text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/111

 Rh to acquire the strength which these organizations had long possessed. Accordingly the Federation again exhibited its character as a natural evolution of local conditions by offering itself as an organ of cooperation between these well-known agencies. It did not try to be a substitute for these organizations. Their members were familiar to each other and to the citizens. Through their leadership many and vast enterprises had been successfully conducted. The Federation therefore inaugurated a series of civic movements on the presumption that the execution of them would involve harmonious action of the bodies of citizens to which we refer. The results of the cooperation which followed in pursuance of this programme have already been indicated.

The fourth distinguishing feature of the movement was that it was comprehensive rather than fractional. It did not confine itself to rectifying a single abnormal municipal condition, neglecting all the rest; on the contrary, it confronted municipal conditions as a whole, and attempted to exert an influence toward rescuing them from the demoralization that had resulted from popular neglect. It consequently avoided the mistake of dealing with a few specially interesting symptoms and thus making a false diagnosis of the total condition.

Here, again, there might have been failure if there had been any attempt to carry out ambitious theories of social philosophy. If, for example, the Federation had begun by drafting its proposed substitute for the city charter, or even the civil service bill, and had made its programme turn on attempts to get the city regulated according to logical deductions from either or both of those plans, it would have failed from inability to concentrate the sympathies and efforts of the citizens. Instead of staking its reputation and its usefulness upon ability to carry some particular measure, which it might have considered radically and logically antecedent to all minor reforms, the Federation undertook to organize practical measures for improving municipal conditions in every respect in which they were obviously neglected.


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/113

 Rh. From the inspection of garbage boxes and of sewer pipes in basements of schoolhouses, to watching the polls and holding consultations with the parties opposed to each other during the strike, the policy of the Federation was that of getting its facts at first hand. In the nature of the case the facts so obtained were not as complete and not always as accurate as desirable; but the investigation carried on resulted in reports, several of which contain revelations of the most startling character about certain civic conditions in which all citizens have a share of interest. These reports in the aggregate constitute a body of information which should be published, and which the Federation doubtless will publish as both model and basis for further investigation. Among the most important of these documents we should mention:

 * 1. The reports of the Sanitary Committee, with regard to fulfillment of contracts by the scavengers.
 * 2. The reports of the sub-committee on the milk supply.
 * 3. The report of the sub-committee on bakeries.
 * 4. The report of the sub-committee on gas and electric lighting.
 * 5. The report of the sub-committee on franchises and transportation, relating to duties of citizens with respect to care of sidewalks in front of their premises.
 * 6. The report submitted by Dr. Bayard Holmes in behalf of the committee on public health.

Too much cannot be said in commendation of the character of the work of which these reports are specimens. It was throughout in striking contrast with the dilettantish attempts of many people to reform the world by irresponsible declamation.

The sixth and last special feature to be mentioned as characteristic of this civic movement is the unusual degree to which the aggressive work of the Federation was assigned to people who might be called experts. The Federation did not assume that school-teachers are the best people to draft revenue laws, nor that ministers are likely to be competent inspectors of

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


text:
United States Code/Title 28/Appendix/Federal Rules of Civil Procedure/Rule 18

Rule 18. Joinder of Claims

(a) In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.

(b) Joinder of Contingent Claims. A party may join two claims even though one of them is contingent on the disposition of the other; but the court may grant relief only in accordance with the parties’ relative substantive rights. In particular, a plaintiff may state a claim for money and a claim to set aside a conveyance that is fraudulent as to that plaintiff, without first obtaining a judgment for the money.


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/115

 Rh very obvious exemplifications of most radical societary laws. As to the immediate value of all this for Chicago, the judgment of every member of the Federation was doubtless expressed in the words of Mr. Gage: "These reports, one and all, utterly fail to show the great public benefit conferred by your association in ways that can find only indirect expression in the reports of practical doings. Your existence, your words and deeds, have reawakened the slumbering civic life. You have created a civic center where the sympathy and desire of those who love the city we live in may be safely focalized. You have given hope and confidence to thousands who have become pessimists on American municipal institutions. You have made it possible, as demonstrated in the late vote on Civil Service Reform, to rally in a great cause the best sentiments of our people. These and others that might be named, constitute the moral victories which cannot be made to appear in tabulated form."


text:
United States Code/Title 28/Appendix/Federal Rules of Civil Procedure/Rule 19

Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties

(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.
 * (1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
 * (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
 * (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may:
 * (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or
 * (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
 * (2) Joinder by Court Order. If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.
 * (3) Venue. If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party.

(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:
 * (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
 * (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
 * (A) protective provisions in the judgment;
 * (B) shaping the relief; or
 * (C) other measures;
 * (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and
 * (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

(c) Pleading the Reasons for Nonjoinder. When asserting a claim for relief, a party must state:
 * (1) the name, if known, of any person who is required to be joined if feasible but is not joined; and
 * (2) the reasons for not joining that person.

