text:
St. Paul Company v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

This is a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of Minnesota, and a motion is made to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. It will sufficiently appear in the opinion on the merits that the rights asserted by both parties are founded on acts of congress, and require the construction of those acts to determine their conflicting claims. The motion to dismiss, therefore, cannot prevail. The source of this controversy is to be found in the act of congress of March 3, 1857, (11 St. 195,) making grants of land to the territory of Minnesota and the state of Alabama to aid in the construction of railroads. The first section of this statute-the important one in the case-is as follows:

'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that there be, and is hereby, granted to the territory of Minnesota, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of railroads from Still water, by way of St. Paul and St. Anthony, to a point between the foot of Big Stone Lake and the mouth of Sioux Wood river, with a branch via Saint Cloud and Crow Wing to the navigable waters of the Red River of the North at such point as the legislature of said territory may determine; from St. Paul and from St. Anthony via Minneapolis to a convenient point of junction west of the Mississippi, to the southern boundary of the territory, in the direction of the mouth of the Big Sioux river, with a branch via Faribault to the north line of the state of Iowa, west of range sixteen; from Winona via St. Peter to a point on the Big Sioux river south of the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude; also from La Crescent via Target Lake, up the valley of Root river, to a point of junction with the last-mentioned road, east of range seventeen,-every alternate section of land designated by odd numbers, for six sections in width on each side of each of said roads and branches; but in case it shall appear that the United States have, when the lines or routes of said roads and branches are definitely fixed, sold any sections, or any parts thereof, granted as aforesaid, or that the right of pre-emption has attached to the same, then it shall be lawful for any agent or agents to be appointed by the governor of said territory or future state to select, subject to the approval of the secretary of the interior, from the lands of the United States, nearest to the tiers of sections above specified, so much lands in alternate sections or parts of sections as shall be equal to such lands as the United States have sold or otherwise appropriated, or to which the rights of pre-emption have attached as aforesaid; which lands (thus selected in lieu of those sold, and to which pre-emption rights have attached as aforesaid, together with the sections and parts of sections designated by odd numbers as aforesaid and appropriated as aforesaid) shall be held by the territory or future state of Minnesota for the use and purpose aforesaid: provided, that the land to be so located shall, in no case, be further than fifteen miles from the lines of said roads or branches, and selected for and on account of each of said roads or branches: provided further, that the lands hereby granted for and on account of said roads and branches, severally, shall be exclusively applied in the construction of that road for and on account of which such lands are hereby granted, and shall be disposed of only as the work progresses, and the same shall be applied to no other purpose whatsoever: and provided further, that any and all lands heretofore reserved to the United States by any act of congress, or in any other manner by competent authority, for the purpose of aiding in any object of internal improvement, or for any other purpose whatsoever, be, and the same are hereby, reserved to the United States from the operation of this act, except so far as it may be found necessary to locate the routes of said railroads and branches through such reserved lands, in which case the rights of way only shall be granted, subject to the approval of the president of the United States.'

The territory of Minnesota accepted this grant and conferred the right to the lands which came to it by means of its provisions on certain railroad corporations, which failed to perform their obligations to the state; by reason of which, and by the foreclosure of statutory mortgages, the state resumed control of the lands. It is unnecessary to pursue the various steps by which it was done, but it may be stated shortly that the right to build one of the roads mentioned in the act of congress, and to receive the land granted in aid of the enterprise, namely, from St. Paul and St. Anthony, by way of Minneapolis, to the southern boundary of the state, in the direction of the mouth of the Big Sioux river, became vested in the St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company, the plaintiff in error in this case. A similar right in regard to the road to be built from Winona via St. Peter to a point on the Big Sioux river, south of the forty-fifth parallel of latitude, and to the lands granted by the act in aid of it, became vested in the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company, the defendant in error. These companies have complied with the terms of the grant by congress and by the Minnesota legislature, and completed the construction of the roads which they undertook to build. They have also, each of them, received large quantities of the land appropriated by the act of March, 1857, and by subsequent acts on the same subject, and, at one point where the lines of the two roads crossed, so that the grant of lands to each of the roads ran into the other's limits, the conflict has been settled by adopting the principle of an equal undivided interest in the lands so situated.

The present controversy has relation to another part of the general course of these roads, where the lines of their location, not approaching each other so close that the limits of six miles within which the alternate six sections are to be first sought for interfere with each other, but so close that the fifteen miles limits, under the act of 1857, of selection for lands sold or preempted do overlap each other, as do also the limits of the extension of the grants under the acts of 1864 and 1865, to be hereafter considered. It is in regard to the lands to be selected under all these grants, and chiefly in regard to the claim of the St. Paul company, that, in search of its deficient lands in place, (using that phrase for lands within six miles of its road,) which had been disposed of before its location, it can, within its limit of fifteen miles under the original act, or its twenty miles under the subsequent acts, make those selections of odd-numbered sections within the six-mile limit of the Winona company, that the present controversy arises. The secretary of the interior, after a contest before the department between the parties to the present litigation, certified to the state of Minnesota, on May 14, 1874, a large quantity of lands, of odd-numbered sections, within the six-miles limit of the Winona road, as land properly selected by the St. Paul Company, to make up its deficiencies of lands within its own six-mile limits, and also to make up its deficiencies within the twenty-mile limits before referred to. A small part of these lands was within the fifteen-mile limits of the Winona road, and not within its six-mile limit. Thereupon the Winona Company brought the present suit, in the proper court of the state, to have a declaration of its rights in the lands desceibed in a schedule attached to the bill, as against the St. Paul Company and others, and to restrain them from receiving a patent or other evidences of title to the lands from the governor of the state. The local court granted relief, but whether to the full extent of the prayer of plaintiff we do not know; for, while the judgment of that court is before us, with a specific description of the pieces of land which it declares to be rightfully owned by the Winona Company, the schedules referred to in the original petition are not in the record. From that judgment the St. Paul Company appealed to the supreme court of the state, where it was affirmed, and then prosecuted this writ of error to that judgment of affirmance. The judge of the district court for Blue Earth county, in which the case was first tried, made an elaborate finding of the facts on which his judgment was rendered, and also an amended finding, and by these, so far as any controversy on the facts arises, the supreme court of Minnesota was governed and so is this court. These findings of fact are very full, and are intended to meet several aspects of the case, some of which are, in our view, immaterial to its decision.

The supreme court of Minnesota divides the lands in controversy in the suit into four classes, only the first two of which are in controversy here, namely: First. Those lying without the six, but within the fifteen, miles limits of the defendant, (the St. Paul Company,) and within the six miles limits of plaintiff, (the Winona Company.) Second. Those lying without the six miles limits of each company, within the fifteen miles limits of plaintiff, (the Winona Company,) and without the fifteen, but within the twenty, miles limits of the defendant, (the St. Paul Company.) The decision of that court gave the lands embraced in both these classes to the Winona Company, and the St. Paul Company assigns for error here that it is entitled to both classes.

The act of March 3, 1857, is of the class of acts which this court has repeatedly held to be a grant in proesenti. Its language is, 'that there be, and hereby is, granted to the territory of Minnesota * *  * every alternate section of land designated by odd numbers, for six sections in width on each side of said roads;' and though the roads may not be located through these lands for several years, whenever the location is made the alternate odd-numbered sections are thereby ascertained, and the title then perfected relates back to the statute; and as to all such sections, or parts of sections, not sold, or to which a pre-emption right has not attached at the time of this location, the title is valid from the date of the act. There are, perhaps, other lands reserved by the United States, and otherwise excepted out of the grant, which do not pass, but these are not material to the decision of the present case. In this act of March 3, 1857, and in the earlier act of May 15, 1856, granting lands to the state of Iowa for railroad purposes, and perhaps in other similar acts, congress has, in a single statute, made provisions for several different roads, with different places of beginning and ending, and running in different directions. These roads have, in every instance, been built by different corporations, organized under state laws, having no other connection with each other than this common source from which the lands are received, and the rights and duties arising under these acts of congress, and the acts of the state on the same subject. In each and all of these cases the date of the title and the source of the title is the same, because it arises under the same act of congress. It results from this that no priority of title can be obtained by the earlier location of the line of the road, provided this be done within the time limited for the forfeiture of the grant. Though one of the corporations to which the right to build a road and receive the grant has been given, may locate its road two or three years earlier than another company authorized to build another road under the same grant, there is no priority of title nor any priority of right to the lands found in place within the six miles limits by reason of this earlier location.

As we said before, the title to the alternate sections to be taken within the limit, when all the odd sections are granted, becomes fixed, ascertained, and perfect in each case by this location of the line of the road, and in case of each road the title relates back to the act of congress. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. ''Kansas Pac. R. Co. 97 U.S. 501; Van Wyck v. Knevals'', 106 U.S. 360; S.C.. 1 SUP. CT. REP. 336; Cedar R., etc., Co. v. Herring, 110 U.S. 27; S.C.. 3 SUP. CT. REP. 485; Grinnell v. Railroad Co. 103 U.S. 739. In cases where these lines of road do not cross each other, nor the limits within which the lands in place are found do not cross or overlap, not the limits within which lands in lieu of those sold are pre-empted are to be selected, this is a matter of no consequence. But in the administration of these land grants of the same date it has more than once occurred that, by reason of the lines crossing each other or the exterior limits of the lands in place coming so near as to overlap, the question of priority of right has arisen. In such cases it has been insisted very earnestly that priority of location gave priority of right to all the lands coming within the six-miles limits of the road so first located. Such is the argument of plaintiff in error in this case; and while there is here no lap or collision of the six-mile limits of these two roads as located and constructed as to lands now in question, it is much insisted that, the appellant's road having been first located, this carries with it the identity of the limits within which indemnity lands may be selected for those sold or pre-empted within its own six-mile limits; and as this indemnity limit extends over a part of appellee's six-mile limits, it is urged that this selection, though made years after both roads are located and built, is a right paramount to any right the appellee has within that limit, unless it be the road-bed and right of way. It is on this ground that the appellant here insists upon its right to enter the six-mile limits of the appellee's road wherever its indemnity limits of 15 miles and its extension limits of 20 miles overlap the six-mile limit of the latter, and, to the exclusion of the appellee, select there all the odd-numbered sections to which that company would otherwise be entitled.

