text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/259

keeping the money he made. His health, moreover, suffered from his pursuits. In 1799 his first wife died, and in 1802 he married Miss Bristow, an actress at Drury Lane. In 1803 his brother John Baptist, who had gone to sea, turned up for a single occasion, and then disappeared in a manner that gave rise to strong presumption that he had been murdered. At this time Grimaldi is credited in the 'Memoirs' with having played some parts in the regular drama. Aminadab in 'A Bold Stroke for a Wife' is advanced as one. No such part, however, occurs in the comedy of that name. He sometimes played parts in melodrama, and once, for his benefit at Covent Garden, Bob Acres in the 'Rivals.' A quarrel with the management at Drury Lane was followed by a visit to Dublin, where he acted under Thomas and Charles Dibdin at Astley's Theatre, and subsequently in Crow Street. On 9 Oct. 1806, as Orson in Thomas Dibdin's 'Valentine and Orson,' he made his first appearance at Covent Garden. During the O.P. riots Grimaldi went on in his favourite character of Scaramouch, and effected a temporary lull in the storm. His visits to country towns—Manchester, Liverpool, Bath, Bristol, &c.—developed into a remunerative speculation. As Squire Bugle, and then as clown in the pantomime of 'Mother Goose,' Covent Garden, 26 Dec. 1806, he obtained his greatest success. This pantomime was constantly revived. In 1816 Grimaldi quitted Sadler's Wells and played in the country, but returned in 1818, having purchased an eighth share of the theatre. In this and following years his health began to decline. From 1822 his health grew steadily worse, and he was unable to fulfil his engagements at Covent Garden. In 1825 he was engaged as assistant manager at Sadler's Wells, at a salary of 4l. a week, subsequently diminished by one half. On Monday, 17 March 1828, he took a benefit at Sadler's Wells. On 27 June of the same year, at Drury Lane, he took a second benefit, and made his last appearance in public. On this occasion he played a scene as Harlequin Hoax, seated through weakness on a chair, sang a song, and delivered a short speech. His second wife died in 1835, and on 31 May 1837 he died in Southampton Street, Pentonville. He was interred on 6 June in the burial-ground of St. James's Chapel, Pentonville Hill, in the next grave to that of his friend Charles Dibdin. As a clown Grimaldi is held to have had no equal. His grimace was inexpressibly mirth-moving; his singing of 'Tippety Witchet,' 'Hot Codlins,' and other similar ditties, roused the wildest enthusiasm, and with him the days of genuine pantomime drollery are held to have expired. He was a sober man, of good estimation, and all that is known of him is to his credit. Pictures of Grimaldi in character are numerous. One by De Wilde, as clown, is in the Mathews Collection at the Garrick Club. A series of sixteen coloured engravings, representing the principal scenes in 'Mother Goose,' was published by John Wallis in 1808. A picture of him in ordinary dress, by S. Raven, is in an edition of the 'Memoirs,' in which are, of course, many celebrated pictures in character by George Cruikshank. The manuscript of Grimaldi's ' Memoirs,' of which a small portion only has been printed, was in the possession of Henry Stevens. Many residences in London are associated with Grimaldi, the best known being 8 Exmouth Street, Spa Fields, Clerkenwell, where he lived in 1822.

In 1814, in 'Robinson Crusoe,' his son, , made, as Friday, a very successful début, and began thus an ill-disciplined and calamitous career, during which he was engaged at Covent Garden and elsewhere. He took for a while his father's position, but died in 1832 of delirium, aged 30.

[The only authority for the facts of Grimaldi's life is the Memoirs, ed. by Boz, i.e. Charles Dickens (2 vols. 1838), extracted from Grimaldi's recollections, and the notes and additions variously attributed to C. Whitehead and J. H. Horn. Notes and Queries, 3rd, 5th, and 7th ser., supply many particulars and some letters. Oxberry's Dramatic Biography, i. 108-22, supplies a memoir with a portrait, and the most elaborate account accessible of his method as a clown. A Life of Grimaldi by Henry Downes Miles, 1838, Theatrical Biography, 1824, and the Dublin Theatrical Observer, vol. vi. may be consulted. Genest appears to pass over Grimaldi without mention.]  GRIMALDI, STACEY (1790–1863), antiquary, was the great-grandson of Alexander Grimaldi of Genoa, who quitted that city after its bombardment by Louis XIV in 1684, and whose father of the same name had been doge of Genoa in 1671. He was born in the parish of St. James, Westminster, on 18 Oct. 1790, and was the second son of William Grimaldi [q.v.], miniature-painter, of Albemarle Street, London, by his wife Frances, daughter of Louis Barker of Rochester. Upon the death of his elder brother in 1835 the title of Marquis Grimaldi of Genoa and the claims on the family possessions in Genoa and Monaco became vested in him. For upwards of forty years he practised as a solicitor in Copthall Court in the city of London. He was eminent as a 'record lawyer,' and was engaged in several important record trials and peerage cases. In 1824 he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. In 1834 he was


text: Author talk:Arthur Stuart-Menteth Hutchinson

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


text: Author talk:Alfred Brazier Howell

title: Author talk:Alfred Brazier Howell


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/260

 appointed to deliver lectures on the public records at the Law Institution, and in 1853 an auditor of the Incorporated Law Society. He was a frequent contributor to the 'Gentleman's Magazine' from 1813 to 1861. He resided for many years at Maze Hill, Greenwich; latterly at Herndon House, Eastry, Kent, where he died on 28 March 1863. In 1825 he married Mary Ann, daughter of Thomas George Knapp of Haberdashers' Hall and Norwood, Surrey. By her he left six sons and three daughters.

His principal works are:
 * 1) 'The Toilet; a book for Young Ladies,' consisting of a series of double plates, illustrated with approriate poetry, London, 1822: 3rd edit., 1823.
 * 2) 'A Suit of Armour for Youth,' London, 1824, 12mo; a series of engravings of body-armour, copied from real examples and designs illustrating historical anecdotes.
 * 3) 'A Synopsis of the History of England, from the Conquest to the Present Time,' London, 1825, 12mo; 2nd edit., revised and enlarged by his son, the Rev. Alexander Beaufort Grimaldi, M.A., of Caius College, Cambridge, London, 1871, 8vo.
 * 4) 'Origines Genealogicæ; or, the Sources whence English Genealogies may be traced, from the Conquest to the Present Time, accompanied by Specimens of Antient Records, Rolls, and Manuscripts, with proofs of their Genealogical Utility. Published expressly for the assistance of Claimants to Hereditary Titles, Honours, or Estates,' London, 1828, 4to.
 * 5) 'The Genealogy of the Family of Grimaldi of Genoa and of England, shewing their relationship to the Grimaldis, Princes of Monaco,' London, 1834. A copy, with manuscript additions by the author, in the British Museum has the note: 'The principality of Monaco is now [1834] claimed from the reigning Prince of Monaco by the Marquess Luigi Grimaldi della Pietra, on the ground that it is a male fief, and ought not to have descended to heirs female; and this pedigree has been compiled to show at Genoa and Turin that the Grimaldis of England are the oldest branch, and have prior claims.'
 * 6) 'Lectures on the Sources from which Pedigrees may be traced' [London, 1835], 8vo.
 * 7) 'Miscellaneous Writings, prose and poetry, from printed and manuscript sources,' 1874-1881, 4 pts., edited by Alexander Beaufort Grimaldi. The longest treatise in this multifarious collection, of which only one hundred copies were printed for private circulation, is entitled 'Nomenclatura, or a Discourse upon Names. Containing Remarks on some in the Hebrew, Grecian, Roman, and British tongues; together with a Dictionary comprising more than 3,000 Names, with their derivation and meaning.'

GRIMALDI, WILLIAM (1751–1830), miniature-painter, born in the parish of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, on 26 Aug. 1751, was son of Alexander Grimaldi and Esther Barton his wife, and great-grandson of Alessandro Maria Grimaldi, the heir and representative of the noble Genoese family of Grimaldi, who settled in England after the bombardment of Genoa in 1684. Grimaldi was nephew of [q. v.], to whom in 1764 he was bound apprentice for seven years. He remained with Mrs. Worlidge after his uncle's death, and assisted in the publication in 1768 of Worlidge's 'Antique Gems.' On completing his apprenticeship Grimaldi started life as a miniature-painter, practising exclusively in water-colours up to 1785, when he made some essays in enamel-painting. From 1777 to 1783 he was in Paris. He attracted the notice of Sir Joshua Reynolds, many of whose works, notably his 'Master Bunbury,' Grimaldi copied in miniature; Reynolds recommended him to many persons of distinction, including the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York. For the former he painted a miniature of Mrs. Fitzherbert, and for the latter a miniature of the duke, which was presented to the duchess on their marriage. In 1790 he was appointed enamel painter to the Duke of York, in 1791 to the Duchess of York, and in 1804 to the Prince of Wales. Grimaldi practised in the country as well as in London, but in 1825 settled at 16 Upper Ebury Street, Chelsea, where he died 27 May 1830, and was buried in Bunhill Fields cemetery. He married, 13 Nov. 1783, Frances, daughter of Louis Barker of Rochester, by whom he was father of, F.S.A. [q. v.] Grimaldi was a frequent exhibitor at the Royal Academy from 1786 to 1824. His miniatures are principally executed in water-colour. In 1873 the Rev. A. B. Grimaldi published 'A Catalogue, Chronological and Descriptive, of the Paintings, Drawings, and Engravings by and after William Grimaldi, R.A., Paris, Enamel-Painter Extraordinary to George IV.'

