberry Hill. Walpole employed him for some time as a painter and engraver. He also recommended him to his friends William Chute and others, and Müntz worked for some time at Chute's residence, The Vyne, near Basingstoke, where some of his paintings remain. Müntz painted chiefly Italian landscapes in a hard, cold manner, of which there were several examples at Strawberry Hill. He also copied pictures for Walpole. Together with Walpole he practised the art of encaustic painting, as revived by Caylus, and they projected a joint publication on the subject. This was checked, however, by a quarrel arising from an intrigue of Müntz with one of Walpole's servants, whom he subsequently married. The incident led to his dismissal from Walpole's service. He then came to London, where in 1760 he published 'Encaustic, or Count Caylus's Method of Painting in the Manner of the Ancients,' with an etching on the title-page by himself. In 1762 he exhibited a painting in encaustic at the Society of Artists, and again in 1763. After that there are no traces of him, but he may have gone to Holland, and is probably identical with J. H. Müntz, engineer and architect, who in 1772 compiled a work with drawings on ancient vases, which remains in manuscript in the South Kensington Art Library.

MURA (d. 645?), Irish saint, called by Irish writers Múra Othaine or Múra Fhothaine, and in Latin Murus or Muranus, was son of Feradach, who was fifth in descent from Niall Naighiallaigh, king of Ireland, and was born in Tireoghain, in the north of Ulster. Derinill was his mother's name. She is called in Irish Cethirchicheach, a cognomen expressing the not uncommon variety of structure in which a pair of supplementary mammæ are present, and was also the mother by another husband of St. Domangurt. Mura rounded the abbey of Fahan, on the eastern shore of Lough Swilly, and was the first of a succession of learned abbots [see ]. He received a grant of lands from Aodh Uairidhneach, king of Ireland (605-12), who had made a pilgrimage to Fahan before his accession, and when the king was dying in 612 he sent for Mura to receive his confession. The saint reproved him for desiring to enslave the Leinstermen, the countrymen of so holy a person as St. Brigit, and administered the last sacraments to him (Fragment of Annals, copied by MacFirbis from a manuscript of Gillananaemh MacÆdhagain, Irish Archæological Society, 1860, ed. O'Donovan, pp. 12-16). A poem on the life of St. Columcille, of which only a few lines are extant, begiuning ‘Rugadh i ngartan da dheoin,’ is attributed to Mura. No early authority for this exists, but it is quoted by [q. v.] in 1532 as universally accepted in his time, and Colgan in 1645 states that it had been preserved till modern times with other compositions of the saint (Acta Sanctorum Hiberniæ, p. 587) at Fahan. The staff and the bell of the saint were also preserved there, and both still exist—the staff in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy, and the bell in the collection of Lord Otho Fitzgerald (Ulster Journal of Archæology, vol. i.; Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy, vol. v.) He died about 645, and 12 March was the day observed at Fahan as that of his death. He became the patron saint of the Cinel Eoghain and the O'Neills, and MacLochlainns used to take solemn oaths upon his staff. The foundation of the church of Banagher, co. Londonderry, was also his, and the present very ancient church is probably the immediate successor of the one built by him. His tomb, a sandstone structure of great antiquity, with a rude vertical effigy, stands on the same hill as the church in the townland of Magheramore, and a handful of the sand near it is believed in the country to insure the holder from drowning. At Banagher the identity of the saint has been lost, and Reeves (Primate Colton's Visitation, p. 107) prints his name Muriedach O'Heney, which is an attempt to represent the native pronunciation. The guttural is a modern addition, often made to terminal vowels in Ulster, and O'Heney is not a


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Forty

FORTY, a number that has sometimes been regarded as peculiarly significant. The idea may have originated with readers of the Bibles, who notice that Moses was 40 days on the mount; Elijah was 40 days fed by ravens; the rain of the flood fell 40 days, another 40 days expired before Noah opened the window of the ark; 40 days was the period of embalming; Jonah gave Nineveh 40 days to repent; our Lord fasted 40 days. He was seen 40 days after his resurrection, etc.