We do not think this proposition is sound. It has been the practice and usage of the land department, when these conflicting lines relate to the limits within which the designated alternate odd-numbered sections are to be found, to hold that the respective companies take the lands so situated in undivided moieties, without regard to the date of the location of the lines of road. The parties to this litigation adjusted the conflict where their roads crossed on that basis, and the principle is a necessary result of the rule that no priority of right is secured by priority of location. We entertain no doubt of its soundness. It follows from these principles that the decision of the supreme court was right that the lands embraced in its first class, namely, those found within the six-mile limit of the road of the plaintiff below, the Winona Company, and without the six-mile limit of the defendant, were definitely fixed and ascertained to belong to the former when its line was located, and could not be taken to supply deficiences in the grant of the other company, whether its road was located first or last.

A careful examination of the list of lands decreed by the court to be the property of plaintiff below, demonstrates that much the larger proportion of the lands in controversy, probably nine-tenths of them, belong to this class, and are found within the limits of the Winona Company's six-mile primary grant. It is also to be remarked that this includes all the lands in controversy lying east of the west line of range 39.

With regard to the lands of the second class, as classified by the supreme court, the decision depends upon the right of selection by the respective parties, or of the state for them, of lands not found within the six-mile limit and the twenty-mile limit when their respective roads were located. By the act of 1857 these selections could only be made within fifteen miles of the line of the road, and the court says that the lands, which it now classifies together in this second group, are within the fifteen-mile or indemnity limit of the Winona road, and are not within the fifteen-mile or indemnity limit of the St. Paul road, but they are within the twenty-mile limit of the latter road. In regard to these lands, the court held that the right of the Winona Company was superior, under the act of 1857, to the St. Paul Company's claim, under the act of 1864, and that the latter had no other claim. This act of 1864 was one which, by its title, was passed to give to the state of Iowa lands in aid of a road from MaGregor, on the Mississippi river, to the western boundary of the state, and another road from Sioux City to the Minnesota line in the county of O'Brien. 15 St. 72. To this state was given the alternate sections, designated by odd numbers, for ten sections on each side of these roads. As the Sioux City road was probably intended to meet the road from St. Paul and St. Anthony towards the mouth of the Big Sioux river, at the line between the two states, congress by the seventh section enlarged the grant to this latter road to make it equal to that of the Iowa roads. This section reads as follows: 'Sec. 7. That there be, and is hereby, granted to the state of Minnesota, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad from St. Paul and St. Anthony, via Minneapolis, to a convenient point of junction west of the Mississippi, to the southern boundary of the state, in the direction of the mouth of the Big Sioux river, four additional alternate sections of land per mile, to be selected upon the same conditions, restrictions, and limitations as are contained in the act of congress entitled 'An act making a grant of lands to the territory of Minnesota, in alternate sections, to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said territory, and granting public lands, in alternate sections, to the state of Alabama to aid in the construction of a certain railroad in said state,' approved March third, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven: provided, that the land to be so located by virtue of this section may be selected within twenty miles of the line of said road, but in no case at a greater distance therefrom. Approved May 12, 1864.'

By the act of March 3, 1865, (13 St. 526,) it was enacted that the grant of lands to the state of Minnesota to aid in the construction of railroads, of March 3, 1857, 'shall be, and hereby is, increased to ten sections per mile for each of said roads and branches, subject to all limitations contained in said act and subsequent acts, and as hereinafter provided,' thus placing all the other Minnesota roads on an equality in that respect with the one from St. Paul and St. Anthony to the Iowa state line. This statute also requires that the first proviso to the first section of the act of 1857 be so amended as to read that the land so located shall in no case be further than 20 miles from the lines of said roads, and said lands shall in all cases be indicated by the secretary of the interior. It also provides that nothing herein contained shall interfere with any existing rights acquired under any law of congress heretofore enacted granting lands to the state of Minnesota to aid in the construction of railroads. There is nothing in either of these statutes which indicates or requires that the six-mile limit of the original grant is to be enlarged so that, within a limit of ten miles, all the odd sections fall immediately within the grant on the location of the road. Such language was used in the fourth section of the act concerning the Union Pacific Railroad in 1864, only a few weeks later than the act of that year now under consideration. There it was enacted that the words of the act of 1862 should be so changed as to change the original limits, and include within that grant the sections added to it by the amendment of 1864. U.S. v. Burlington & M. R. R. Co. 98 U.S. 334.

In addition to this significant fact, both the act of 1864 and of 1865 speak of the additional sections to be selected, a word wholly inapplicable to lands in place which are not ascertained by selection, but are fixed and determined by the location of the line of the road. The act of 1865, which is to be considered in pari materia on this point, provides that these lands shall be indicated by the secretary of the interior. What this word 'indicated' means may admit of some doubt, but taken in connection with the other two statutes, and other acts granting lands to aid in the construction of railroads, it probably means no more than what is expressed in the act of 1857, namely, that the selections of lieu lands shall be made by the governor or his agent and approved by the secretary. We think, therefore, that these additional lands granted to appellant, under which it claims the right to go into the limits of appellee's primary grant, are lands to be selected, and that some selection on the part of appellee or for its benefit must be shown. As to the lands in the second class, of the Minnesota supreme court, it is found as a fact, by the amended finding in which the attention of the court was specially turned to that matter, that no selection of any of them was ever made by defendant below, or by any one for that company. The language of the court in its supplementary finding of facts is: 'Neither the state nor the defendant, nor any agent of the state or of the defendant, ever selected for the defendant, or on account of the location or construction of its line of road, any of the lands in controversy in this action lying west of the west line of range (37) thirty-seven.'

As all the lands in controversy lying east of this line are included in the first class as being within the plaintiff's six-mile limits of land in place, and as no selection on behalf of defendant has ever been made of any of the lands west of that line, these two facts would seem to dispose of the whole controversy. For while the inferior court so far modified its first finding, namely, that both parties did, on the twenty-third day of May, 1872, present lists of all the lands in controversy to the local district land-officers as selections under their respective grants, as to say that no selections were ever presented by defendant for any lands west of range 37, it left the fact that lists of selection for these latter were presented by plaintiff to stand, and also of the payment of the office fees, and that the lists were certified to the department. There was then a selection of the lands included in this class made by plaintiff or for its benefit on the twenty-third of May, 1872, and no selection of them ever made by or on behalf of defendant. The time when the right to lands becomes vested, which are to be selected within given limits under these land grants, whether the selection is in lieu of lands deficient within the primary limits of the grant, or of lands which, for other reasons, are to be selected within certain secondary limits, is different in regard to those that are ascertained within the primary limits by the location of the line of the road. In Ryan v. Railroad Co. 99 U.S. 382, this court, speaking of a contest for lands of this class, said: 'It was within the secondary or indemnity territory where that deficiency was to be supplied. The railroad company had not, and could not have, any claim to it until specially selected, as it was for that purpose;' and the reason given for this is that 'when the road was located and maps were made, the right of the company to the odd sections first named became fixed and absolute. With respect to the lieu lands, as they are called, the right was only a float, and attached to no specified tracts until the selection was actually made in the manner prescribed.'

The same idea is suggested, though not positively affirmed, in the case of Grinnell v. Railroad Co. 103 U.S. 739. In the case of Cedar Rapids R. Co. v. Herring this principle became the foundation, after much consideration, of the judgment of the court rendered at the last term, (110 U.S. 27; S.C.. 3 SUP. CT. REP. 485;) and the same principle is announced at this term in the case of ''Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.'' 112 U.S. 414; S.C.. ante, 208. The reason of this is that, as no vested right can attach to the lands in place (the odd-numbered sections within six miles of each side of the road) until these sections are ascertained and identified by a legal location of the line of the road, so in regard to the lands to be selected within a still larger limit, their identification cannot be known until the selection is made. It may be a long time after the line of the road is located before it is ascertained how many sections, or parts of sections, within the primary limits, have been lost by sale or pre-emption. It may be still longer before a selection is made to supply this loss.

The plaintiff in error insists that the map of its line of road was filed in 1859. The court of original jurisdiction finds that, up to the time of the trial in October, 1878, a period of nearly 20 years, no selection of these lands had ever been made by that company, or any one for it. Was there a vested right in this company, during all this time, to have not only these lands, but all the other odd sections within the 20-mile limits on each side of the line of the road, await its pleasure? Had the settlers in that populous region no right to buy of the government, because the company might choose to take them, or might, after all this delay, find out that they were necessary to make up deficiencies in other quarters? How long were such lands to be withheld from market, and withdrawn from taxation, and forbidden to cultivation?