GRIMBALD, GRIMBOLD, or GRYMBOLD, (820?–903), abbot of New Minster at Winchester, was dedicated as a monk of the Flemish monastery of St. Bertin,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/261

 near St. Omer, in the province of Rheims, at the age of seven, during the abbacy of Hugh, son of the Emperor Charles, who was slain in 844; he became chancellor and prior. He was a good singer, learned in the scriptures and in ecclesiastical discipline, and distinguished for his piety. The story that he entertained Alfred, the youngest son of Æthelwulf, when on his journey to Rome in 853, and made a deep impression on the mind of the ætheling, is worthless, for Alfred was then a little child, and was not more than seven when he returned to England in 856. On the death of Abbot Rudolf in 892, the monks desired to have Grimbald as abbot, but the Frankish king gave the abbey to Fulk, archbishop of Rheims. About this time Alfred was able to turn his attention to the advancement of learning, and invited Grimbald to come over and help him. Leland, who quotes from a 'Life' of Grimbald, now lost, says that Asser was sent over to fetch him. Archbishop Fulk wrote a letter commending him to Alfred, and announcing that he had given him permission to accept the king's invitation. Grimbald seems to have come over to England about 893. It is said that Alfred in asking him over declared that he wanted him to help him carry out his design of building a new monastery in Winchester, the royal city. This is unlikely, as it is fairly certain that the king's intention belongs to a later period. A long report of a speech which Grimbald is said to have delivered at a council at London soon after his arrival is given in the 'Book of Hyde,' but this, together with some other details, can scarcely be considered of any historical value. He became one of Alfred's mass-priests, was his personal instructor, and no doubt took a leading part, in conjunction with John the Old-Saxon, in the conduct of the school which the king established for the education of the young nobles. In his Introduction to his translation of the 'Pastoral Care' of Gregory the Great, Alfred speaks of the help which he had received from Grimbald and others who construed the Latin for him. It was not until the last year of Alfred's life that he propounded his plan to Grimbald of building a new minster at Winchester, and he probably did not even buy the land for the buildings before his death (Liber de Hyda, p. 51; Gesta Regum, p. 193; Gesta Pontificum, p. 173, where he is said to have built the house at Grimbald's persuasion). When Eadward the Elder came to the throne, he was, it is said, stirred up by Grimbald to carry out his father's design, and at first intended to found his new house at the expense of the Old Minster, but was rebuked by Grimbald, who told him that God would not accept robbery for burnt-offering. The house was built in two years. During its erection Grimbald received several refugees from Ponthieu, who brought over with them the relics of St. Judoc. These relics were deposited in the new church, which was dedicated by Archbishop Plegmund in 903. It stood close to the Old Minster on the north side, and the king is said to have been forced to pay the bishop and canons a mark of gold for every foot of the ground (Gesta Regum, u.s.) The new church was served by secular canons, and the story that Grimbald was disgusted with their carelessness is of course an invention which owes its origin to party feeling. He died on 8 July in the same year in which the New Minster was dedicated, at the age, so it is said, of eighty-three, and was buried in his church. He was venerated as a saint and confessor, and some altars were dedicated to him; the 'Benediction' for his day is in a manuscript at Rouen (Archæologia, xxiv. 13). His name plays a prominent part in the mythical story of Oxford. According to the 'Book of Hyde,' he was a professor of holy scripture, and Rous makes him the first chancellor, and says that he left the university when he grew old, built the New Minster, and died there at the age of seventy-seven. Camden in his 'Britannia' (4to ed. 1600) inserted a story, partly, he says, from the 'Book of Hyde,' and partly from 'an excellent manuscript of Asser,' to the effect that Grimbald took several learned foreigners with him to Oxford; the old scholars whom he found there refused to follow his rules; a violent dispute ensued; Alfred attempted to make peace; Grimbald was offended, retired to Winchester, and caused his tomb to be removed thither from the vault of St. Peter's Church, Oxford, which he had built. This passage was inserted in Camden's edition of Asser (Frankfort, 1603), and he declared, according to Bryan Twyne's story, that he caused it to be copied from a manuscript which did not appear to him to be very ancient. The passage was probably forged by Sir Henry Savile ; it does not appear in Archbishop Parker's edition of Asser, printed in 1574. Grimbald's crypt, as it is called, is still to be seen in St. Peter's at Oxford;. it was probably built by Robert of Oily, of whom the church held land in 1086, and was rebuilt some fifty years after its original construction.

[Bishop Stubbs examines some of the statements about Grimbald's life, and especially the date of his coming to England, in his edition of William of Malmesbury, ii. introd. xliv-xlviii; Iperius, Chron. Bertin., Martene and Durand, iii. 510, 537; Asser's De Rebus Gestis Ælfredi,


text:
Author:Alfred Brazier Howell

Works

 * "Descriptions of two new rodents of the genus Phenacomys" (Biological Society of Washington, 1923)
 * Anatomy of the Wood Rat (1926)
 * Aquatic Mammals (1930)

title: Author:Alfred Brazier Howell


text: Page:American History Told by Contemporaries, v2.djvu/1


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/262

p. 487, Mon. Hist. Brit., with the interpolated Oxford story, pp. 489-90; Liber de Hyda. pp. 30-35, 51, 76-83, ed. Edwards (Rolls Ser.); Florence of Worcester, i. 91, 118, and William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum, pp.188,193(Engl.Hist.Soc.), Gesta Pontificum, p. 173 (Rolls Ser.); Annales Winton., Annales Monast. ii. 10 (Rolls Ser.); Leland's Scriptores, i. 156, and Collectanea, i. 18, 2nd edit., Leland speaks of a Life of Grimbald now lost; King Alfred's Works, iii. 66, ed. Giles; Acta SS. Bolland., 8 July, ii. 651-6; Mabillon, Acta SS. O.S.B. sæc. vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 511; Thorpe's Pauli's Life of Alfred, pp. 151-153, 161; Archæologia, 1832, xxiv. 13; Becon's Prayers, iii. 43 (Parker Soc.); Rous's Hist. p. 46, ed. Hearne; Anglica Scripta, ed. Camden, p. 15, Britannia, p. 331 in 4th ed., and p. 287 Gough's fol. trans.; Wood's Annals, i. 22, ed. Gutch; Parker's Early Hist. of Oxford, pp. 39-47, 250-4 (Oxf. Hist. Soc.)]

GRIMES, ROBERT (d. 1701), colonel. [See .]

GRIMESTONE, ELIZABETH (d. 1603). [See .]

GRIMM, SAMUEL HIERONYMUS (1734–1794), water-colour painter, son of a miniature-painter, was born in 1734 at Burgdorf, near Berne in Switzerland. He came to London, and in 1769 was an exhibitor at the first exhibition of the Royal Academy, sending drawings of 'The Death of Priam' and 'The Feast of the Centaurs.' Grimm resided for some time in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, and was a frequent exhibitor of drawings. In 1774 he exhibited two drawings of 'The Distribution of the Maundy in the Chapel Royal at Whitehall,' which were subsequently engraved by James Basire. Grimm's subjects were varied, but he was chiefly noted for his skill and accuracy as a topographical draughtsman. He was employed by Sir Richard Kaye to make drawings in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and other counties, and by Sir William Burrell to make drawings for his 'Sussex Collections.' Both of these large topographical collections are preserved in the department of manuscripts at the British Museum. In this line Grimm could hardly be excelled. His views of Cowdray House were published by the Society of Antiquaries in 'Vetusta Monumenta' He sometimes drew caricatures and humorous subjects, which were published by Carrington Bowles, and he occasionally practised etching himself. He died in Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, 14 April 1794, aged 60, and was buried in St. Paul's, Covent Garden. There are water-colour paintings by him in the print room at the British Museum and in the South Kensington Museum.

GRIMSHAW, WILLIAM (1708–1763), incumbent of Haworth, Yorkshire, was born at Brindle, Lancashire, on 3 Sept. 1708. He was educated at the grammar schools of Blackburn and Hesketh, and at the age of eighteen went to Christ's College, Cambridge. In 1731 he was ordained deacon, and became curate of Rochdale, but in the same year removed to Todmorden, which is a chaplaincy in the patronage of the vicar of Rochdale. At Todmorden he led at first a careless life; but in 1734 and the following years he passed through a long and severe spiritual struggle. The death of his wife, to whom he was deeply attached, is thought to have been the turning-point in his career. It does not appear that he was even aware of the similar change which was going on at about the same time in the Wesleys, Whitefield, and others. He was, however, much affected by the writings of the puritans of the preceding century, especially by Thomas Brooks's 'Precious Remedies against Satan's Devices' (1652), and 'Owen on Justification.' Some time before he left Todmorden he became a changed man, and when in 1742 he was appointed perpetual curate of Haworth, he entered upon his work in his new parish with the fervour characteristic of the early evangelicals. Haworth is a desolate parish on the Yorkshire moors. It is now famous as the home of the Brontes. Grimshaw had become acquainted with the leading methodists, and joyfully welcomed in his pulpit the two Wesleys, Whitefield, Romaine, and Henry Venn. He also became intimate with John Nelson, the stonemason, one of the most remarkable of John Wesley's lay-preachers. Grimshaw became in his own person a most successful evangelist. The effects which he produced in his own parish were marvellous. He raised the number of communicants from twelve to twelve hundred, and acquired so much influence in the place that he was able to put a stop to Haworth races, to enforce the strictest observance of the Lord's day, and bring his people to church whether they would or not. Though he was eccentric to the verge of madness, no one could help respecting 'the mad parson.' His earnestness, his self-denial, his real humility, his entire absorption in one great object, and the thorough consistency of his life with his principles, were patent to all. He was also most charitable, both in the ordinary and in the highest sense of the term. In the hot disputes between Calvinists and Arminians he lived in perfect amity with the adherents of both


text: Page:American History Told by Contemporaries, v2.djvu/5


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Kapp, Wolfgang

KAPP, WOLFGANG (1868-      ), German conspirator, the author or chief instrument of what is known as the Kapp coup d'état (or Putsch) of March 13 1920, was born in New York July 28 1868. He was the son of one of the leading German Liberals of 1848, Friedrich Kapp, who, when the reaction triumphed, had sought refuge in America and remained there until the establishment of the German Empire by Bismarck in 1871. Friedrich wrote books which had a considerable vogue on the history of German immigration into the United States and on the question of slavery. He returned to Germany and was a National Liberal member of the Reichstag until he separated from Bismarck on the question of protection. His son Wolfgang grew up under Bismarckian influences, and after an ordinary official career became the founder of the Agricultural Credit Institute in East Prussia, which achieved great success in promoting the prosperity of landowners and farmers in that province. He was consequently in close touch with the Junkers of East Prussia, and during the World War made himself their mouthpiece in an attack on the Imperial Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg published in 1916 under the title of Die Nationalen Kreise und der Reichskanzler. This pamphlet appeared about the same time as the attacks of “Junius Alter” and evoked an indignant reply from Bethmann Hollweg in the Reichstag, in which he spoke of “loathsome abuse and slanders.” Kapp continued his campaign against the Government, and was one of the chief founders of the Vaterlandspartei under the auspices of Tirpitz. For a brief period before the Revolution he was a Conservative member of the Reichstag.