The weather on Saint Swithin's Day portends, as it is foul or fair, 40 days' rain or dry weather; a quarantine extends to 40 days; 40 days, in the old English law, was the limit for the payment of the fine for manslaughter; the privilege of the sanctuary was for 40 days; the widow was allowed to remain in her husband's house for 40 days after his decease; a knight enjoyed 40 days' service of his tenant; a stranger at the expiration of 40 days was compelled to be enrolled in some tithing; members of Parliament were protected from arrest 40 days after the prorogation of the House, and 40 days before the House was convened.

title: The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Forty


text:
Page:Poems, Volume 2, Coates, 1916.djvu/285

beggar, bent beneath the weight of years, II, 132. A coward is man, yet a hero, II, 112. A dreamer midst the stars doth dwell, I, 20. A moment, Death!—only a moment more! II, 49. A narrow window may let in the light, II, 34. A single rose in yonder ruined bed, II, 148. A transient city, marvellously fair, I, 138. A waste of heaving waters to the far horizon's rim, I, 196. Adieu! I know that I no more, II, 44. After the darkness, dawning, II, 257. All are not strangers whom we so misname, II, 94. All ugliness wears on its brow the brand, II, 106. Alone, alone in the still, deserted room, I, 118. Alone by the waves, on a starlight night, II, 89. Also for these that with us bear, II, 212. Although the faiths to which we fearful clung, II, 129. Apart from all, I, 171. As a wan weaver in an attic dim, II, 12. As Douglas to his castle came, I, 164. As one who faring o'er a desert plain, I, 189. As the mother-bird to the waiting nest, I, 244. As when the imperial bird, wide-circling, soars, I, 51. Ask what you will, I must obey your hest! I, 123. At twilight here I sit alone, II, 13. Ave! Thou goest from us, II, 102. Awake, my soul! I, 95.

e thou my guide, and I will walk in darkness, I, 162. Before we knew thee thou wert with us; aye, I, 5. Better to die, where gallant men are dying, I, 218. Blessèd: so have they named her. With just pride, I, 110. Blest is the right to share, II, 179. Both your hands? . . . What mean they, dear? I, 69. Breakers that beat against the shore, II, 209. Breathless we strive, contending for success, II, 90.


text: Page:Earth-Hunger and Other Essays.djvu/32


text: Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/13

title: Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/13


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Montez, Lola

MONTEZ, Lola (assumed name of ), adventuress: b. Limerick, Ireland, 1818; d. Astoria, N. Y., 17 Jan. 1861. Her parents took the child to India, where her father died, and her mother, again marrying, sent Lola back to Europe. In 1837 she married a Captain James, went to India with him, tired of him and returned to England in 1842. She next became a public dancer, performing in London and in cities of the Continent, and in 1846 went to Munich, where she fascinated the old artist-king Louis I of Bavaria who made her his mistress, created her Countess of Landsfield and granted her a large annuity. For a while she also exercised

great political power, which she directed against the Jesuits and in favor of liberalism; but with the outbreak of the Revolution of 1848 she was once more set adrift. In London she married a guardsman, Stafford Heald, was soon divorced from him and in 1851 sailed for the United States. After touring through this country with a play called ‘Lola Montez in Bavaria,’ she went to Australia, returned here, was twice married in California and in 1858 lectured in New York where she settled and spent her last days in rescue work among women. Her writings include ‘Lectures,’ with an autobiography, and ‘The Arts of Beauty’ (1858).


text:
Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/14

vi

title: Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/14


text:
Page:Poems, Volume 2, Coates, 1916.djvu/286

270 Britannia, they who perished here have crowned thee, I, 148. By the germinating seed, II, 224. By the pyramid of Caius Sestius, II, 190.

ome home! The Land that sent you forth, I, 129. Contemplative and fair, with look divine, I, 12. Couldst thou—thou, also, die, whom life so cherished? II, 93. Cover your face, Humanity, and weep, II, 211.