It is true that in some cases the statute requires the land department to withdraw the lands within these secondary limits from market, and in others the officers do so voluntarily. This, however, is to give the company a reasonable time to ascertain their deficiencies and make their selections. It by no means implies a vested right in said company, inconsistent with the right of the government to sell, or of any other company to select, which has the same right of selection within those limits. Each company having this right of selection in such case, and having no other right, is bound to exercise that right with reasonable diligence; and when it is exercised in accordance with the statute, it becomes entitled to the lands so selected. The unascertained float then becomes a vested right to an identified tract of land. In this case, and for these reasons, priority of selection secures priority of right. The judgment of the supreme court as to the land in this, its second class, is correct, whatever may have been its reasons for it. It is no answer to this to say that the secretary of the interior certified these lands to the state for the use of the appellant. It is manifest that he did so under a mistake of the law, namely, that appellant, having made the earlier location of its road through these lands, became entitled to satisfy all its demands, either for lieu lands or for the extended grant of 1864, out of any odd sections within 20 miles of that location, without regard to its proximity to the line of the other road. We have already shown that such is not the law, and this erroneous decision of his cannot deprive the Winona Company of rights which became vested by its selection of those lands. Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 80; Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 102; Shepley v. Cowen, 91 U.S. 340; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 536.

We see no error in the judgment of the supreme court of Minnesota, and it is accordingly affirmed.


text: Talk:St. Paul Company v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

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


text:
St. Paul Company v. United States

J. F. Farnsworth, for appellant.

''Sol. Gen. Phillips'', for appellee.

MATTHEWS, J.

title: St. Paul Company v. United States


text: Talk:St. Paul Company v. United States

title: Talk:St. Paul Company v. United States


text:
St. Paul Company v. United States/Opinion of the Court

On the eighth day of October, 1875, the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company entered into a contract in writing with the United States, acting by the postmaster general, for carrying the mails between St. Paul and Duluth for an agreed compensation of $13,859.97 per annum. On the twentieth day of October, 1876, the postmaster general gave notice to the company of a reduction in its compensation at the rate of $2,772 per annum, in accordance with the post-office appropriation act of July 12, 1876, and on the twenty-eighth day of August, 1878, a further decrease was notified by the department under the post-office appropriation act of June 30, 1878, amounting to $498.96 per annum. The total reduction amounted to $12,141.36, of which $3,686.76 was made prior to June 12, 1877, and $8,454.60 after that date. The service rendered during the first period was by the contractor, the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company, during the latter period, by the appellant, the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company, claiming to be the successor to all rights of the former under the contract. Its title thereto arises under a judicial sale by virtue of a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, foreclosing a mortgage given by the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company to trustees to secure its bonds, dated January 1, 1869. This mortgage professes to convey the lands of the mortgagor, to which it was or might be entitled under grants from the United States and the state of Minnesota, and its railroad constructed or to be constructed, right of way, and all tracks, bridges, viaducts, culverts, fences, depots, station-houses, and other similar houses, superstructions, erections, and fixtures held or to be acquired for the use of the railway, or in connection therewith, or the business thereof; also, all locomotives, tenders, cars, rolling stock, or equipment, and all machinery, tools, implements, etc., and also all franchises connected with or relating to said railway and said line of telegraph, and all corporate franchises of any nature, including the franchise to be a corporation, and all endowments, income, and advantages, etc., to the above-mentioned lands, railroad, or property belonging or appertaining, and the income, rents, issues, and profits thereof.

The decree for sale directs the sale of the mortgaged premises, and a sale thereof was confirmed by the court and a conveyance made to the appellant, a corporation organized by the purchasers for that purpose, under the laws of Minnesota, on June 27, 1878. In respect to the claim of the appellant for so much of the reduction made by the post-office department as relates to the service performed prior to the sale by the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company, it would be governed by the decision of this court in the cases of ''Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. 104 U.S. 680, and Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.'' Id. 687, if the corporation with whom the contract was made were the claimant; but we do not find in the mortgage, or decree for sale, any terms of description, as to the property and interests conveyed, sufficient to pass the interest therein of the original company to the purchasers at the sale. The same remark applies to the contract itself. The appellant, by virtue of the sale of the railroad and property rights mortgaged, did not become assignee of the contract between the United States and the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company, and can claim nothing as such in this suit. There are no words of description in the mortgage which include it. The fact that service was performed in carrying the mail, subsequent to the sale, by the appellant, does not commit the government to a recognition of the contract as if made with it. No such recognition is found as a fact by the court of claims, and it is apparent, from the facts found, that the post-office department treated the service performed by the appellant as subject to regulation according to the terms of the act of June 17, 1878, which justified the reduction complained of. If it were otherwise, however, the appellant's case must still fail. That part of its claim for services rendered prior to the sale by the Lake Superior & Mississippi River Railroad Company falls within the prohibition of section 3477, Rev. St., which provides that 'all transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States, or any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim, or any part of share thereof, shall be absolutely null and void, unless they are freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof.'

In Erwin v. U.S. 97 U.S. 392, it was held that an assignment by operation of law to an assignee in bankruptcy was not within the prohibition of the statute; and in Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U.S. 556, a voluntary assignment by an insolvent debtor, for the benefit of creditors, was held valid to pass the title to a claim against the United States. But, in our opinion, the present case is not within the principle of these exceptions, but falls within the purview of the prohibition. It is a voluntary transfer, by way of mortgage, for the security of a debt, and finally completed and made absolute by a judicial sale. If the statute does not apply to such cases, it would be difficult to draw a line of exclusion which leaves any place for the operation of the prohibition. So, the transfer, by the same proceeding, of the contract itself, so as to entitle the assignee to perform the service and claim the compensation stipulated for, is forbidden by section 3737, Rev. St. That section is as follows: 'Sec. 3737. No contract or order, or any interest therein, shall be transferred by the party to whom such contract or order is given to any other party, and any such transfer shall cause the annulment of the contract or order transferred, so far as the United States are concerned.' The explicit provisions of this statute do not require any comment. No explanation could make it plainer. The judgment of the court of claims is accordingly affirmed.


text: Talk:St. Paul Company v. United States/Opinion of the Court


text:
Peugh v. Porter

S. Shellabarger and J. M. Wilson, for appellant.

S. V. White, for appellees.

MATTHEWS, J.

title: Peugh v. Porter


text: Talk:Peugh v. Porter

title: Talk:Peugh v. Porter


text:
Peugh v. Porter/Opinion of the Court

Several awards were made by the Mexican claims commission under the treaty between the United States and Mexico of July 4, 1868, in favor of claimants, representatives respectively of three American citizens, Parsons, Conrow, and Standish, which amounted in the aggregate to $143,812.32. Of this one-half was paid to the claimants and the other half remained with their consent under the control of the secretary of state, to be paid to the agents and counsel of the claimants according to their respective rights and interests. Several bills in equity to determine these interests were filed in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, to one of which Peugh, the appellant, was made a defendant, and appearing therein also filed a cross-bill on his own behalf. On final hearing all the bills and cross-bills were dismissed, Peugh alone appealing. The adverse interest in the litigation is represented by White, who claims as a purchaser of the whole fund. The object of the bill of Peugh was to obtain a declaration of the fact and extent of his interest in the fund, and to enjoin the defendant White from demanding and receiving more than what should remain after satisfaction of the appellant's claim. The secretary of state was made a party defendant, but did not appear, and no relief is asked against him. The jurisdiction of the court is invoked for the single purpose of determining the relative equities of the parties in the fund, and giving effect to them by an appropriate decree.

The history of the case, so far as material to the determination of the controversy, we gather from a volume of testimony, not without conflict, and find to be as follows:

The three claimants severally employed Richard H. Musser, of St. Louis, to prosecute their claims, and, agreeing that he should pay all expenses and receive half the net proceeds of the claims after deducting the expenses of their prosecution, executed and delivered to him full powers of attorney, with power of substitution. Knowledge of the existence of these claims had been first communicated to Musser by Richard H. Porter, and the agreement between them was that each should have an equal interest in the prosecution and proceeds of the claims in case of recovery. Accordingly, Porter entered into an agreement with the appellant, Peugh, and C. E. Rittenhouse, a copy of which is as follows:

'Memorandum of agreement, made by and between Richard H.     Porter, of St. Louis, Mo., and Charles E. Rittenhouse and      Samuel A. Peugh, of this city of Washington, District of      Columbia.

'Whereas, said Richard H. Porter, acting as attorney for     Richard H. Musser by authority of substitution from said      Musser, who, acting in behalf as attorney in fact for Mildred      Standish, widow of Austin M. Standish; Mrs. _____ Conrow,      widow of Aaron H. Conrow, and _____ Parsons, father of Monroe      M. Parsons, and guardian of the son, Monroe M. Parsons, above      named, all of the state of Missouri; and whereas, said Porter      is desirous of the aid of said Rittenhouse and Peugh in a      certain advance of money to the said Porter, to enable him to      procure the testimony to sustain the claims these other      certain-named parties have against the government of Mexico      for robbery and destruction of the lives of those whom they      represent under the treaty made between the United States and      the republic of Mexico on the fourth day of July, 1868, and      also the prosecution of said claim before a commission      appointed by and between the two said republics, and now in      session in the city of Washington, D. C.; and whereas, said      Porter being, in his agreement with the said parties claiming      against Mexico as aforesaid, entitled to one-half of any      amount to which he may establish claim before said      commission, he hereby agrees to, and does hereby, transfer      and assign, in consideration of the premises, unto the said      Rittenhouse and Peugh one-half of the amount he is entitled      to receive under and by virtue of his authority in the      premises; the said last-named parties to be at the expense of      prosecuting the said claims before the commission herein      named, but the testimony to be produced to them by the said      parties.

'In testimony whereof, we, and each of us, have hereunto  set our hands and seals this sixteenth day of February,   1870.

[Signed]

'R. H. PORTER. [Seal.]

'S. A. PEUGH. [Seal.]

'C. E. RITTENHOUSE. [Seal.]'