Nothing more was heard of him until on March 12 1920 the Republican Government of the Reich suddenly issued an order for his arrest. It turned out that he had organized, with Gen. von Lüttwitz and other officers, a conspiracy to seize power in Berlin and to occupy the Government offices. Noske, the Socialist Minister of National Defence, had, with misplaced confidence, put Lüttwitz at the head of the troops which suppressed the Communist risings in Berlin. Lüttwitz, after delivering a kind of ultimatum to the Government, placed himself at the disposal

of Kapp, and led the troops, which consisted mainly of the so-called “Baltikum” and other Free Corps, from the camp of Döberitz near Berlin into the capital in the early morning of March 13, where he occupied the Government buildings. Kapp was installed in the Imperial Chancellery and issued proclamations with his signature as “Chancellor of the Reich.” President Ebert, Chancellor Bauer, and other members of the Ministry fled in motor-cars first to Dresden and afterwards to Stuttgart, where a meeting of as many members of the Reichstag as could be assembled took place. Meanwhile Kapp tried to form a Government, with a number of desperate and in part criminal characters in the subordinate offices. Well-known Conservatives and former secretaries of state, who were invited to assume the more important offices, declined to associate themselves with him. He endeavoured to negotiate with ministers who remained in Berlin, particularly with Schiffer, Minister of Justice. The chief grievances which Kapp and his followers professed to have against the Government were (a) that the National Assembly, which had been elected as a Constituent Assembly, was prolonging its existence and acting as a permanent Reichstag; (b) that this Assembly was manifesting an inclination to revise the constitution in respect of the election of the President of the Republic so as to make the election lie with the Reichstag instead of with the electorate of the country. There was something in these complaints, and in the sequel the date of the general election for the first republican Reichstag was hastened and was fixed for the following June, while all attempts to change the method of election for the presidency of the republic were abandoned.

The Government had no troops whom it could trust to put down the Kapp insurrection, but the working classes of Berlin took the matter into their own hands, and by a universal strike rendered the continuance of the Kapp “Government” impossible. The leading generals of the army, with the exception of Ludendorff, had at the same time informed Lüttwitz that his position and action were entirely irregular and that he must resign in the interests of the country. Kapp saw that the game was up, and on the evening of March 17 he and Lüttwitz fled from Berlin in motor-cars. The insurrectionary Government had lasted four days. The legitimate Government on its return to Berlin issued warrants for the arrest of Kapp, Lüttwitz and their associates. Lüttwitz entirely disappeared, but Kapp remained in hiding for a time on his East Prussian estates, and ultimately managed to escape by aeroplane to Sweden.

The effects of the Kapp coup throughout Germany were more lasting than in Berlin. On the one hand it led to a succession of Communist insurrections, of which the most serious was that which was suppressed by reactionary troops and with reactionary severity in the Ruhr region, March-April 1920. On the other hand it left a rump of military conspirators such as Col. Bauer, Maj. Pabst and Capt. Ehrhardt, who found refuge in Bavari n a under the reactionary Government of Herr von Kahr (itself a p  n indirect product of the Kapp coup) and there attempted to organize plots against the republican Constitution and Government of Germany. The crisis in the relations of Bavaria with the Reich (Aug.-Sept. 1921) which ended in von Kahr's resignation was a further phase of the same trouble.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/263

 systems. Though he was a Calvinist, his friendship with John Wesley was never interrupted. His labours extended far beyond the limits of his own parish. People used to come from a great distance to hear him preach at Haworth, and some of them requested him to come and preach to them. Thus originated his itinerant labours, which by degrees extended through Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, and North Derbyshire. His plan seems to have resembled that of his friend John Wesley. He established societies in the various places, presided over by leaders, with whom he used to hold conferences. Some of the parochial clergy objected to this interference of a brother clergyman, entirely unauthorised, in their parishes. One of these, the Rev. George White, perpetual curate of Colne and Marsden in Lancashire, published a sermon, preached in 1748, against the methodists in general and Grimshaw in particular. He is also said to have stirred up a mob in Colne, who handled both Grimshaw and John Wesley very roughly. But on the whole the ecclesiastical authorities treated Grimshaw with great forbearance. His own diocesan, the Archbishop of York, called him to account, but fully recognised his good work. A charge preferred against him for having preached in a licensed meeting-house at Leeds fell through. His success was probably in part owing to the homeliness of his language and illustrations. Many anecdotes of his eccentric conduct are recorded, some probably apocryphal, and none bearing specially upon his work. Grimshaw was held in the highest esteem among his co-religionists, and strong testimonies to his worth and usefulness are given, among others, by William Romaine, Henry Venn, and John Newton. He died, 7 April 1763, in the fifty-fifth year of his age, in his own house at Haworth, of a putrid fever, caught when he was visiting a sick parishioner. By his own desire he was buried by the side of his first wife in the chancel of Luddenden Church, near Haworth. He was twice married, first to Sarah, daughter of John Lockwood of Ewood Hall, Brecknockshire, and then to Elizabeth daughter of H. Cockcroft of Mayroyd, both of whom he survived. He had two children, a son and a daughter, both by his first wife. The daughter died young at Kingswood, the school founded and supervised by Grimshaw's friend, John Wesley. The son was wild in his youth, and caused his father much anxiety; but after his father's death he became a changed man. Grimshaw's published work consists merely of (1) a short 'Reply' to White's attack in his sermon (1748);(2) a document which he terms his 'Covenant with God,' wherein he affirms his solemn resolution to lead a strictly religious life; (3) an address or letter 'to certain Christians in London,' and (4) a 'Creed' or 'Summary of Belief,' sent by him in 1762, only four months before his death, to Mr. Romaine.

GRIMSHAWE, THOMAS SHUTTLEWORTH (1778–1850), biographer, the son of John Grimshawe, solicitor, and five times mayor of Preston, was born at Preston in 1778. He entered Brasenose College, Oxford, 9 April 1794, and proceeded B.A. in 1798, and M.A. in 1800. He was vicar of Biddenham, Bedfordshire, from 1808 to 1850, and with this living he held the rectory of Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, from 1809 to 1843. His first publication was 'The Christian's Faith and Practice,' &c. (Preston, 1813); followed by 'A Treatise on the Holy Spirit' (1815). In 1822 he wrote a pamphlet on 'The Wrongs of the Clergy of the Diocese of Peterborough,' which was noticed by Sydney Smith in the 'Edinburgh Review' (article 'Persecuting Bishops'). In 1825 he issued 'An Earnest Appeal to British Humanity in behalf of Indian Widows.' His 'Memoir of the Rev. Legh Richmond,' a religious biography, was first published in 1828, and it reached an eleventh edition by 1846. His best book is the 'Life and Works of William Cowper,' 8 vols. 1835, and several times subsequently republished, the last edition bearing the imprint 'Boston, U.S., 1853.' He published also a small volume of 'Lectures on the Future Restoration and Conversion of the Jews,' 1843, and several occasional sermons. He died on 17 Feb. 1850, and was buried in the chancel of Biddenham Church, where there is a monument to his memory. He married Charlotte Anne, daughter of George Livius of Caldwell Priory, Bedfordshire; and their son, Charles Livius Grimshawe, was high sheriff of that county in 1866.

GRIMSTON, EDWARD (1528?–1599), comptroller of Calais, born about 1528, was the son of Edward Grimston, by his wife Anne, daughter of John Garnish of Kenton, Suffolk. For a while he studied at Gonville Hall, Cambridge, but did not graduate. He was a commissioner in 1552 for the sale of church goods in Ipswich. On 28 Aug. in that year he was appointed comptroller of Calais


text: Author:Alexander Thomas Emeric Vidal

title: Author:Alexander Thomas Emeric Vidal


text:
Page:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu/110

cviii


text:
Author:Alexander Wilson

 * Alexander Wilson (1714–1786), Scottish astronomer
 * Alexander Wilson (1766–1813), American poet and ornithologist

title: Author:Alexander Wilson


text:
Executive Order 13556

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Barack Obama The White House, November 4, 2010. [FR Doc. 2010–28360 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am] Billing Code 3195–W1–P

title: Executive Order 13556


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Cornish, Samuel


text: The Yellow Claw/Chapter XI

title: The Yellow Claw/Chapter XI


text: The Yellow Claw/Chapter XII

title: The Yellow Claw/Chapter XII


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/103

 Five more minutes passed in a silent conflict. A knock announced the return of the maid; and the girl reentered, placing upon the table a visiting-card:—

Helen Cumberly started to her feet with a stifled exclamation and turned to the maid; her face, to which the color slowly had been returning, suddenly blanched anew.

“Denise Ryland!” she muttered, still holding the card in her hand, “why—that’s Mrs. Leroux’s friend, with whom she had been staying in Paris! Whatever can it mean?”

“Shall I show her in here, please?” asked the maid.

“Yes, in here,” replied Helen, absently; and, scarcely aware that she had given instructions to that effect, she presently found herself confronted by the lady of the boat-train!

“Miss Cumberly?” said the new arrival in a pleasant American voice.

“Yes—I am Helen Cumberly. Oh! I am so glad to know you at last! I have often pictured you;

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/103


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/104

 for Mira—Mrs. Leroux—is always talking about you, and about the glorious times you have together! I have sometimes longed to join you in beautiful Paris. How good of you to come back with her!”