ay is stealing down the West, II, 123. Death called,—but why did you go? I, 44. Death pitying stood before me bent and old, I, 64. Death took away from me my heart's desire, I, 146. Deem not, O Pain, that thou shalt vanquish me, II, 110. Didst thou rejoice because the day was fair, II, 144. Divine abstraction, shadowy image, dream, II, 111. Down-gazing, I behold, I, 32. Dream the Great Dream, though you should dream—you, only, II, 256.

arth has her blossoms, and the sea his shells, I, 52. Earth, mother dear, I turn at last, I, 210. Evermore I hear my name, II, 133. Every night at Marathon, II, 241.

ar, far the mountain-peak from me, I, 155. Far off there is a realm of wonder, I, 81. Far up the crag, 'twixt sea and sky, I, 80. Father, I lift my hands to Thee, II, 189. Fond Youth and Age met face to face, II, 182. For each and every joyful thing, I, 179. For love of justice and for love of truth, II, 90. For me the jasmine buds unfold, I, 237. Franklin! our Franklin! America's loved son! II, 15. Friendship from its moorings strays, I, 185. Full slow to part with her best gifts is Fate, I, 8. Further and further we leave the scene, II, 210.

ive me not love that would enthrall, I, 58. Give us one dream! I, 66.


text:
Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/31

Rh Now, standing in front of the horse, take both curb-reins in the left hand at six inches below the bit, and, with the whip held tip downward in the right hand, strike him a light blow on the breast; in about a second give him another, and continue striking at the same interval, looking calmly at him the while, and following him if he steps backward or sideways.

Sooner or later, and usually very soon, he will come straight towards you; then instantly relax his head, say "Bravo! bravo!" and stroke him on the face and neck. You will very likely hear him give a deep sigh of relief, like a frightened child. Give him half a minute or more, according to circumstances, to look about and recover from his nervousness—for you will find that his nerves work a good deal like your own—and then begin again, allowing him after every trial a half-minute or so of rest.

It will not be long before he discovers that the way to avoid the whip is to come straight to you, and he will do so at the least motion of it. Take advantage of this to make him curve his neck, put his head in the proper perpendicular position, and bring his haunches under him, by holding him back with the curb-reins as he presses towards you. This lesson, to a careless observer, looks rather pretty than useful, but is indispensable for your purpose, for it gives you the means of preventing the horse from backing while you are teaching him the flexions of the jaw and of the neck. It

title: Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/31


text:
Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/32

18 shows him, also, that the whip is only to be dreaded when he disobeys, so that later on it will become in your hands, strange as it may now seem to you, a powerful means of calming his ardor and soothing his impatience, and thus sparing your bridle-hand the sometimes excessive fatigue of restraining his impetuosity.

In practice it is not necessary to carry this instruction to the point where the horse will come to you from so great a distance as shown in the accompanying cut, though there is no difficulty in so doing.

A certain English nobleman used to say that a man was as much above his ordinary self on horseback as he was at other times above the brutes. Possibly more than one young equestrian, remembering the exhilaration of some morning ride, the quickened appreciation, the redoubled enjoyment of the beauties of nature, and of the charm of congenial companionship, will be ready to echo the sentiment. It is only true, however, even approximately, when the rider controls all the forces of the horse, and it is the object of the present article to put this perfect control within the reach of every one willing to take the time and trouble to acquire it, for not daring, but calmness, not strength, but perseverance, are the qualities requisite.