At the date of the execution of this paper Porter had not in fact been substituted by Musser, under his powers, in writing, but subsequently, on July 4, 1870, Musser did so, by writing indorsed on the letters of attorney given by the claimants; and Porter himself subsequently, in 1874, obtained direct powers from at least two of them. Peugh and Rittenhouse entered upon the performance of their engagements with Porter in pursuance of the agreement of February 16, 1870, but Rittenhouse subsequently released his interest therein to Porter, by the following instrument:

'WASHINGTON, September 2, 1872.

'In consideration of said Porter's having paid certain     expenses on the claim of Mrs. Hamilton for $35,000, now      pending before the southern claims commission, one-half of      which he demands of me on account of my interest therein, I      hereby relinquish to him, said Porter, all my right, title,      and interest in and to the several claims referred to in the      foregoing agreement, and release him from his obligation to      repay me the sum advanced by me for my aforesaid interest in      these Mexican claims.

[Signed] 'C. E. RITTENHOUSE.'

In the mean time Peugh and Rittenhouse had employed Charles H. Winder as counsel, for a fixed compensation, payable out of their proportion of the awards, to present the case to the commission in argument; and, after the relinquishment by Rittenhouse of his interest in the matter, Peugh and Winder continued to co-operate in the prosecution of the claims. Their services in that behalf were well known to Porter and to Musser, as well as the particular arrangements under which they were rendered. Indeed, the latter, by a letter to Rittenhouse, dated February 18, 1871, expressly ratified the contract made by Porter with Peugh and Rittenhouse. Mr. Winder, the record abundantly shows, under his employment by Peugh, and a distinct agreement directly with Porter, made afterwards, rendered constant and evidently very valuable and efficient services in the prosecution of the claims until the awards were finally made. And, in respect to the services rendered by Peugh, which were also continuous during the entire proceeding, Mr. Winder, whose statements seem to be entitled to full credit, testifies as follows: 'With regard to the statements contained in the eighth paragraph of Mr. Peugh's amended cross-bill, in cause of McManus v. White et al., No. 6,382, I would say that I have no knowledge of the amount of money Mr. Peugh may have spent in the matter; but, as attorney in fact and agent, he was industrious and persistent in his efforts to procure testimony and to forward the proceedings before the commission. I think he was especially diligent in getting the parties in Missouri to furnish the necessary pleadings in the case,-I mean memorials,-and also the testimony upon which the cases were adjudicated. My belief at the time was that it was in a great measure due to his efforts that the testimony was received in time to meet the requirements of the commission in relation to the closing of the cases on the first of April, 1872. I don't know of any duties strictly as counsel that were performed by him.'

On the whole, we think it is satisfactorily shown that Peugh's services were as valuable and meritorious in the successful prosecution of these claims as those of any other person engaged in it, and that they were rendered in pursuance of his agreement with Porter, confirmed by Musser, and assented to by all parties in interest. The claim of White is founded upon a purchase made by him from Musser and Porter, and from others claiming under the former, whose rights arose subsequent in time to the contract between Porter and Peugh and Rittenhouse, and White's purchase being made after Peugh's services had been fully rendered. Apart from the merits, objection is made to a decree in favor of Peugh, on the ground that he has no equitable lien on the fund in controversy, within the decisions of Wright v. Ellison, 1 Wall. 16, and Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 447. The rule, as declared in the first of these cases, is that 'it is indispensable to a lien thus created that there should be a distinct appropriation of the fund by the debtor, and an agreement that the creditor should be paid out of it.' 1 Wall. 22. Here, as between Musser and Porter on the one hand, and Peugh on the other, there were words in the agreement of express transfer and assignment of the very fund now in dispute, though not then in existence, which, in contemplation of equity, is not material. And if that was not the case in the powers of attorney given by the claimants to Musser and Porter, it is not pertinent to this controversy; for the principals have voluntarily permitted the one-half of the fund to remain unclaimed by them, in order that their agents and attorneys may have it apportioned among themselves according to their respective rights.

It is further objected that Peugh's rights under the contract of February 16, 1870, were lost by the release of Rittenhouse, their interest being joint. If this were so at law, it would not be so in equity contrary to the intention of the parties; but here there was an express and distinct recognition of the several interest of Peugh in the contract, and of his right to proceed in its performance after the release of his co-contractor. His services were rendered and were accepted, and he is entitled to his compensation in accordance with his agreement. There should have been a decree in his favor on his cross-bill for the one-fourth of the fund, subject to the claim of the estate of Winder, who is deceased, for the amount of his compensation under his agreement with Peugh and Rittenhouse. The decree of the supreme court of the District of Columbia is accordingly reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to render a decree in conformity with this opinion; and it is accordingly so ordered.

title: Peugh v. Porter/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Peugh v. Porter/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/514

 328 couldn't help himself, but was forced to take her for better for worse. But angry he was, that any one can forgive him, and so he had the brother thrown into a pit full of snakes.

Well, the first Thursday evening after the wedding, about midnight, in came a lovely lady into the palacekitchen, and begged the kitchen-maid, who slept there, so prettily to lend her a brush. That she got, and then she brushed her hair, and as she brushed, down dropped gold. A little dog was at her heel, and to him she said,—

"Run out, Little Flo, and see if it will soon be day."

This she said three times, and the third time she sent the dog it was just about the time the dawn begins to peep, Then she had to go, but as she went she sang,—

"Now I come twice more, and then never again."

So next morning the kitchen-maid told what she had seen and heard, and the King said he'd watch himself next Thursday night in the kitchen, and see if it were true, and as soon as it got dark, out he went into the kitchen to the kitchen-maid. But all he could do, and however much he rubbed his eyes and tried to keep himself awake, it was no good; for the Bushy Bride chaunted and sang till his eyes closed, and so when the lovely lady came, there he slept and snored. This time, too, as before, she borrowed a brush, and brushed her hair till the gold dropped, and sent her dog out three times, and as soon as it was gray dawn, away she went singing the same words, and adding,—


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/515

 Rh "Now I come once more, and then never again."

The third Thursday evening the King said he would watch again; and he set two men to hold him, one under each arm, who were to shake and jog him every time he wanted to fall asleep; and two men he set to watch his Bushy Bride. But when the night wore on, the Bushy Bride began to chaunt and sing, so that his eyes began to wink, and his head hung down on his shoulders. Then in came the lovely lady, and got the brush and brushed her hair, till the gold dropped from it; after that she sent Little Flo out again to see if it would soon be day, and this she did three times. The third time it began to get gray in the east; then she sang—

"Now I come back never more," she said, and went towards the door. But the two men who held the King under the arms clenched his hands together, and put a knife into his grasp; and so, somehow or other, they got him to cut her in her little finger, and drew blood. Then the true bride was freed, and the King woke up, and she told him now the whole story, and how her stepmother and sister had deceived her. So the King sent at once and took her brother out of the pit of snakes, and the adders hadn't done him the least harm, but the stepmother and her daughter were thrown into it in his stead.

And now no one can tell how glad the King was to be rid of that ugly Bushy Bride, and to get a Queen who was


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/516

 330 so lovely and bright as the day itself. So the true wedding was held, and every one talked of it over seven kingdoms; and then the King drove to church in their coach, and little Ho went inside with them too, and when the blessing was given they drove back again, and after that I saw nothing more of them.

BOOTS AND HIS BROTHERS.

on a tune there was a man who had three sons, Peter, Paul, and John. John was Boots, of course, because he was the youngest. I can't say the man had anything more than these three sons, for he hadn't one penny to rub against another; and so he told his sons over and over again they must go out into the world and try to earn their bread, for there at home there was nothing to be looked for but starving to death.

Now, a bit off the man's cottage was the King's palace, and you must know, just against the King's windows a great oak had sprung up, which was so stout and big that it took away all the light from the King's palace. The King had said he would give many, many dollars to the man who could fell the oak, but no one was man enough for that, for as soon as ever one chip of the oak's trunk flew off, two grew in its stead. A well, too, the King had dug, which was to hold water for the whole year; for all his neighbours had wells, but he hadn't any, and that he thought a shame. So the King said he would give any one who could dig him such a well as would hold water


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/517

 Rh for a whole year round, both money and goods; but no one could do it, for the King's palace lay high, high up on a hill, and they hadn't dug a few inches before they came upon the living rock.

But as the King had set his heart on having these two things done, he had it given out far and wide, in all the churches of his kingdom, that he who could fell the big oak in the King's courtyard, and get him a well that would hold water the whole year round, should have the Princess and half the kingdom. Well, you may easily know there was many a man who came to try his luck; but for all their hacking and hewing, and all their digging and delving, it was no good. The oak got bigger and stouter at every stroke, and the rock didn't get softer either. So one day those three brothers thought they'd set off and try too, and their father hadn't a word against it; for even if they didn't get the Princess and half the kingdom, it might happen they might get a place somewhere with a good master; and that was all he wanted. So when the brothers said they thought of going to the palace, their father said "yes" at once. So Peter, Paul, and Jack went off from their home.

"Well, they hadn't gone far before they came to a fir-wood, and up along one side of it rose a steep hill-side, and as they went, they heard something hewing and hacking away up on the hill among the trees.

"I wonder now what it is that is hewing away up yonder," said Jack.

"You're always so clever with your wonderings," said Peter and Paul both at once. "What wonder is it, pray, that a woodcutter should stand and hack up on a hill-side?"


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/518

 332 "Still, I 'd like to see what it is, after all," said Jack; and up he went.

"Oh, if you're such a child, 'twill do you good to go and take a lesson," bawled out his brothers after him.

But Jack didn't care for what they said; he climbed the steep hill-side towards where the noise came, and when he reached the place, what do you think he saw? why, an axe that stood there hacking and hewing, all of itself, at the trunk of a fir.