Miss Ryland unrolled the Scotch muffler from her throat, swinging her head from side to side in a sort of spuriously truculent manner, quite peculiarly her own. Her keen hazel eyes were fixed upon the face of the girl before her. Instinctively and immediately she liked Helen Cumberly; and Helen felt that this strong-looking, vaguely masculine woman, was an old, intimate friend, although she had never before set eyes upon her.

“H’m!” said Miss Ryland. “I have come from Paris”—she punctuated many of her sentences with wags of the head as if carefully weighing her words—“especially” (pause) “to see you” (pause and wag of head) “I am glad…to find that…you are the thoroughly sensible…kind of girl that I…had imagined, from the accounts which…I have had of you.”…

She seated herself in an armchair.

“Had of me from Mira?” asked Helen.

“Yes…from Mrs. Leroux.”

“How delightful it must be for you to have her with you so often! Marriage, as a rule, puts an end to that particular sort of good-time, doesn’t it?”

“It does…very properly…too. No man…no man in his…right senses…

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/104


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/105

 would permit…his wife…to gad about in…Paris with another…girl” (she presumably referred to herself) “ [sic]whom he had only met…casually…and did not like”…

“What! do you mean that Mr. Leroux doesn’t like you? I can’t believe that!”

“Then the sooner…you believe it…the better.”

“It can only be that he does not know you, properly?”

“He has no wish…to know me…properly; and I have no desire…to cultivate…the…friendship of such…a silly being.”

Helen Cumberly was conscious that a flush was rising from her face to her brow, and tingling in the very roots of her hair. She was indignant with herself and turned aside, bending over her table in order to conceal this ill-timed embarrassment from her visitor.

“Poor Mr. Leroux!” she said, speaking very rapidly; “I think it awfully good of him, and sporty, to allow his wife so much liberty.”

“Sporty!” said Miss Ryland, head wagging and nostrils distended in scorn. “Idi-otic…I should call it.”

“Why?”

Helen Cumberly, perfectly composed again, raised her clear eyes to her visitor.

“You seem so…thoroughly sensible, except in regard to…Harry Leroux;—and all women,

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/105


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/106

 with a few…exceptions, are fools where the true…character of a man is concerned—that I will take you right into my confidence.”

Her speech lost its quality of syncopation; the whole expression of her face changed; and in the hazel eyes a deep concern might be read.

“My dear,” she stood up, crossed to Helen’s side, and rested her artistic looking hands upon the girl’s shoulder. “Harry Leroux stands upon the brink of a great tragedy—a life’s tragedy!”

Helen was trembling slightly again.

“Oh, I know!” she whispered—“I know—”

“You know?”

There was surprise in Miss Ryland’s voice.

“Yes, I have seen them—watched them—and I know that the police think”…

“Police! What are you talking about—the police?”

Helen looked up with a troubled face.

“The murder!” she began…

Miss Ryland dropped into a chair which, fortunately, stood close behind her, with a face suddenly set in an expression of horror. She began to understand, now, a certain restraint, a certain ominous shadow, which she had perceived, or thought she had perceived, in the atmosphere of this home, and in the manner of its occupants.

“My dear girl,” she began, and the old nervous, jerky manner showed itself again, momentarily,—“remember that…I left Paris by…the first

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/106


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/107

 train, this morning, and have simply been…traveling right up to the present moment.”…

“Then you have not heard? You don’t know that a—murder—has been committed?”

“Murder! Not—not”…

“Not any one connected with Mr. Leroux; no, thank God! but it was done in his flat.”…

Miss Ryland brushed a whisk of straight hair back from her brow with a rough and ungraceful movement.

“My dear,” she began, taking a French telegraphic form from her pocket, “you see this message? It’s one which reached me at an unearthly hour this morning from Harry Leroux. It was addressed to his wife at my studio; therefore, as her friend, I opened it. Mira Leroux has actually visited me there twice since her marriage—”

“Twice!” Helen rose slowly to her feet, with horrified eyes fixed upon the speaker.

“Twice I said! I have not seen her, and have rarely heard from her, for nearly twelve months, now! Therefore I packed up post-haste and here I am! I came to you, because, from what little I have heard of you, and of your father, I judged you to be the right kind of friends to consult.”…

“You have not seen her for twelve months?”

Helen’s voice was almost inaudible, and she was trembling dreadfully.

“That’s a fact, my dear. And now, what are we going to tell Harry Leroux?”

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/107


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/108

 It was a question, the answer to which was by no means evident at a glance; and leaving Helen Cumberly face to face with this new and horrible truth which had brought Denise Ryland hotfoot from Paris to London, let us glance, for a moment, into the now familiar room of Detective-Inspector Dunbar at Scotland Yard.

He had returned from his interrogation of Brian; and he received the report of Sowerby, respecting the late Mrs. Vernon’s maid. The girl, Sergeant Sowerby declared, was innocent of complicity, and could only depose to the fact that her late mistress took very little luggage with her on the occasions of her trips to Scotland. With his notebook open before him upon the table, Dunbar was adding this slight item to his notes upon the case, when the door opened, and the uniformed constable entered, saluted, and placed an envelope in the Inspector’s hand.

“From the commissioner!” said Sowerby, significantly.

With puzzled face, Dunbar opened the envelope and withdrew the commissioner’s note. It was very brief:—

“M. Gaston Max, of the Paris Police, is joining you in the Palace Mansions murder case. You will cooperate with him from date above.”

“Max!” said Dunbar, gazing astoundedly at his subordinate.

Certainly it was a name which might well account

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/108


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/109

 for the amazement written upon the inspector’s face; for it was the name of admittedly the greatest criminal investigator in Europe!

“What the devil has the case to do with the French police?” muttered Sowerby, his ruddy countenance exhibiting a whole history of wonderment.

The constable, who had withdrawn, now reappeared, knocking deferentially upon the door, throwing it open, and announcing:

“Mr. Gaston Max, to see Detective-Inspector Dunbar.”

Bowing courteously upon the threshold, appeared a figure in a dazzling check traveling-coat—a figure very novel, and wholly unforgettable.

“I am honored to meet a distinguished London colleague,” he said in perfect English, with a faint American accent.

Dunbar stepped across the room with outstretched hand, and cordially shook that of the famous Frenchman.

“I am the more honored,” he declared, gallantly playing up to the other’s courtesy. “This is Detective-Sergeant Sowerby, who is acting with me in the case.”

M. Gaston Max bowed low in acknowledgment of the introduction.

“It is a pleasure to meet Detective-Sergeant Sowerby,” he declared.

These polite overtures being concluded then, and the door being closed, the three detectives stood

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/109


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/110

 looking at one another in momentary silence. Then Dunbar spoke with blunt directness:

“I am very pleased to have you with us, Mr. Max,” he said; “but might I ask what your presence in London means?”

M. Gaston Max shrugged in true Gallic fashion.

“It means, monsieur,” he said, “—murder—and Mr. King!”

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/110


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/111

T will prove of interest at this place to avail ourselves of an opportunity denied to the police, and to inquire into the activities of Mr. Soames, whilom employee of Henry Leroux.

Luke Soames was a man of unpleasant character; a man ever seeking advancement—advancement to what he believed to be an ideal state, viz.: the possession of a competency; and to this ambition he subjugated all conflicting interests—especially the interests of others. From narrow but honest beginnings, he had developed along lines ever growing narrower until gradually honesty became squeezed out. He formed the opinion that wealth was unobtainable by dint of hard work; and indeed in a man of his limited intellectual attainments, this was no more than true.

At the period when he becomes of interest, he had just discovered himself a gentleman-at-large by reason of his dismissal from the services of a wealthy bachelor, to whose establishment in Piccadilly he had been attached in the capacity of valet. There was nothing definite against his character at this time, save that he had never remained for long in any one situation.

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/111


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/112

 His experience was varied, if his references were limited; he had served not only as valet, but also as chauffeur, as steward on an ocean liner, and, for a limited period, as temporary butler in an American household at Nice.

Soames’ banking account had increased steadily, but not at a rate commensurate with his ambitions; therefore, when entering his name and qualifications in the books of a certain exclusive employment agency in Mayfair he determined to avail himself, upon this occasion, of his comparative independence by waiting until kindly Fate should cast something really satisfactory in his path.

Such an opening occurred very shortly after his first visit to the agent. He received a card instructing him to call at the office in order to meet a certain Mr. Gianapolis. Quitting his rooms in Kennington, Mr. Soames, attired in discreet black, set out to make the acquaintance of his hypothetical employer.

He found Mr. Gianapolis to be a little and very swarthy man, who held his head so low as to convey the impression of having a pronounced stoop; a man whose well-cut clothes and immaculate linen could not redeem his appearance from a constitutional dirtiness. A jet black mustache, small, aquiline features, an engaging smile, and very dark brown eyes, viciously crossed, made up a personality incongruous with his sheltering silk hat, and calling aloud for a tarboosh and a linen suit, a shop in a bazaar, or a part in the campaign of commercial brigandage

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/112


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/113

 which, based in the Levant, spreads its ramifications throughout the Orient, Near and Far.

Mr. Gianapolis had the suave speech and smiling manner. He greeted Soames not as one greets a prospective servant, but as one welcomes an esteemed acquaintance. Following a brief chat, he proposed an adjournment to a neighboring saloon bar; and there, over cocktails, he conversed with Mr. Soames as one crook with another.

Soames was charmed, fascinated, yet vaguely horrified; for this man smilingly threw off the cloak of hypocrisy from his companion’s shoulders, and pretended, with the skill of his race, equally to nudify his own villainy.

“My dear Mr. Soames!” he said, speaking almost perfect English, but with the sing-song intonation of the Greek, and giving all his syllables an equal value—“you are the man I am looking for; and I can make your fortune.”

This was entirely in accordance with Mr. Soames’ own views, and he nodded, respectfully.

“I know,” continued Gianapolis, proffering an excellent Egyptian cigarette, “that you were cramped in your last situation—that you were misunderstood”…

Soames, cigarette in hand, suppressed a start, and wondered if he were turning pale. He selected a match with nervous care.