Both time and trouble undoubtedly will be required, for while, by even a careless use of this method, your horse may be made vastly more comfortable under the saddle, yet only by tact and patience can you win that

title: Page:Horsemanship for Women.djvu/32


text:
Page:Poems, Volume 2, Coates, 1916.djvu/287

Rh Giver and Gift! II, 28. Glad is the grove with light, I, 206. Go not too far—too far beyond my gaze, I, 170. Greatest of modern painters, he is dead! II, 68. Great-hearted son of the Titan mother, Earth, II, 66.

ad we the present—only that, no more! II, 222. Hail, Solitude! hail, maiden coy and sweet! I, 230. Hark! Do I dream? Nay, even now I heard, I, 27. Harken, heroic England! Know how near, II, 213. Hast thou for honor laid ambition down? II, 5. He and I,—and that was all, II, 217. He came to us with dreams to sell, II, 6. He cursed the day that he was born, I, 115. He gave me all, and then he laid me by, I, 198. He gazed, the little vagrant lad, I, 23. He made it pure, II, 176. He raised the hemlock to his lips, II, 138. He sang of joy; whate'er he knew of sadness, II, 33. He seemed to call me, and I shrank dismayed, I, 245. He was so small, so very small, I, 238. Her cheek is like a tinted rose, I, 193. Her spirit is to France a living spring, I, 108. Heroes with eloquent flags unfurled, II, 78. How beautiful to live as thou didst live! II, 196. How do you know that Spring is nigh, I, 186. How fair you are, wondrous maiden, II, 199. How glad you must be to lie at rest, I, 204. How had it been, my belovèd, II, 97. How living are the dead! II, 254. How should I dream but you were old, II, 193. How sweet it is 'neath apple-blooms to lie, II, 135. How wonderful is love! I, 18.

am a dream, I, 87. I am calling together my sons, II, 202. I am the key that parts the gates of Fame, II, 250. I do not ask to know, I, 74. I gathered them—the lilies pure and pale, I, 229. I hear thy voice! II, 107. I heard a voice say: You, I 177. I know a place, warm-sheltered from the world, I. 217.


text:
Author:Sallust

Works

 * Bellum Catilinae (or De coniuratione Catilinae)
 * Bellum Jugurthinum

Collected works

 * Sallust, transl. William Rose (1831)
 * Sallust, Florus, and Velleius Paterculus, transl. John Selby Watson (1867)
 * The Catiline and Jugurtha of Sallust, transl. Alfred W. Pollard (1882)
 * Sallust (Loeb Classics), trans. John C. Rolfe (1921)

title: Author:Sallust


text:
Page:Poems, Volume 2, Coates, 1916.djvu/288

272 I know not how to find the Spring, II, 64. I know the Summer fell asleep, II, 74. I lay upon my narrow bed, II, 165. I lift my eyes, but I cannot see, I, 67. I longed for love, and, eager to discover, II, 151. I looked from out my window once, I, 62. I looked on beauteous forms, as I lay dreaming, I, 78. I looked on Sorrow, tragical and dread, II, 120. I said, She is gone from the grieving earth, I, 156. I seemed to see thy spirit leave the clay, I, 226. I think our alley's darker now, I, 183. I thought that past the gates of doom, I, 55. I war against the folly that is War, II, 207. I was born as free as the silver light, I, 13. I weave the beginning, I fashion the end, I, 139. I who am ever young, I, 219. I, who am Love, come clothed in mystery, I, 182. I will be still, I, 17. I woke and heard the thrushes sing at dawn, I, 30. I woke in suffering, and sadly heard, II, 183. If it be true, as some aver, I, 106. If love were but a little thing, II, 255. If love were not, the wilding rose, I, 248. If only in my dreams I may behold you, I, 242. If tasting Heliconian springs, II, 86. If you no more should love me?—you? II, 246. In dreamland is a castle fair, II, 161. In her arms unconscious lying, I, 107. In Montepulciano fair, II, 118. In Orient mystery, II, 156. In Radnor Valley, from the world apart, I, 124. In the arid and desolate places of life, II, 140. In the beginning was I born, I, 102. In the blue, cloudless heaven, I, 157. In the heart of the forest arising, I, 45. Into the light where beauty doth not pale, I, 145. Into the theatre they came, I, 113. Is he alone? The myriad stars shine o'er him, I, 236. Is the promise of day merely darkness, II, 69. Is this the place? So still!—as with the hush, II, 166. It rises by a frozen mere, I, 201. It rose, and swam into the sky, I, 167. It will be long ere 'neath the sunlight dimpling, I, 181.