"Good day!" said Jack. "So you stand here all alone and hew, do you?"

"Yes; here I've stood and hewed and hacked a long long time, waiting for you," said the Axe.

"Well, here I am at last," said Jack, as he took the axe, pulled it off its haft, and stuffed both head and haft into his wallet.

So when he got down again to his brothers, they began to jeer and laugh at him.

"And now, what funny thing was it you saw up yonder on the hill-side?" they said.

"Oh, it was only an axe we heard," said Jack.

So when they had gone a bit farther, they came under a steep spur of rock, and up there they heard something digging and shovelling.

"I wonder now," said Jack, "what it is digging and shovelling up yonder at the top of the rock."

"Ah, you're always so clever with your wonderings," said Peter and Paul again, "as if you'd never heard a woodpecker hacking and pecking at a hollow tree."

"Well, well," said Jack, "I think it would be a piece of fun just to see what it really is."


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/519

 Rh And so off he set to climb the rock, while the others laughed and made game of him. But he didn't care a bit for that; up he clomb, and when he got near the top, what do you think he saw? Why, a spade that stood there digging and delving.

"Good day!" said Jack. "So you stand here all alone, and dig and delve!"

"Yes, that's what I do," said the Spade, "and that's what I've done this many a long day, waiting for you."

"Well, here I am," said Jack again, as he took the spade and knocked it off its handle, and put it into his wallet, and then down again to his brothers.

"Well, what was it, so rare and strange," said Peter and Paul, "that you saw up there at the top of the rock? "

"Oh," said Jack, "nothing more than a spade; that was what we heard."

So they went on again a good bit, till they came to a brook. They were thirsty, all three, after their long walk, and so they lay down beside the brook to have a drink.

"I wonder now," said Jack, "where all this water comes from."

"I wonder if you're right in your head," said Peter and Paul in one breath. "If you're not mad already, you'll go mad very soon, with your wonderings. Where the brook comes from, indeed! Have you never heard how water rises from a spring in the earth?"

"Yes; but still I've a great fancy to see where this brook comes from," said Jack.

So up alongside the brook he went, in spite of all that his brothers bawled after him. Nothing could stop him. On he went. So, as he went up and up, the brook got


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/520

 334 smaller and smaller, and at last, a little way farther on, what do you think he saw? Why, a great walnut, and out of that the water trickled.

"Good-day!" said Jack again. "So you lie here, and trickle and run down all alone?"

"Yes, I do," said the Walnut; and here have I trickled and run this many a long day, waiting for you."

"Well, here I am," said Jack, as he took up a lump of moss, and plugged up the hole, that the water mightn't run out. Then he put the walnut into his wallet, and ran down to his brothers.

"Well, now," said Peter and Paul, "have you found out where the water comes from? A rare sight it must have been!"

"Oh, after all, it was only a hole it ran out of," said Jack; and so the others laughed and made game of him again, but Jack didn't mind that a bit.

"After all, I had the fun of seeing it," said he.

So when they had gone a bit farther, they came to the King's palace; but as every one in the kingdom had heard how they might win the Princess and half the realm, if they could only fell the big oak and dig the "King's well, so many had come to try their luck that the oak was now twice as stout and big as it had been at first, for two chips grew for every one they hewed out with their axes, as I daresay you all bear in mind. So the King had now laid it down as a punishment, that if any one tried and couldn't fell the oak, he should be put on a barren island, and both his ears were to be clipped off. But the two brothers didn't let themselves be scared by that; they were quite sure they could fell the oak, and Peter, as he


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/521

 Rh was eldest, was to try his hand first; but it went with him as with all the rest who had hewn at the oak; for every chip he cut out, two grew in its place. So the King's men seized him, and clipped off both his ears, and put him out on the island.

Now Paul, he was to try his luck, but he fared just the same; when he had hewn two or three strokes, they began to see the oak grow, and so the King's men seized him too, and clipped his ears, and put him out on the island; and his ears they clipped closer, because they said he ought to have taken a lesson from his brother.

So now Jack was to try.

"If you will look like a marked sheep, we're quite ready to clip your ears at once, and then you'll save yourself some bother," said the King, for he was angry with him for his brothers' sake.

"Well, I'd like just to try first," said Jack, and so he got leave. Then he took his axe out of his wallet and fitted it to its haft.

"Hew away!" said he to his axe; and away it hewed, making the chips fly again, so that it wasn't long before down came the oak.

When that was done, Jack pulled out his spade, and fitted it to its handle.

"Dig away!" said he to the spade; and so the spade began to dig and delve till the earth and rock flew out in splinters, and so he had the well soon dug out, you may think.

And when he had got it as big and deep as he chose, Jack took out his walnut and laid it in one corner of the well, and pulled the plug of moss out.


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/522

 336 "Trickle and run," said Jack; and so the nut trickled and ran, till the water gushed out of the hole in a stream, and in a short time the well was brimfull.

Then Jack had felled the oak which shaded the King's palace, and dug a well in the palace-yard, and so he got the Princess and half the kingdom, as the King had said; but it was lucky for Peter and Paul that they had lost their ears, else they had heard each hour and day how every one said, "Well, after all, Jack wasn't so much out of his mind when he took to wondering."

BIG PETER AND LITTLE PETER.

on a time there were two brothers, both named Peter, and so the elder was called Big Peter, and the younger Little Peter. When his father was dead, Big Peter took him a wife with lots of money, but Little Peter was at home with his mother, and lived on her means till he grew up. So when he was of age he came into his heritage, and then Big Peter said he mustn't stay any longer in the old house, and eat up his mother's substance; 'twere better he should go out into the world and do something for himself.

Yes; Little Peter thought that no bad plan; so he bought himself a fine horse and a load of butter and cheese, and set off to the town; and with the money he got for his goods he bought brandy, and wine, and beer, and as soon as ever he got home again it was one round of


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/523

 Rh and merry-making; he treated all his old friends and neighbours, and they treated him again; and so he lived in fun and frolic so long as his money lasted. But when his last shilling was spent, and Little Peter hadn't a penny in his purse, he went back home again to his old mother, and brought nothing with him but a calf. When the spring caine he turned out the calf and let it graze on Big Peter's meadow. Then Big Peter got cross and killed the calf at one blow; but Little Peter, he flayed the calf, and hung the skin up in the bath-room till it was thoroughly dry; then he rolled it up, stuffed it into a sack, and went about the country trying to sell it; but wherever he came, they only laughed at him, and said they had no need of smoked calfskin. So when he had walked on a long way, he came to a farm, and there he turned in and asked for a night's lodging.

"Nay, nay," said the Goody, "I can't give you lodging, for my husband is up at the shieling on the hill, and I'm alone in the house. You must just try to get shelter at our next neighbour's; but still if they won't take you in, you may come back, for you must have a house over your head, come what may."

So as Little Peter passed by the parlour window, he saw that there was a priest in there, with whom the Goody was making merry, and she was serving him up ale and brandy, and a great bowl of custard. But just as the priest had sat down to eat and drink, back came the husband, and as soon as ever the Goody heard him in the passage, she was not slow; she took the bowl of custard, and put it under the kitchen grate, and the ale and brandy into the cellar, and as for the priest, she locked him up in a great


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/524

 338 chest which stood there. All this Little Peter stood outside and saw, and as soon as the hushand was well inside, Little Peter went up to the door and asked if he might have a night's lodging.

"Yes, to be sure," said the man, "we'll take you in;" and so he begged Little Peter to sit down at the table and eat. Yes, Little Peter sat down, and took his calfskin with him, and laid it down at his feet.

So, when they had sat a while, Little Peter began to mutter to his skin.

"What are you saying now? can't you hold your tongue?" said Little Peter.

"Who is it you're talking with?" asked the man.

"Oh," answered Little Peter, "it's only a spae-maiden whom I've got in my calfskin."

"And pray what does she spae?" asked the man again.

"Why, she says that no one can say their isn't a bowl of custard standing under the grate," said Little Peter.

"She may spae as much as she pleases," answered the man, "but we haven't had custards in this house for a year and a day."

But Peter begged him only to look, and he did so; and he found the custard-bowl. So they began to make merry with it, but just as they sat and took their ease, Peter muttered something again to the calfskin.

"Hush!" he said, "can't you hold your jaw?"

"And pray what does the spae-maiden say now?" asked the man.

"Oh, she says no one can say there isn't brandy and


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/525

 Rh ale standing just under the trap-door which goes down into the cellar," answered Peter.

"Well, if she never spaed wrong in her life, she spaes wrong now," said the man. "Brandy and ale! why, I can't call to mind the day when we had such things in the house!"

"Just look," said Peter; and the man did so, and there, sure enough, he found the drink, and you may fancy how merry and jolly he was.

"What did you give for that spae-maiden?" said the man, "for I must have her, whatever you ask for her."

"She was left me by my father," said Peter, "and so she didn't cost me much. To tell you the truth, I've no great mind to part with her, but, all the same, you may have her, if you'll let me have, instead of her, that old chest that stands in the parlour yonder."

"The chest's locked and the key lost," screamed the old dame.

"Then I'll take it without the key, that I will," said Peter.

And so he and the man soon struck the bargain. Peter got a rope instead of the key, and the man helped him to get the chest up on his back, and then off he stumped with it. So when he had walked a bit he came on to a bridge, and under the bridge ran a river in such a headlong stream, it leapt, and foamed, and made such a roar, that the bridge shook again.

"Ah!" said Peter, "that brandy that brandy! Now I can feel I've had a drop too much. What's the good of my dragging this chest about? If I hadn't been drunk and mad, I shouldn't have gone and swopped away my


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/526

 340 spae-maiden for it. But now this chest shall go out into the river this very minute."