“The little matter of the silver spoons,” continued Gianapolis, smiling fraternally, “was perhaps

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/113


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/114

 an error of judgment. Although”—patting the startled Soames upon the shoulder—“they were a legitimate perquisite; I am not blaming you. But it takes so long to accumulate a really useful balance in that petty way. Now”—he glanced cautiously about him—“I can offer you a post under conditions which will place you above the consideration of silver spoons!”

Soames, hastily finishing his cocktail, sought for words; but Gianapolis, finishing his own, blandly ordered two more, and, tapping Soames upon the knee, continued:

“Then that matter of the petty cash, and those trifling irregularities in the wine-bill, you remember?—when you were with Colonel Hewett in Nice?”…

Soames gripped the counter hard, staring at the newly arrived cocktail as though it were hypnotizing him.

“These little matters,” added Gianapolis, appreciatively sipping from his own glass, “which would weigh heavily against your other references, in the event of their being mentioned to any prospective employer”…

Soames knew beyond doubt that his face was very pale indeed.

“These little matters, then,” pursued Gianapolis, “all go to prove to me that you are a man of enterprise and spirit—that you are the very man I require. Now I can offer you a post in the

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/114


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/115

 of Mr. Henry Leroux, the novelist. The service will be easy. You will be required to attend to callers and to wait at table upon special occasions. There will be no valeting, and you will have undisputed charge of the pantry and wine-cellar. In short, you will enjoy unusual liberty. The salary, you would say? It will be the same as that which you received from Mr. Mapleson”…

Soames raised his head drearily; he felt himself in the toils; he felt himself a ruined man.

“It isn’t a salary,” he began, “which”…

“My dear Mr. Soames,” said Gianapolis, tapping him confidentially upon the knee again—“my dear Soames, it isn’t the salary, I admit, which you enjoyed whilst in the services of Colonel Hewett in a similar capacity. But this is not a large establishment, and the duties are light. Furthermore, there will be—extras.”

“Extras?”

Mr. Soames’ eye brightened, and under the benignant influence of the cocktails his courage began to return.

“I do not refer,” smiled Mr. Gianapolis, “to perquisites! The extras will be monetary. Another two pounds per week”…

“Two pounds!”

“Bringing your salary up to a nice round figure; the additional amount will be paid to you from another source. You will receive the latter payment quarterly”…

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/115


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/116

 “From—from”…

“From me!” said Mr. Gianapolis, smiling radiantly. “Now, I know you are going to accept; that is understood between us. I will give you the address—Palace Mansions, Westminster—at which you must apply; and I will tell you what little services will be required from you in return for this additional emolument.”

Mr. Soames hurriedly finished his second cocktail. Mr. Gianapolis, in true sporting fashion, kept pace with him and repeated the order.

“You will take charge of the mail!” he whispered softly, one irregular eye following the movements of the barmaid, and the other fixed almost fiercely upon the face of Soames. “At certain times—of which you will be notified in advance—Mrs. Leroux will pay visits to Paris. At such times, all letters addressed to her, or re-addressed to her, will not be posted! You will ring me up when such letters come into your possession—they must all come into your possession!—and I will arrange to meet you, say at the corner of Victoria Street, to receive them. You understand?”

Mr. Soames understood, and thus far found his plastic conscience marching in step with his inclinations.

“Then,” resumed Gianapolis, “prior to her departure on these occasions, Mrs. Leroux will hand you a parcel. This also you will bring to me at the

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/116


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/117

 place arranged. Do you find anything onerous in these conditions?”

“Not at all,” muttered Soames, a trifle unsteadily; “it seems all right”—the cocktails were beginning to speak now, and his voice was a duet—“simply perfectly all right—all square.”

“Good!” said Mr. Gianapolis with his radiant smile; and the gaze of his left eye, crossing that of its neighbor, observed the entrance of a stranger into the bar. He drew his stool closer and lowered his voice:

“Mrs. Leroux,” he continued, “will be in your confidence. Mr. Leroux and every one else—every one else—must not suspect the arrangement”…

“Certainly—I quite understand”…

“Mrs. Leroux will engage you this afternoon—her husband is a mere cipher in the household—and you will commence your duties on Monday. Later in the week, Wednesday or Thursday, we will meet by appointment, and discuss further details.”

“Where can I see you?”

“Ring up this number: 18642 East, and ask for Mr. King. No! don’t write it down; remember it! I will come to the telephone, and arrange a meeting.”

Shortly after this, then, the interview concluded; and later in the afternoon of that day Mr. Soames presented himself at Palace Mansions.

He was received by Mrs. Leroux—a pretty

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/117


text:
Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/118

 woman with a pathetically weak mouth. She had fair hair, not very abundant, and large eyes; which, since they exhibited the unusual phenomenon, in a blonde, of long dark lashes (Mr. Soames judged their blackness to be natural), would have been beautiful had they not been of too light a color, too small in the pupils, and utterly expressionless. Indeed, her whole face lacked color, as did her personality, and the exquisite tea-gown which she wore conveyed that odd impression of slovenliness, which is often an indication of secret vice. She was quite young and indisputably pretty, but this malpropreté, together with a certain aimlessness of manner, struck an incongruous note; for essentially she was of a type which for its complement needs vivacity.

Mr. Soames, a man of experience, scented an intrigue and a neglectful husband. Since he was engaged on the spot without reference to the invisible Leroux, he was immediately confirmed in the latter part of his surmise. He departed well satisfied with his affairs, and with the promise of the future, over which Mr. Gianapolis, the cherubic, radiantly presided.

title: Page:Yellow Claw 1920.djvu/118


text:
Executive Order 13557

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq., it is hereby ordered that:

, November 4, 2010. [FR Doc. 2010–28365 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am] Billing Code 3195–W1–P

title: Executive Order 13557


text:
Portal:Portals

it:Portale:Portali

title: Portal:Portals


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 28

HEADQUARTERS

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

Office of the Military Governor

Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 28 13 November 1945

 * BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL

 * UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

A. V. ARNOLD

Major General, United States Army

Military Governor of Korea.

군정법령 제28호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 28


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 29

HEADQUARTERS

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

Office of the Military Governor

Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 29 16 November 1945

CREATION OF KOREAN PERSONNEL REVIEW BOARD

 The Korean Personnel Review Board is hereby vreated. The Board will vonsist of seven members, appointed by the civil Administrator. they will serve as such members for susch periods of time as the Civil Administrator directs.

 The Board will function as an investigative agency of the Military Government of Korea and will have the following duties, powers, and jurisdiction :
 * a. To inquire into pro-japanese or pro-enemy activity of Koreans who hold any office under the Military Government, or who may apply for any such office.
 * b. To make such inquiry at the direction of the Militraty Governor, on the request fo the Director of any Bureau or Secretary of any Section of the Secretariat of the Military Government, any Procincial Governor, or any Military Governmnet Team Commander, or upon its own iniative.
 * c. To convene meatings of the Board on the call of the senior officer memver, to hear testimony, to subpcena withnesses, documenta or other ecidence, and to make findings and recommendations to the Military Governor. All Hearings will be conducted in a fair and impartial manner to the end that a full and complete investigation will be made. Testimony will be reduced to writing and signed and sealed by the witnesses. Hearings will be conducted in closed session, and the testimony, acidence, findings and recommendations will be made acailable only to the Military Governor or to such person or persons as the Military Governor may, in each instance, specifically direct.

 This ordinance will become effective upon publication in the Official Gazette

 * BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL

 * UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

A. V. ARNOLD

Major General, United States Army

Military Governor of Korea.

군정법령 제29호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 29


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 30

HEADQUARTERS

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

Office of the Military Governor

Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 30 30 November 1945

Ordinanve Number 14, WAGES FOR CIVILIAN LABOR, dated 10 October 1945 is hereby repealed, effective 1 December 1945.

 * BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL

 * UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

A. V. ARNOLD

Major General, United States Army

Military Governor of Korea.

군정법령 제30호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 30


text: In the Matter of Amendments to Rules 1 and 10


text: Talk:In the Matter of Amendments to Rules 1 and 10


text:
In the Matter of Amendments to Rules 1 and 10/Opinion of the Court

.

Our attention has been called to the practice which prevails in the clerk's office of sending original records to the printer to be printed, and of taxing in the bills of costs a fee for one manuscript copy of the record, when no such copy is in fact made.

On investigation we find that the statute regulating the fees of the clerk was passed in 1799, and that under this statute a table of fees was prepared, many years ago, by or under the direction of the court, which has been followed by the clerk in the taxation of costs ever since. No provision was made, by rule or otherwise, for printing the records, until January term, 1831. Before that time the practice was, as we are informed, for the court to use the original record, and the clerk made two manuscript copies for the use of the parties. For these copies he charged the parties according to the established table of fees. At January term, 1831, the attorney-general, in behalf of the United States, applied to the court for leave to take the original records in certain cases from the clerk's office to be printed, at the same time remarking that he had been informed that in such cases it had been the habit of the clerk to charge half fees. Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, stated "that the clerk of this court had certain rights and fees of office (of which a fee for a copy of the record was one), which this court was not disposed to violate; and that the party could not withdraw the records without paying for the copies, but that any arrangement which the clerk saw proper to make would be satisfactory to the court." The original records in these cases were afterwards taken to the printer and printed, and the clerk charged and was paid full fees for one manuscript copy.

At the same term the first rule for printing the records was adopted, which provided for the taxation of the fees for one manuscript copy of the record in the bill of costs. When this rule was promulgated the court consisted of Chief Justice Marshall and Associate Justices Johnson, Story, Thompson, McLean, and Baldwin. Mr. Justice Baldwin dissented on this provision of the rule, for the reason, among others, that it allowed the clerk a fee for a copy whether one was made or not.

Under the rule thus adopted the printing of records began, and from the first the original records were sent to the printer, and a fee for one manuscript copy was charged in the costs, when in fact no copies were made. There is abundant evidence that at the outset this practice was directly or indirectly approved by the court. In 1839, the House of Representatives instructed the Judiciary Committee to "inquire what costs are charged against the United States for printed copies of records of suits pending in the Supreme Court which have been printed at the expense of the United States, . . . . and whether any legislation is necessary in relation to costs of suits in said court." The committee reported, submitting a statement of the clerk on the subject, and were discharged. From this statement of the clerk, and from other evidence on file, we are satisfied the committee, or some of its members, visited the office during the progress of their inquiries, and possessed themselves fully of the mode of doing the business and of the compensation therefor.