And with that he began to untie the rope.

"Au! Au! do for God's sake set me free. The priest's life is at stake; he it is whom you have got in the chest," screamed out some one inside.

"This must be the Deil himself," said Peter, "who wants to make me believe he has turned priest; but whether he makes himself priest or clerk, out he goes into the river."

"Oh, no! oh no! "roared out the priest. "The parish priest is at stake. He was on a visit to the Goody for her soul's health, but her husband is rough and wild, and so she had to hide me in the chest. Here I have a gold watch and a silver watch in my fob; you shall have them both, and eight hundred dollars beside, if you will only let me out."

"Nay, nay," said Peter; "is it really your reverence after all?" and with that he took up a stone, and knocked the lid of the chest to pieces. Then the priest got out, and off he set home to his parsonage both fast and light, for he no longer had his watches and money to weigh him down.

As for Little Peter, he went home again, and said to Big Peter, "There was a good sale to-day for calfskins at the market."

"Why, what did you get for your tattered one, now? asked Big Peter.

"Quite as much as it was worth. I got eight hundred dollars for it, but bigger and stouter calves' skins fetched twice as much," said Little Peter, and showed his dollars.

"'Twas well you told me this," answered Big Peter,


text: Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/630


text: Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/631


text:
Author:Sydney Robert Fremantle

Works

 * (Naval guns and Gunnery)

title: Author:Sydney Robert Fremantle


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/28

10 Monastrians, of all shades of thought in politics, had agreed in threatening me with many ludicrous misadventures, and with sudden death in many surprising forms. Cold, wolves, robbers, above all the nocturnal practical joker, were daily and eloquently forced on my attention. Yet in these vaticinations, the true, patent danger was left out. Like Christian, it was from my pack I suffered by the way. Before telling my own mishaps, let me, in two words, relate the lesson of my experience. If the pack is well strapped at the ends, and hung at full length—not doubled, for your life—across the pack-saddle, the traveller is safe. The saddle will certainly not fit, such is the imperfection of our transitory life; it will assuredly topple and tend to overset; but there are stones on every roadside, and a man soon learns the art of correcting any tendency to overbalance with a well-adjusted stone.

On the day of my departure I was up a little after five; by six, we began to load the donkey; and ten minutes after, my hopes were in the dust. The pad would not stay on Modestine's back for


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/29

Rh half a moment. I returned it to its maker, with whom I had so contumelious a passage that the street outside was crowded from wall to wall with gossips looking on and listening. The pad changed hands with much vivacity; perhaps it would be more descriptive to say that we threw it at each other's heads; and, at any rate, we were very warm and unfriendly, and spoke with a deal of freedom.

I had a common donkey pack-saddle—a barde, as they call it—fitted upon Modestine; and once more loaded her with my effects. The double sack, my pilot-coat (for it was warm, and I was to walk in my waistcoat), a great bar of black bread, and an open basket containing the white bread, the mutton, and the bottles, were all corded together in a very elaborate system of knots, and I looked on the result with fatuous content. In such a monstrous deck-cargo, all poised above the donkey's shoulders, with nothing below to balance, on a brand-new pack-saddle that had not yet been worn to fit the animal, and fastened with brand-new girths that might be expected to stretch and


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/30

12 slacken by the way, even a very careless traveller should have seen disaster brewing. That elaborate system of knots, again, was the work of too many sympathisers to be very artfully designed. It is true they tightened the cords with a will; as many as three at a time would have a foot against Modestine's quarters, and be hauling with clenched teeth; but I learned afterwards that one thoughtful person, without any exercise of force, can make a more solid job than half-a-dozen heated and enthusiastic grooms. I was then but a novice; even after the misadventure of the pad nothing could disturb my security, and I went forth from the stable-door as an ox goeth to the slaughter.


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/31

HE bell of Monastier was just striking nine as I got quit of these preliminary troubles and descended the hill through the common. As long as I was within sight of the windows, a secret shame and the fear of some laughable defeat withheld me from tampering with Modestine. She tripped along upon her four small hoofs with a sober daintiness of gait; from time to time she shook her ears or her tail; and she looked so small under the bundle that my mind misgave me. We got across the ford without difficulty—there was no doubt about the matter, she was docility itself—and once on the other bank, where the road begins to mount through pine-woods, I took in my right hand the unhallowed staff, and with a quaking spirit applied it to the donkey. Modestine brisked up her pace for perhaps three steps, and then relapsed into her former


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/32

14 minuet. Another application had the same effect, and so with the third. I am worthy the name of an Englishman, and it goes against my conscience to lay my hand rudely on a female. I desisted, and looked her all over from head to foot; the poor brute's knees were trembling and her breathing was distressed; it was plain that she could go no faster on a hill. God forbid, thought I, that I should brutalise this innocent creature; let her go at her own pace, and let me patiently follow. What that pace was, there is no word mean enough to describe; it was something as much slower than a walk as a walk is slower than a run; it kept me hanging on each foot for an incredible length of time; in five minutes it exhausted the spirit and set up a fever in all the muscles of the leg. And yet I had to keep close at hand and measure my advance exactly upon hers; for if I dropped a few yards into the rear, or went on a few yards ahead, Modestine came instantly to a halt and began to browse. The thought that this was to last from here to Alais nearly


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/33

Rh broke my heart. Of all conceivable journeys, this promised to be the most tedious. I tried to tell myself it was a lovely day; I tried to charm my foreboding spirit with tobacco; but I had a vision ever present to me of the long, long roads, up hill and down dale, and a pair of figures ever infinitesimally moving, foot by foot, a yard to the minute, and, like things enchanted in a nightmare, approaching no nearer to the goal. In the meantime there came up behind us a tall peasant, perhaps forty years of age, of an ironical snuffy countenance, and arrayed in the green tailcoat of the country. He overtook us hand over hand, and stopped to consider our pitiful advance.

"Your donkey," says he, "is very old?" I told him, I believed not.

Then, he supposed, we had come far. I told him, we had but newly left Monastier.

"Et vous marchez comme ça!" cried he; and, throwing back his head, he laughed long and heartily. I watched him, half prepared to feel offended, until he had satisfied his mirth; and then, "You must have no pity on these animals,"


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/34

16 said he; and, plucking a switch out of a thicket, he began to lace Modestine about the stern-works, uttering a cry. The rogue pricked up her ears and broke into a good round pace, which she kept up without flagging, and without exhibiting the least symptom of distress, as long as the peasant kept beside us. Her former panting and shaking had been, I regret to say, a piece of comedy. My deus ex machina, before he left me, supplied some excellent, if inhumane, advice; presented me with the switch, which he declared she would feel more tenderly than my cane; and finally taught me the true cry or masonic word of donkey-drivers, "Proot!" All the time, he regarded me with a comical incredulous air, which was embarrassing to confront; and smiled over my donkey-driving, as I might have smiled over his orthography, or his green tail-coat. But it was not my turn for the moment.

I was proud of my new lore, and thought I had learned the art to perfection. And certainly Modestine did wonders for the rest of the forenoon, and I had a breathing space to look about


text: Author:Lazarus Fletcher

title: Author:Lazarus Fletcher


text:
The Times/1872/Obituary/Alexander Cornewall Duff-Gordon

.—Our obituary yesterday contained the name of a gentleman well-known in London society — Sir Alexander Cornewall Duff-Gordon, one of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. He was the eldest son of the late Sir William Duff-Gordon, a cadet of the House of Aberdeen. His mother was a daughter of the late Sir George Cornewall, M.P. He was born in the year 1811, and succeeded to his father's title in 1823. He was for many years a clerk in the Treasury, and acted as private secretary to at least one Chancellor of the Exchequer. He became a senior clerk in the Treasury in 1854, and a Commissioner of Inland Revenue in 1856; he was also Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Privy Chamber to Her Majesty. Lady Duff-Gordon herself will be better remembered by our readers under her maiden name Miss Lucy Austin, as the author of several clever and entertaining works, including The French in Algiers, and as the translator of Moltke's Russian Campaign on the Danube, and of Rankes' Ferdinand and Maximilian. The title passes to the late baronet's only son Maurice, who was born in the year 1849.


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/35

Rh me. It was Sabbath; the mountain-fields were all vacant in the sunshine; and as we came down through St. Martin de Frugères, the church was crowded to the door, there were people kneeling without upon the steps, and the sound of the priest's chanting came forth out of the dim interior. It gave me a home feeling on the spot; for I am a countryman of the Sabbath, so to speak, and all Sabbath observances, like a Scotch accent, strike in me mixed feelings, grateful and the reverse. It is only a traveller, hurrying by like a person from another planet, who can rightly enjoy the peace and beauty of the great ascetic feast. The sight of the resting country does his spirit good. There is something better than music in the wide unusual silence; and it disposes him to amiable thoughts, like the sound of a little river or the warmth of sunlight. In this pleasant humour I came down the hill to where Goudet stands in the green end of a valley, with Château Beaufort opposite upon a rocky steep, and the stream, as clear as crystal, lying in a deep pool between them. Above and


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/36

18 below, you may hear it wimpling over the stones, an amiable stripling of a river, which it seems absurd to call the Loire. On all sides, Goudet is shut in by mountains; rocky foot-paths, practicable at best for donkeys, join it to the outer world of France; and the men and women drink and swear, in their green corner, or look up at the snow-clad peaks in winter from the threshold of their homes, in an isolation, you would think, like that of Homer's Cyclops. But it is not so; the postman reaches Goudet with the letter-bag; the aspiring youth of Goudet are within a day's walk of the railway at Le Puy; and here in the inn you may find an engraved portrait of the host's nephew, Régis Senac, "Professor of Fencing and Champion of the two Americas," a distinction gained by him, along with the sum of five hundred dollars, at Tammany Hall, New York, on the 10th April, 1876.

I hurried over my midday meal, and was early forth again. But, alas, as we climbed the interminable hill upon the other side, "Proot!" seemed to have lost its virtue. I prooted like a lion,


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/37

Rh I prooted mellifluously like a sucking-dove; but Modestine would be neither softened nor intimidated. She held doggedly to her pace; nothing but a blow would move her, and that only for a second. I must follow at her heels, incessantly belabouring. A moment's pause in this ignoble toil, and she relapsed into her own private gait. I think I never heard of any one in as mean a situation. I must reach the lake of Bouchet, where I meant to camp, before sundown, and, to have even a hope of this, I must instantly maltreat this uncomplaining animal. The sound of my own blows sickened me. Once, when I looked at her, she had a faint resemblance to a lady of my acquaintance who formerly loaded me with kindness; and this increased my horror of my cruelty. To make matters worse, we encountered another donkey, ranging at will upon the roadside; and this other donkey chanced to be a gentleman. He and Modestine met nickering for joy, and I had to separate the pair and beat down their young romance with a renewed and feverish bastinado. If the other donkey had had the heart of a male


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/38

20 under his hide, he would have fallen upon me tooth and hoof; and this was a kind of consolation—he was plainly unworthy of Modestine's affection. But the incident saddened me, as did everything that spoke of my donkey's sex. It was blazing hot up the valley, windless, with vehement sun upon my shoulders; and I had to labour so consistently with my stick that the sweat ran into my eyes. Every five minutes, too, the pack, the basket, and the pilot-coat would take an ugly slew to one side or the other; and I had to stop Modestine, just when I had got her to a tolerable pace of about two miles an hour, to tug, push, shoulder, and readjust the load. And at last, in the village of Ussel, saddle and all, the whole hypothec turned round and grovelled in the dust below the donkey's belly. She, none better pleased, incontinently drew up and seemed to smile; and a party of one man, two women, and two children came up, and, standing round me in a half-circle, encouraged her by their example.

I had the devil's own trouble to get the thing righted; and the instant I had done so, without


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/39

Rh hesitation, it toppled and fell down upon the other side. Judge if I was hot! And yet not a hand was offered to assist me. The man, indeed, told me I ought to have a package of a different shape. I suggested, if he knew nothing better to the point in my predicament, he might hold his tongue. And the good-natured dog agreed with me smilingly. It was the most despicable fix. I must plainly content myself with the pack for Modestine, and take the following items for my own share of the portage: a cane, a quart flask, a pilot-jacket heavily weighted in the pockets, two pounds of black bread, and an open basket full of meats and bottles. I believe I may say I am not devoid of greatness of soul; for I did not recoil from this infamous burthen. I disposed it, Heaven knows how, so as to be mildly portable, and then proceeded to steer Modestine through the village. She tried, as was indeed her invariable habit, to enter every house and every courtyard in the whole length; and, encumbered as I was, without a hand to help myself, no words can render an idea of my difficulties. A priest, with six or seven others,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/268

 reference to it in his speech on 8 Feb. 1575–6.) Strype further says that the queen declared that she disliked Wentworth as much as she did his book or bill.

Consequently the queen on 1 May following sent a message to the house that she could not allow parliament to take in hand the affairs of the church, but, in spite of the message, parliament proceeded with three ecclesiastical bills. The consequence was a dissolution, and a solemn condemnation by the queen of the arrogance of members who meddled with matters outside their sphere.

During the brief session of 1572 Wentworth was engaged on business in which he and the queen, though they did not agree, did not differ so greatly as about the church. He was a member of the commons' committee on the case of the Queen of Scots, and was present on 12 May at the conference of committees of the two houses.

Parliament, after three and a half years' interval, met again on 8 Feb. 1575–6. In order to prevent a puritan majority, many almost extinct boroughs under crown influence, especially in Devonshire and Cornwall, had been revived. Curiously enough, for one of these, Tregony, Wentworth was returned, possibly through the influence of his brother-in-law, Walsingham. But he may have had some property in Cornwall. His brother Paul sat for Liskeard, and Barnstaple, for which Peter had previously sat, lies in the same direction. On the day of the opening of the new parliament (8 Feb.) Wentworth made his memorable speech on behalf of the liberties of the house (Parl. Hist. i. 784; there is also a copy among the manuscripts of Evelyn Philip Shirley—Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. p. 363—it runs to eight and a half pages). Wentworth said of this speech that it was written two or three years before it was delivered. He had, it seemed, revolved this speech, fear often moving him ‘to have it put out,’ lest it should ‘carry him to the place’ whither he was in fact going, namely, to the Tower. The speech was of a much needed but of a too violent nature, and the house, ‘out of a reverent regard for her majesty's honour, stopped Mr. Wentworth before he had fully finished.’ One of the points of which Wentworth particularly complained was that on 22 May 1572 the queen had informed the house that henceforth no bills concerning religion should be prepared or received unless the same should first be approved by the clergy. Wentworth attributed that ‘doleful message’ to the machinations of the bishops (, Annals). For this speech Wentworth was sequestered by the house, in which the puritans no longer possessed a majority. After debate Wentworth was committed to the serjeant's ward in order that he might be examined by a committee consisting of all the members of the privy council who were members of the house, and others. Wentworth was examined by this committee in the Star-chamber the same afternoon (, Parl. History from Harleian MSS.) Next day, 9 Feb. 1575–6, on the suggestion of the committee, it was ordered that Wentworth be committed close prisoner to the Tower, ‘there to remain until such time as this house should have further consideration of him’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1547–80, p. 516; the ‘proceedings’ are added after the order; the Harleian MSS. contain other papers by Wentworth on the subject). On 12 March a royal message was brought to the house recommending Wentworth's discharge. The prisoner was then brought to the bar, and, having acknowledged his fault, was received again into the house.

For the next seven years parliament rarely met, but there was no dissolution till 9 April 1583. On 25 Jan. 1580–1 Wentworth was appointed one of a committee ‘to consult of bills convenient to be framed’ to restrain evil-affected subjects, and to provide that which may be requested for the maintenance of the forces (ib.) Wentworth was not returned to the new parliament of 1584, and did not sit again for Tregony. He re-entered the House of Commons on 26 Dec. 1586 for Northampton, in the neighbourhood of which his father had possessed many manors, and where he probably himself held landed estate.

On 1 March 1586–7, in connection with the proceedings on Cope's ‘bill and book’ [see under ], Wentworth delivered to the speaker certain articles containing questions relating to the liberties of the house. The speaker asked him not to proceed until the queen's pleasure was known touching the bill and book, ‘but Mr. Wentworth would not be so satisfied but required his articles might be read.’ The speaker replied that he would peruse them. He showed them to Sir Thomas Heneage [q. v.], and in the course of the afternoon Wentworth was sent to the Tower, where, on the next day, he was joined by Cope and three other members.

Two days later Sir John Higham moved to petition the queen for the enlargement of the prisoners. This was opposed by the vice-chamberlain on the ground that the gentlemen had been committed for matter not ‘within the compass of the privilege of the


text:
Author:Johann Georg von Soldner

Works

 * On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion (1801, Wikisource translation)

title: Author:Johann Georg von Soldner


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/269

 house’—namely, interference with the ecclesiastical prerogative. On 13 March, on a motion by Thomas Cromwell, a committee was appointed to confer with the privy councillors in the house ; but it is not known when Wentworth was released (, Whitgift, i. 488–9).

On 24 Feb., the fifth day after the opening of the session of 1593, Wentworth and Sir Henry Bromley delivered a petition to the lord keeper desiring the lords of the upper house to be suppliants with them of the lower unto her majesty for entailing the succession of the crown. This was deeply resented by the queen; Wentworth and Bromley were called before the council and commanded to forbear parliament and remain at home in their lodgings. Next day, Sunday, 25 Feb., they were called before the lord treasurer, Lord Burghley, Lord Buckhurst, and Heneage, and were told that her majesty was so offended at them that they must be committed. Wentworth was again sent prisoner to the Tower, but how long he remained in durance is again uncertain. On 10 March a motion to request his release was opposed by all the privy councillors in the house, who argued ‘that her majesty had committed them for reasons best known to herself, and that for them to press her majesty in that suit was but to make their case the worse.’ Anthony Bacon, in a letter dated 16 April 1593, says that several members who thought to have returned into the country at the end of the session were stayed by the queen's command for being privy to Wentworth's motion (, i. 96;, Const. Hist.)

There is no evidence that Wentworth was ever out of prison again before his death. The queen's enmity to him was embittered by his advocacy of the claims of Lord Beauchamp to the succession (cf., Annals, iv. 332–6; and art. ). Wentworth was certainly in the Tower on 14 April 1594, and he certainly also died there on 10 Nov. 1596 (see the inquisition taken at Oxford in September 1599, which says ‘at the City of London’). There is no record of his burial in the Tower, but his wife, Elizabeth Wentworth, who, though Walsingham's sister, had shared her husband's imprisonment, died in the Tower, and was buried in the chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula on 21 July 1596.