In 1859, the rules were revised by Chief Justice Taney under the direction of the court, and the provision for printed the records was put into the form in which it now appears in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Rule 10. We are advised that prior to the death of Chief Justice Taney no manuscript copies of the records were ever made, and that the fee for one copy was always charged in the costs. Since the death of Chief Justice Taney, copies have in some cases been made. The present clerk has followed the practice of his predecessors.

We are entirely satisfied that the practice, as it now exists, is in all material respects what it has been for more than fifty years, and that at the beginning it received the approval of the court. No one now on the bench ever heard of any complaint or of any application for a retaxation of costs, on account of what was done, until late in the last term, when a motion for retaxation was made in the case of James v. Campbell.

There is an apparent conflict between the rules and the practice under them which ought not to exist. It is also evident that was fifty years ago no more than a reasonable compensation for the important services of the clerk is now, under the operation of the rules as then construed and the practice then inaugurated, larger than it ought to be. To prevent misunderstandings in the future and to reduce the expenses of litigants without doing injustice to the clerk, it is ordered—

I. That the second clause of Rule 1 be amended so that it will read as follows:

The clerk shall not permit any original record or paper to be taken from the court room, or from the office, without an order from the court; but records on appeals and writs of error, exclusive of original papers sent up therewith, may be taken to a printed to be printed, under the requirements of Rule 10.

II. That paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 10, be rescinded, and the following adopted in lieu thereof:

3. The clerk shall take to the printer the original record in the office, except in cases prohibited by the rules. When the original cannot be taken, he shall furnish the printer with a manuscript copy. He shall supervise the printing, and see that the printed copy is properly indexed. He shall take care of and distribute the printed copies to the judges, the reporter, and parties, from time to time, as required.

4. In cases where a manuscript copy of the record is not furnished the printer, the fee of the clerk for his service under the last preceding paragraph shall be one-half the rates now allowed by law for making a manuscript copy, and that shall be charged to the party bringing the cause into court, unless the court shall otherwise direct. When a manuscript copy is required to be made, full fees for a copy may be charged, but nothing in addition for the other required.

5. In all cases the clerk shall deliver a copy of the printed record to each party without extra charge. In cases of dismissal, reversal, or affirmance, with costs, the fee allowed in the last paragraph shall be taxed against the party against whom the costs are given. In cases of dismissal for want of jurisdiction, such fees shall be taxed against the party bringing the cause into court, unless the court shall otherwise direct.


text: Talk:In the Matter of Amendments to Rules 1 and 10/Opinion of the Court


text:
Johnson v. Waters (108 U.S. 4)

Henry B. Kelly and Julius Aroni, for the motion.

John A. Campbell, contra.

WAITE, C. J.

title: Johnson v. Waters (108 U.S. 4)


text: Talk:Johnson v. Waters (108 U.S. 4)

title: Talk:Johnson v. Waters (108 U.S. 4)


text:
Johnson v. Waters (108 U.S. 4)/Opinion of the Court

This motion is denied. It does not appear from the motion papers that the decree appealed from is collectible under ordinary execution. The fair inference from the statements in the papers is that the suit was instituted to subject the lands in dispute to the payment of a debt, and that no personal decree for money can be given against the appellants. The controversy seems to be as to the rights of the appellee in the lands. The present bond is sufficient in amount to protect him against loss pending the suit from sales for taxes, if he avails himself of the remedies by redemption and subrogation which the law affords. At any rate, the circumstances of the parties do not appear to have changed in this particular since the security was taken originally.


text: Talk:Johnson v. Waters (108 U.S. 4)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Crane Iron v. Hoagland

J. G. Shipman, for plaintiffs in error.

''Theo. Little'', for defendants in error.

WAITE, C, J.

title: Crane Iron v. Hoagland


text: Talk:Crane Iron v. Hoagland

title: Talk:Crane Iron v. Hoagland


text:
Crane Iron v. Hoagland/Opinion of the Court

These are writs of error to the supreme court of New Jersey, and the motions to dismiss are made because, as is claimed, no federal question is involved. The records have not been printed, and on these motions we can look only to the statements of counsel as they appear in the briefs. The assignment of errors has been printed in the brief for the defendants, and the second and fifth assignments clearly present questions of which we have jurisdiction. Whether the errors thus assigned appear in the records we cannot on these motions, as they are now presented, finally determine, but in the absence of any showing to the contrary we will presume they do. The motions to dismiss must therefore be overruled.

The questions involved are not of a character that we are inclined to consider on a motion to affirm, especially before the record is printed. It will be time enough to consider the objections to the assignment of errors when the cases come on for hearing. The motions to advance the cases cannot be granted upon the showing made. All the motions are consequently denied.


text: Talk:Crane Iron v. Hoagland/Opinion of the Court


text:
Waples v. Hays

[Syllabus from page 6 intentionally omitted]

[Statement of Case from pages 6-7 intentionally omitted]

Charles W. Hornor and Rufus Waples, for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel on pages 7-8 intentionally omitted]

B. F. Jonas and R. T. Merrick, for defendants in error.

WAITE, C. J.

title: Waples v. Hays


text: Talk:Waples v. Hays

title: Talk:Waples v. Hays


text:
Waples v. Hays/Opinion of the Court

The questions presented in this case arise on the following facts:

On the seventh of August, 1863, proceedings were begun in the     district court of Louisiana for the condemnation of three      lots of ground in New Orleans seized under the act of July      17, 1862, (chapter 195, 12 St. 589,) as the  property of      Harry T. Hays. The property when seized was incumbered by a     mortgage from Hays to E. A. Bradford. On the twenty-seventh     of November, 1863, Bradford appeared in the suit in response      to the monition and filed a petition of intervention, in      which, after setting up his mortgage, he asked to have his      rights recognized as superior to the United States, and that      the property confiscated might be sold and the proceeds      applied to the payment of what was due to him. On the     twenty-third of January, 1865, a sentence of condemnation was      entered and a sale ordered, 'the proceeds to be distributed      according to law, the legal rights of the intervenors being      reserved for further action hereafter.' An order of sale was      issued to the marshal on the same day the sentence of      condemnation was granted. On the twenty-third of February a     judgment was entered on the intervention of Bradford, in      which it was 'ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be a      judgment in his favor for the sum of $6,000, *  *  * with      special mortgage upon the three lots.' After this judgment      was entered the marshal sold the property under the sentence      of condemnation to Waples, the plaintiff in error, for      $6,000, and on the twenty-seventh of March all the proceeds,      except what were required for the costs, charges, and taxes,      were paid over to Bradford, 'in part satisfaction of his      judgment and mortgage.' The United States realized nothing      from the condemnation. Harry T. Hays having died, the present     suit was brought on behalf of his children to recover the      possession of the property from Waples. Upon the trial, the     foregoing facts appearing, the court charged the jury that      the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict. The verdict having     been rendered in accordance with the charge and a judgment      given thereon against Waples, he brought this writ of error.

It was settled in Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 350, and Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U.S. 202, that ordinarily the estate acquired by a purchaser of real property condemned and sold under the confiscation act of July 17, 1862, terminates with the life of the person for whose act it was seized. The only question in the present case is whether Waples, the purchaser, occupies a different position because of what was done with reference to the Bradford mortgage. We think he does not. The sale was made on the sentence of condemnation alone. The only suit ever begun was that by the United States to secure a condemnation under the law. Bradford intervened for the protection of his interest in what was to be condemned. He could not in that suit foreclose his mortage on the property. All he could get and all he sought to get was payment out of the proceeds of any sale ordered in consequence of the condemnation. His mortgage covered the fee, but the suit in which he intervened was in its legal effect only to subject the property for the life of the mortgage. He was interested as well in what was to be condemned as in what remained after the condemnation was exhausted. As his lien was not condemned, his rights under it would have been superior to the title acquired by Waples but for his application to be paid from the proceeds. Having made his application and got the proceeds, then interest in the land bought by Waples was relieved from his lien, but in no other respect was it enlarged. The only effect of the intervention was to give Waples the title to his tenancy for the life of Hays free of the lien of the mortgage. Whether Bradford can proceed against the property in the hands of the heirs for the recovery of the balance that remained due to him after the application of the proceeds of his sale, is a question we need not consider.

Neither are the United States or Waples subrogated to the rights of Bradford under his mortgage. To the extent of the proceeds actully received by Bradford his debt has been paid out of the mortgaged property. He got what he did because of the lien given him by Hays on the fee before the cause of forfeiture arose. This lien, it was adjudged in the condemnation suit, could not be condemned under the seizure that had been made, and so to secure to the purchaser a title to the property for the life of Hays the proceeds of the sale were applied to the extinguishment of the incumbrance that would otherwise have rested upon that estate for life. In this way Waples got all the title the United States undertook to convey; that is to say, an unincumbered right to the use and enjoyment of the property during the life of Hays. It is true that the United States realized no money from the sale for its own use, but that does not alter the rights of Waples. He bought the property for the life of Hays, and that was all he bought. His position was that of a tenant for the life of another. The death of Hays terminated his tenancy.

On the trial the plaintiffs offered in evidence the deed under which Hays took his title. This was objected to because it had not been set forth in the petition, and was not attached thereto, and the lots were not described in the petition as required by section 174 of the Code of Practice of Louisiana. This objection was properly overruled. It is well established in Louisiana that if the defendant goes to trial on a petition defective in this particular he waives the objection. Smith v. Blunt, 2 La. 133; Maillon v. Boyce, 14 La. Ann. 621.