Two years before his death, Peter Wentworth wrote in the Tower his famous book, ‘A Pithie Exhortation to Her Majesty for establishing her Successor to the Crowne; whereunto is added a Discourse containing the Author's Opinion of the true and lawful Successor to her Maiestie. Imprinted 1598,’ 16mo. Two printed copies and a manuscript copy are in the possession of the present writer; two other copies are in the British Museum. A folio copy of the ‘Pithie Exhortation’ is in the Duke of Bedford's library at Woburn (see Index Expurgatorius Anglicanus; Hist. MSS. Comm. 2nd Rep. App. p. 2). These tracts were written in answer to Dolman's treatise advocating the claims of the Infanta Isabella to the succession [see, 1546–1610]. They are constitutionally excellent and biblically learned. In the ‘Discourse’ Wentworth says himself of the other tract that the lord treasurer ‘affirmed at the counsell table that he had three severall times perused’ the book and found nothing but what he thought to be true, and stood assured would at last come to pass, as indeed it did by the accession of James I. Several letters from Wentworth to Sir Robert Cecil written during his last imprisonment are at Hatfield with other documents relating to him (Cal. Hatfield MSS. vi. 284, 288, 289, vii. 286, 303, 304, 324).

The heir to the manor of Lillingstone Lovell was Wentworth's eldest son, Nicholas, who married Susanna, daughter and heiress of Roger Wigston, the head of a great puritan family; and from their marriage there sprang Sir Peter Wentworth [q. v.], Lady Vane, and Sybyl, who married Fisher Dilke, second son of Sir Thomas Dilke of Maxstoke Castle.

Of Peter's younger children, Walter was a member of Parliament, Thomas (1568?–1628) is separately noticed, and Paul (who must be carefully distinguished from Paul Wentworth [q. v.]) was of Castle Bythorpe, married Mary Hampden, and is sometimes said to have been author of Wentworth's ‘Orizons.’ Of the daughters, Frances married Walter Strickland [q. v.]

[State Papers, Dom. Elizabeth; Lord Salisbury's MSS. at Hatfield; D'Ewes's Journals; Official Return of Members of Parliament; Acts of the Privy Council, ed. Dasent; Hallam's Constitutional History of England; Froude's Hist. of England; Rutton's Three Branches of the Wentworth Family; authorities cited in the text.]  WENTWORTH, PETER (1592–1675), politician, son of Nicholas Wentworth of Lillingstone Lovell, Buckinghamshire, by Susanna, daughter of Roger Wigston of Wolston, Warwickshire (, Pedigrees of Knights, p. 36), was grandson of Peter Wentworth [q. v.] He was born in 1592, and matriculated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford,


text:
Author:Leopold von Ranke

Works (English translations)

 * History of the Popes during the 16th and 17th Centuries (1840) by S. Austin
 * The Ottoman and the Spanish Empires (1843), translated by Kelly
 * History of the Reformation in Germany (1845–47), by S. Austin
 * History of Servia and the Servian Revolution (1847), by Mrs A. Kerr
 * Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg and History of Prussia during the 17th and 18th Centuries(1849), by Sir Alexander Duff-Gordon and Lady Duff Gordon
 * Civil Wars and Monarchy in France (1852), by M. A. Garvey
 * Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria; State of Germany after the Reformation (1853), translated by Lucie Gordon
 * History of England, principally in the 17th Century (1875) edited by Boase and Kitchin
 * History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations, 1494–1514 (1887), by Philip Arthur Ashworth

title: Author:Leopold von Ranke


text:
Translation:On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion

Ueber die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/40

22 was examining a church in process of repair, and he and his acolytes laughed loudly as they saw my plight. I remembered having laughed myself when I had seen good men struggling with adversity in the person of a jackass, and the recollection filled me with penitence. That was in my old light days, before this trouble came upon me. God knows at least that I shall never laugh again, thought I. But O, what a cruel thing is a farce to those engaged in it! A little out of the village, Modestine, filled with the demon, set her heart upon a by-road, and positively refused to leave it. I dropped all my bundles, and, I am ashamed to say, struck the poor sinner twice across the face. It was pitiful to see her lift up her head with shut eyes, as if waiting for another blow. I came very near crying; but I did a wiser thing than that, and sat squarely down by the roadside to consider my situation under the cheerful influence of tobacco and a nip of brandy. Modestine, in the meanwhile, munched some black bread with a contrite hypocritical air. It was plain that I must make a sacrifice to the


text:
Translation talk:On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion

The deflection calculated here is half of the calculation predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Experimental measurement agrees with general relativity. 75.103.23.206 20:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/41

Rh gods of shipwreck. I threw away the empty bottle destined to carry milk; I threw away my own white bread, and, disdaining to act by general average, kept the black bread for Modestine; lastly, I threw away the cold leg of mutton and the egg-whisk, although this last was dear to my heart. Thus I found room for everything in the basket, and even stowed the boating-coat on the top. By means of an end of cord I slung it under one arm; and although the cord cut my shoulder, and the jacket hung almost to the ground, it was with a heart greatly lightened that I set forth again. I had now an arm free to thrash Modestine, and cruelly I chastised her. If I were to reach the lakeside before dark, she must bestir her little shanks to some tune. Already the sun had gone down into a windy-looking mist; and although there were still a few streaks of gold far off to the east on the hills and the black fir-woods, all was cold and grey about our onward path. An infinity of little country by-roads led hither and thither among the fields. It was the most pointless labyrinth. I could see my destination


text:
Author:Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke

Works

 * The Russians in Bulgaria and Rumelia in 1828 and 1829 (1854)
 * Letters from Russia translated by Robina Napier (1878)
 * Letters from Russia translated by Grace Bigelow (1878)
 * Notes of Travel (1880)
 * Poland translated by Emma S. Buchheim (1885)
 * Letters to his Mother and Brothers translated by Clara Bell and Henry W. Fischer (1891)
 * The Franco-German war of 1870-71 translated by Clara Bell and Henry W. Fisacher (1891)
 * Moltke: His Life and Character translated by Mary Herms (1892)
 * Excerpted as "Consolatory Thoughts on the Earthly Life and a Future Existence" in The German Classics of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Volume 10 (1913)
 * Essays, Speeches, and Memoirs (1893)
 * Field-marshall count H. v. Moltke as a Correspondent translated by Mary Herms (1893)
 * Letters to His Wife and Other Relatives translated by J. R. McIlraith (1896)
 * Moltke's Tactical Problems, 1858-62 translated by Karl von Donat (1894)
 * Russian Campaign on the Danube translated by Lucie Gordon
 * Projects for the campaign of 1866 against Austria (1907)
 * Extracts from correspondence pertaining to the war of 1870-71 translated by Harry Bell (1911)
 * "Letters and Historical Writings of Moltke" in The German Classics of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Volume 10 (1913)
 * Molke's Military Correspondence (1923)

Works about Moltke

 * "The Life of Moltke" by Karl Detlev Jessen in The German Classics of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Volume 10 (1913)
 * "The Life of Moltke" by Karl Detlev Jessen in The German Classics of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Volume 10 (1913)


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/42

24, or rather the peak that dominates it; but choose as I pleased, the roads always ended by turning away from it, and sneaking back towards the valley, or northward along the margin of the hills. The failing light, the waning colour, the naked, unhomely, stony country through which I was travelling, threw me into some despondency, I promise you, the stick was not idle; I think every decent step that Modestine took must have cost me at least two emphatic blows. There was not another sound in the neighbourhood but that of my unwearying bastinado. Suddenly, in the midst of my toils, the load once more bit the dust, and, as by enchantment, all the cords were simultaneously loosened, and the road scattered with my dear possessions. The packing was to begin again from the beginning; and as I had to invent a new and better system, I do not doubt but I lost half an hour. It began to be dusk in earnest as I reached a wilderness of turf and stones. It had the air of being a road which should lead everywhere at the same time; and I was falling into something not unlike


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/43

Rh when I saw two figures stalking towards me over the stones. They walked one behind the other like tramps, but their pace was remarkable. The son led the way, a tall, ill-made, sombre, Scotch-looking man; the mother followed, all in her Sunday's best, with an elegantly-embroidered ribbon to her cap, and a new felt hat atop, and proffering, as she strode along with kilted petticoats, a string of obscene and blasphemous oaths. I hailed the son and asked him my direction. He pointed loosely west and north-west, muttered an inaudible comment, and, without slacking his pace for an instant, stalked on, as he was going, right athwart my path. The mother followed without so much as raising her head. I shouted and shouted after them, but they continued to scale the hillside, and turned a deaf ear to my outcries. At last, leaving Modestine by herself, I was constrained to run after them, hailing the while. They stopped as I drew near, the mother still cursing; and I could see she was a handsome, motherly, respectable-looking woman. The son once more answered me roughly and inaudibly,


text:
Author:Lucie Gordon

Works

 * The French in Algiers
 * Letters from the Cape (1862-1863) (1865)
 * Letters from Egypt (1865) edited by her mother
 * Last Letters from Egypt (1875)

Translations

 * Ancient Greek Mythology (1839), by Barthold Georg Niebuhr
 * Mary Schweidler; The Amber Witch (1844) by Wilhelm Meinhold
 * Narratives of remarkable criminal trials (1845), by Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach
 *  Stella and Vanessa (1853), by Armand François Léon de Wailly
 * Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria; State of Germany after the Reformation (1853), by Leopold von Ranke
 * Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg and History of Prussia during the 17th and 18th Centuries (1849), by Leopold von Ranke, jointly with Sir Alexander Duff Gordon.
 * The Russians in Bulgaria and Rumelia in 1828 and 1829 (1854), by Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke
 * The history and literature of the crusades (1861), by Heinrich von Sybel

Works about Gordon

 * Lucie Duff Gordon in England, South Africa and Egypt (1937), by Gordon Waterfield
 * Lucie Duff Gordon in England, South Africa and Egypt (1937), by Gordon Waterfield
 * Lucie Duff Gordon in England, South Africa and Egypt (1937), by Gordon Waterfield

title: Author:Lucie Gordon