The judgment is affirmed.

title: Waples v. Hays/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Waples v. Hays/Opinion of the Court


text:
Bigelow v. Armes

Both parties fully understood at the time that the  property referred to was that described in the bill, and   that an exchange was to be made on the terms stated in   the memorandum. As the wife of Bigelow was absent, the  contract entered into could not be consummated by an   interchange of deeds until her return, which was not   expected until some time in January following. Armes,  however, was in need of the money, which was to be paid   him, or a part of it, and so on the twenty-fourth of   November, two days after the memorandum was signed, he   and his wife executed a deed, in accordance with the   terms of the contract, conveying the house and lot on   Eighth street to Bigelow. This deed Armes took to  Bigelow, and asked for $400 on account of the money he   was to have, offering to deliver the deed if the payment   was made. Bigelow accepted the offer, paid the money, and took the deed, agreeing, however, on the     request of Armes, not to have the deed recorded until the      contract was otherwise performed. Notwithstanding this     agreement, he did have it recorded at once. At the same time     with the delivery of the deed Armes put Bigelow in possession      of the property, and thus fully executed the contract on his      part. Bigelow afterwards paid Armes $105 more on the cash     payment he was to make, and delivered him the possession of      the property on Delaware avenue. All this was done in part     performance of the contract on his part, and it was so      understood by both parties. Armes, after he got possession of     the Delaware-avenue property, made some repairs on the house      with the knowledge of Bigelow. Afterwards Bigelow refused to     carry out the contract on his part by delivering deeds for      the Delaware avenue and Virginia property, and having the      memorandum which had been signed in his possession, undertook      to destroy it by tearing it into pieces and throwing the      pieces into a waste-basket.

Upon these facts, in our opinion, it was the duty of the court below to enter the decree it did requiring a completion of the performance of the contract by Bigelow. Whether, in view of the requirements of the statute of frauds, the memorandum signed by both parties was of itself sufficient to support the bill, is a question we do not think it important to discuss, because if the memorandum is not enough, the terms of the contract have been otherwise clearly established by the evidence, and there has been full performance by Armes, and substantial part performance by Bigelow.

The decree is affirmed.

S. S. Henkle, for appellant.

C. H. Armes, for appellee.

WAITE, C. J.

title: Bigelow v. Armes


text: Talk:Bigelow v. Armes

title: Talk:Bigelow v. Armes


text:
Bigelow v. Armes/Opinion of the Court

The evidence in this case establishes to our entire satisfaction the following facts:

On the twenty-second of November, 1876, the parties to this     suit made and signed the following memorandum in pencil:

'November 22, 1876.

'I propose to give my house on Eighth street, subject to     $2,000, for one house on Delaware avenue, and one farm in      Fairfax county, Virginia, and $525 cash.

GEORGE ARMES.

'Accepted: OTIS BIGELOW.'

title: Bigelow v. Armes/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Bigelow v. Armes/Opinion of the Court


text:
Gray v. Howe

B. N. Baskin, for appellant.

Z. Snow, for appellees.

WAITE, C. J.

title: Gray v. Howe


text: Talk:Gray v. Howe

title: Talk:Gray v. Howe


text:
Gray v. Howe/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from the judgment of the supreme court of Utah, in a special statutory proceeding to settle a controversy between the parties as to their respective rights in the E. 1/2 of lot 3, block 104, plat A, Salt Lake City, under the trust created through the purchase, by the mayor of the city from the United States, of the lands on which the city stands, in accordance with the provisions of the town-site act of March 2, 1867, c. 177, (14 St. 541.) Gray, the appellant, claims the whole of the property. The appellees contest his title, and set up occupancy by themselves at the time of the purchase. The proceeding was begun in the probate court, where, after a hearing, the facts were found and a judgment entered in favor of the appellees, each for the part of the lot claimed by them respectively. Gray thereupon appealed to the district court of the territory. This, it was held, in Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U.S. 619, might be done. Afterwards the district court heard the cause and found the facts and stated its conclusions of law thereon, as required by the practice act of the territory. After the findings and conclusions were filed in the district court, the present appellees excepted on the ground that the facts as found were contrary to the evidence, and also because the court refused to find facts as requested by them. A motion was also made to set aside the findings and grant a new trial. This motion was overruled and judgment entered in favor of the claim of Gray. Thereupon the present appellees appealed to the supreme court, both from the refusal to grant a new trial and from the judgment. This was allowable under the practice act of the territory. The supreme court heard the case, reversed the judgment of the district court, and remanded the cause, with instructions to enter a judgment rejecting the claim of Gray and allowing the claims of the appellees. From this judgment of the supreme court Gray took the present appeal. The supreme court made no 'statement of the facts of the case in the nature of a special verdict,' as required by the act of April 7, 1874, c. 80, (1 Supp. Rev. St. 13;) and as that court must have set aside the findings of the district court in order to render the judgment it gave, there is nothing here which we can re-examine. Since the act of 1874, supra, the evidence at large is not to be transmitted here from the courts of the territories, but in lieu of the evidence 'a statement of the facts of the case in the nature of a special verdict.'

In Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U.S. 610, it was held if the findings of the district court were sustained and a general judgment of affirmance rendered in the supreme court, the findings of the district court, thus approved by the supreme court, would furnish a sufficient statement of facts for the purposes of an appeal to this court. So, too, if there is a reversal and another judgment rendered on the facts as found. But here the only exceptions to the findings below were that they were contrary to the evidence, and a judgment has been rendered by the supreme court in every way inconsistent with those findings. The necessary inference, therefore, is that the findings sent up to that court were set aside and the case disposed of on the evidence. This, it was also said in Stringfellow v. Cain, might be done in this class of cases.

As the only exceptions taken to the rulings of the district court were by Howe, in whose favor judgment has finally been rendered in the supreme court, they need not be considered here.

It follows that the judgment of the supreme court of the territory must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

title: Gray v. Howe/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Gray v. Howe/Opinion of the Court

title: Talk:Gray v. Howe/Opinion of the Court


text:
Feibelman v. Packard (108 U.S. 14)

John Ray, for plaintiff in error.

J. R. Beckwith, for defendants in error.

WAITE, C. J.

title: Feibelman v. Packard (108 U.S. 14)


text: Talk:Feibelman v. Packard (108 U.S. 14)

title: Talk:Feibelman v. Packard (108 U.S. 14)


text:
Feibelman v. Packard (108 U.S. 14)/Opinion of the Court

Moses Feibelman and George Voelker, as partners, sued the defendants in error to recover damages for the seizure of their partnership goods by Packard, marshal of the United States for the district of Louisiana. A judgment was rendered against them. Their interests in the suit were joint, and the judgment affects them jointly and not separately. Feibelman alone has brought this writ of error, and there has been no summons and severance, or other equivalent proceeding. It follows that the writ must be dismissed on the authority of Williams v. Bank U.S. 11 Wheat. 414; Masterson v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 416; Simpson v. Greeley, 20 Wall. 152; and it is so ordered.


text: Talk:Feibelman v. Packard (108 U.S. 14)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Mayer v. Walsh

C. W. Hornor, for appellants.

P. Phillips and W. H. Phillips, for appellee.

WAITE, C. J.

title: Mayer v. Walsh


text: Talk:Mayer v. Walsh

title: Talk:Mayer v. Walsh


text:
Mayer v. Walsh/Opinion of the Court

This is a cross-appeal, and the record has not been printed. As the case is here on the original appeal by the present appellee, we are not inclined to grant this motion in the absence of the printed record. It appears from the motion papers that the present appellant pleaded prescription, and we infer that this plea was not sustained. By his other defenses he defeated the claim in part. To review the decree, so far as it is affected by these defenses, the present appellee appealed. If, on that appeal, these defenses are overruled, it may be important to the present appellant to insist on his defense of prescription against a claim that will then amount to more than $5,000. Had not the other side appealed, the present appellant could not, because the decree against him is less than $5,000. Under these circumstances it may be that this appeal was well taken. Without, however, deciding that question, we postpone the further consideration of the motion until the hearing on the merits.

title: Mayer v. Walsh/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Mayer v. Walsh/Opinion of the Court


text:
Portal:Political Science

fa:درگاه:علوم سیاسی

title: Portal:Political Science


text:
Chicago Company v. Wiggins Ferry Company (108 U.S. 18)

This is a suit begun in a state court of Missouri by the Wiggins Ferry Company, an Illinois corporation, against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, another Illinois corporation, to recover damages for the breach of a contract by which, as is alleged, the railroad company bound itself not to employ any other means than the ferry company's ferry for the transportation of passengers and freight, coming and going on its railroad, across the Mississippi at St. Louis. The railroad company defends on the ground, among others, that if the agreement actually entered into by the parties contains by construction any such provision as is claimed, it is in violation of the laws of Illinois, and in excess of the corporate powers of the company as an Illinois corporation. To avoid the effect of this defense the ferry company sets up, by way of estoppel, a judgment in another suit in a state court of Missouri, between the same parties, where precisely the same question was raised on the same contract, and in which it was decided that the railroad company did have the corporate authority under the laws of Illinois to make the contract. As soon as the pleadings in the case developed this issue, the railroad company petitioned for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri, the proper district, on the ground that 'full faith and credit has not been given to the public acts of the state of Illinois by the supreme court of the state of Missouri in the adjudication aforesaid, and that by reason of the facts herein set forth, and of such adjudication, and the pleading thereof as an estoppel, in the manner set forth in the plaintiff's amended petition, this suit is one arising under the constitution and laws of the United States.' The facts set forth in the petition were the charter and laws of Illinois, which governed the powers of the railroad company as an Illinois corporation.

The state court, on the filing of the petition for removal, accompanied by the necessary bond, stopped proceedings, but the circuit court, when the record was entered there, remanded the cause. From an order to that effect this writ of error has been taken, and is now for hearing on the merits under the operation of rule 32, adopted at the last term, with a view to facilitating the final determination of questions of removal under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, (1 Supp. Rev. St. 173.)

Chester H. Krum and C. Beckwith, for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 20-22 intentionally omitted]

S. T. Glover and J. R. Shepley, for defendant in error.

WAITE, C. J.


text: Talk:Chicago Company v. Wiggins Ferry Company (108 U.S. 18)


text:
Chicago Company v. Wiggins Ferry Company (108 U.S. 18)/Opinion of the Court

In our opinion this is not a suit arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, within the meaning of that term as used in the removal act. If the courts of Missouri gave a wrong construction to the laws of Illinois in the that error cannot be corrected by means of a transfer of this suit from the state court to the circuit court of the United States. So long as the judgment stands, it cannot be impeached collaterally in the courts of the United States, any more than in those of the state, by showing that if due effect had been given to the laws it would have been the other way. If it has the effect of an estoppel, as is claimed, it will continue to have that effect until reversed or set aside in some appropriate form of proceeding instituted directly for that purpose. The courts of the United States must give it the same effect as a judgment that it has in the courts of the state. Whether as a judgment it operates as an estoppel does not depend on the constitution or laws of the United States. The correct decision of this question of estoppel, therefore, does not depend on the construction of the constitution or laws of the United States, but on the effect of a judgment under the laws of Missouri. The public acts of Illinois are in no way involved. If full faith and credit were not given to them by the Missouri court in the judgment which has been rendered, that may entitle the railroad company to a review of the judgment here on a writ of error, but in no other way can this or any other court of the United States invalidate that judgment on account of such mistakes, if any were in fact made.

Another ground taken in support of the jurisdiction of the circuit court upon the removal is, if we understand the argument of the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that the laws of Illinois, rightly construed, prohibit such a contract as it is alleged has been made, and as the Missouri court decided the other way when the former judgment was rendered, a transfer may be made so as to avoid a like error in this suit. The question thus presented is, not what faith and credit must be given the public acts of Illinois in Missouri, but what the public acts of Illinois, when rightly interpreted, mean. That does not depend on the constitution or laws of the United States, but on the constitution and laws of the state alone.

It is not even alleged in the petition for removal, or claimed in argument, that the courts of Illinois have as yet actually given the statutes in question any such construction as it is contended they should have. The most that can be insisted upon from all the allegations is that, on account of what has been done in other cases, the railroad company expects, when an opportunity occurs, the courts of Illinois will decide that the laws of that state gave the company no power to bind itself in the way the Missouri court has determined it did. So that the position of the railroad company on this application seems to be, that, while the questions arising on the effect of the public acts are apparently open in the courts of Illinois, and nothing has been done which, even on the principles of comity, can bind the courts of Missouri, a suit pending in a Missouri court may be removed to a court of the United States, because the Missouri court, on a former occasion, construed a public law of Illinois, which is involved, differently from what it should have done. To allow a removal upon such grounds would be to say that a suit arises under the constitution and laws of the United States whenever the public acts of one state are to be construed in an action pending in a court of another state. Clearly this is not so.

Even if it be true, as is contended by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that a suit can be removed as soon as a federal question becomes involved, it is sufficient to say that in this case such a question has not arisen. Until the Missouri court fails in this suit to give full faith and credit to the public to which the jurisdiction of the to which the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States can attach, and then only for the correction of the errors that have been committed. It is not enough that in other cases decisions have been made which, if followed in this, will be erroneous. Until the error has actually been committed in this case, a federal question has not become involved. The presumption in all cases is that the courts of the states will do what the constitution and laws of the United States require, and removals cannot be effected to the courts of the United States because of fear that they will not.

The order remanding the cause is affirmed.


text: Talk:Chicago Company v. Wiggins Ferry Company (108 U.S. 18)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Express Companies' Cases

The Southern Express Company, an express carrier, filed its bill in equity against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, in the circuit court for the eastern district of Missouri, to enjoin the railway company from interfering with or disturbing the express company in the enjoyment of the facilities it then had for the transaction of its express business over the railway company's railroad, so long as the express company conformed to the regulations of the railway company and paid all lawful charges for the business. A preliminary injunction was asked for, and, in this connection, the bill prayed that if any dispute or disagreement should arise between the parties during the pendency of the suit, upon the question of compensation to be paid for transportation, the express company might be permitted to bring the same before the court for decision by way of an interlocutory application. On the filing of the bill the preliminary injunction was granted, which was afterwards modified in some particulars affecting the compensation to be paid and the mode of doing the business.

On the twenty-fifth of March, 1882, the court entered a decree containing the following provisions:

'(5) That it is the duty of the defendant to carry the     express matter of the plaintiff's company, and the messengers      or agents in charge thereof, at a just and reasonable rate of      compensation, and that such rate of compensation is to be      found and established as a unit, and is to include as well      the transportation of such messengers or agents as of the      express matter in their custody and under their control.'

'(10) Whereas, it is alleged by complainant that since the     commencement of this suit, and the service of the preliminary      order of injunction herein, the defendant has, in violation      of said injunction and of the rights of complainant, made      unjust discriminations against complainant, and has charged      complainant unjust and unreasonable rates for carrying      express matter, therefore it is ordered that complainant have      leave hereafter to apply for an investigation of these and      similar allegations, and for such order with respect thereto      as the facts, when ascertained, may justify, and for the      appointment of a master to take proof and report thereon.'

'(11) That the defendant, its officers, agents, servants, and     employes, and all persons acting under their authority, be,      and they hereby are, permanently and perpetually enjoined and      restrained from interfering with or disturbing in any manner      the enjoyment by the plaintiff of the facilities provided for      in this decree, to be accorded to it by the said defendant      upon its lines of railway, or such as have been heretofore      accorded to it for the transaction of the business of the plaintiff and of the      express business of the public confided to its care, and from      interfering with any of the express matter or messengers of      the plaintiff, and from excluding or ejecting any of its      express matter or messengers from the depot, trains, cars, or      lines of the said defendant, as the same are by this decree      directed to be permitted to be enjoyed and occupied by the      said plaintiff, and from refusing to receive and transport in      like manner as the said defendant is now transporting, or as      it may hereafter transport, for itself or for any other      express company over its lines of railway, the express matter      and messengers of the said plaintiff, and from interfering      with or disturbing the business of the said plaintiff in any      manner whatsoever; the said plaintiff paying for the services      performed for it by the defendant monthly, as herein      prescribed, at a rate not exceeding 50 per centum more than      its prescribed rates for the transportation of ordinary      freight, and not exceeding the rate at which it may itself      transport express matter on its own account, or for any other      express or other corporation, or for private individuals,      reserving to either party a right, at any time hereafter, to      apply to this court, according to the rules in equity      proceedings, for a modification of this decree as to the      measure of compensation herein prescribed.

'It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the     defendant pay the costs to be taxed herein, and that an      execution or a fee-bill issue therefor.'

On the twenty-ninth of March the railway company prayed an appeal, which was allowed, and, on the fifteenth of May, perfected by the approval of the necessary bond. During the same term of the court, but after the appeal bond was accepted and approved, the express company moved the court to grant it the benefit of a reference authorized by sections 5 and 10 of the decree, and a master was appointed to inquire into and report on the matters alleged.

The cause having been duly docketed here, the express company moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the decree appealed from is not a final decree.

John F. Dillon, and Wager Swayne, for appellant.

''Jas. O. Broadhead, S. F. Glover, John R. Shepley, S. M. Breckinridge, and Clarence A. Seward'', for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 27-28 intentionally omitted]

WAITE, C. J.

title: Express Companies' Cases


text: Talk:Express Companies' Cases

title: Talk:Express Companies' Cases


text:
Express Companies' Cases/Opinion of the Court

As we have had occasion to say at the present term, in Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 1 SUP. CT. REP. 15, and Grant v. ''Phoenix Ins. Co.'' Id. 414, a decree is final, for the purposes of an appeal to this court, when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. Under this rule we think the present decree is final. The suit was brought to compel the railway company to do the express company's business. The controversy was about the right of the express company to require this to be done on the payment of lawful charges. It was no part of the object of the suit to have it definitely settled what these charges should be for all time. The point was to establish the liability of the railway company to carry. The decree requires the carriage, and fixes the compensation to be paid. It adjudges costs against the railway company, and awards execution. Nothing more remains to be done by the court to dispose of the case. Inasmuch as the rates properly chargeable for transportation vary according to the circumstances, and what was reasonable when the decree was rendered may not always continue to be so, leave is given the parties to apply for a modification of what has been ordered in that particular, if they, or either of them, shall desire to do so. In effect, the decree requires the railway company to carry for reasonable rates, and fixes for the time being the maximum of what will be reasonable.

The controversy which the express company has had referred to the master, about the compensation to be paid for the transportation during the pendency of the suit, does not enter into the merits of the case. All such matters relate to the administration of the cause, and the accounts to be settled under the present order are of the same general character as those of a receiver who holds property awaiting the final disposition of a suit. They are incidents of the main litigation, but not necessarily a part of it. The supplemental order, made after the decree, relates only to the settlement of the accounts which accrued pending the suit.

The motion to dismiss is denied.


text: Talk:Express Companies' Cases/Opinion of the Court


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 32

HEADQUARTERS

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

Office of the Military Governor

Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 30 30 November 1945

  The name of the Intelligerce and Information Section of the Secretariat of the Government of Korea is hereby changed to the Puvlic Information Section of the Secretariat of the Government of Korea, effective as of 23 Novermber 1945.

 All duries, functions, records, property, and civilian personmel of the Central Liasion Office are hereby transferred to the Foreign Affairs Section of the Secretariat of the Government of Korea, Effective as of 15 Novermber 1945.

 All duries, functions, records, property, and civilian personmel of the Colonization Section of the Bureau of Agriculture and Commerce of the Government of Korea are hereby transferred to the Foreign Affairs Section of the Secretariat of the Government of Korea, effective as of 29 November 1945.

 * BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL

 * UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

A. V. ARNOLD

Major General, United States Army

Military Governor of Korea.

군정법령 제32호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 32


text:
Missouri Ry Co v. Dinsmore

''A. T. Britton, J. H. McGowan, Thos. J. Porter, John F. Dillon, Wager Swayne, and A. L. Williams'', for appellant.

Clarence A. Seward, for appellee.

WAITE, C. J.

title: Missouri Ry Co v. Dinsmore


text: Talk:Missouri Ry Co v. Dinsmore

title: Talk:Missouri Ry Co v. Dinsmore