(d) Exception for Class Actions. This rule is subject to Rule 23.


text:
Page:Feilberg.djvu/56

Rh ages existed, and to change their very instincts by the mere force of a master will, as typified in the white man, expecting in their shortsightedness to transform what always has been the lowest grade of humanity into a useful and creditable element in the commonwealth. Could any scheme be more Quixotic? We find by actual tabulated facts that the closer we bring the opposing races together the faster the blacks die out; that the white man's kindness—mistaken kindness—is far more fatal to our blacks than his rifle; that the aborigines are utterly unsuited for protracted labor, and that they pine and die under confinement within defined limits. And still we wish to force all these fatal observances upon them under the so-called guise of humanity! Nothing that we can do will alter the inscrutable and withal immutable laws which direct our progress on this globe. By these laws the native races of Australia were doomed on the advent of the white man, and the only thing left for us to do is to assist in carrying them out with as little cruelty as possible, and to endeavor to extend the period of their action over as great a span of time as we possibly can. But any attempt on our part at coercive amelioration can only tend to expedite the final result, instead of lengthening their days in the land. It is not at all improbable that a mixed race would spring into existence could we conquer the tendency to infanticide which obtains in the tribes. As a rule half-bloods have a finer physique than the mother race, but four-fifths of these children are put to death and generally eaten. Were it possible to improve our blacks by the establishment of reserves—and an experiment might be tried at some suitable spot on our coast, where a dugong fishery or two would offer them employment, assimilating in some degree with their natural instincts—it would be our bounden duty to supply money and material for such establishments; but it becomes imperative to discover, first, whether such reserves will be of any use, and, secondly, whether the rate of mortality increases or diminishes under such a system. As to the many assertions made concerning native troopers being beyond control when excited, &c., I can only say that they are utterly untrue, and I speak with the authority not only of my own long experience but also with that of many Native Police officers. Troopers are quite as amenable to order as white men and in fact more so, and any trooper shooting a gin or child, even by accident, would be scouted by the whole detachment. Had the veil of mystery which the Government in its wisdom has thought fit to cast over the actions of this force been lifted years ago, the public would have seen with its own eyes that most of the heart-sickening atrocities with which the Native Police has been credited have little foundation in fact. I do not assert that atrocities have not been committed, but I do assert that these have been the exceptions, certainly never the rule. Innocent blacks have been shot with the guilty, but is this to be wondered at when we consider the difficulty of identifying the actual criminals? Take the case of Sub-inspector Tompson on the Lower Burdekin as far back as 1869 or '70. Here the blacks were killing cattle wholesale. After continual patrolling he at last succeeded in penning the tribes on Mount Dryander and keeping them there for three days. He then sent some gins to them with an offer of peace, if they would promise to leave the cattle alone. This was the second embassy this gentle man had sent, the answer to the first having been, "We'll kill cattle when we want then; you shoot us when you can catch us." But on this occasion he showed them that they were entirely at his mercy, and, although he carefully abstained from allowing a single blackfellow to be shot, a bullet striking the rock close to any that showed themselves proved how utterly helpless they were against the police carbines. They promised to keep the peace, and he then sent them word to go and camp at some particular spot until they heard from him. Mr. Tompson tried several stations in succession, but without being able to gain admittance for his black proteges. At last, however, Mr. Bode allowed them to come in, and six months afterwards they were no longer wild blacks. This is what we must endeavour to do with all the districts which are sufficiently settled; but I cannot agree with the Queenslander's idea, of substituting white men for the native troopers. And this chiefly for two reasons: We must rule the blacks by fear, teaching them the uselessness of waging war on the settlers, and to do this the native troopers are far superior to white men, as they will follow and secure malefactors where a white man could not possibly penetrate. It is useless arguing that, because an officer accompanies his boys through scrubs and over ranges, every white man can do the same. Only constant training will enable a man to do so. How many white men can undergo the hardships and privations which a Native Police officer has to put up with. The native troopers also can communicate with the blacks, which a white man is unable to do. But the great difficulty of such a change is its cost. A native trooper costs the Government about £45 per annum

title: Page:Feilberg.djvu/56


text:
Page:The Burton Holmes Lectures Vol. X p 11.jpg

 {| cellpadding="2" align="center" solicit the patronage of disembarking passengers. Not knowing that a steam-launch is provided by the steamship company, we hire an unnecessary sampan, and then in company with half a dozen other sampans, we go trailing shoreward, towed by the tender to which the crafty skippers have passed their lines, thus saving themselves a long hard pull against the ebbing tide. Thus we approached Chemulpo under the flag of the Royal Japanese mail. We note that the official in the little white gig – the "tide-waiter" of the port, who boards all arriving ships – is a Japanese. The most conspicuous buildings on the shore are Japanese. A Japanese cruiser is at the outer anchorage. The merchant-ships at the buoys near the town are flying the flag of the Empire of the Rising Sun. But the people on the pier are new to us in costume, speech, and customs. Our acquaintance with the Korean
 * width="480"|
 * width="480"|
 * }

Top


text: Index:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/39

Rh {|style="margin:0 auto 0 auto;"
 * Thomas of Whitfield, ||Williams of Chattooga,
 * Trippe, ||Williams of Harris,
 * Turner of Hancock,||Williamson,
 * Warner, ||Winn of Gwinnett,
 * Webb, ||Wofford,
 * Wellborn, ||Wood,
 * West, ||Yates,
 * Whelchel, ||Yopp,
 * Wicker, ||Young of Irwin.
 * Willingham, ||
 * }
 * Wellborn, ||Wood,
 * West, ||Yates,
 * Whelchel, ||Yopp,
 * Wicker, ||Young of Irwin.
 * Willingham, ||
 * }
 * Wicker, ||Young of Irwin.
 * Willingham, ||
 * }
 * }

So the motion prevailed.

On motion of Mr. Stephens, of Taliaferro, the Door Keeper was directed to employ an assistant.

Mr. Nisbet, from the committee appointed to report an Ordinance to assert the right and fulfil the obligation of the State of Georgia to secede from the Union, reported the following:

We, the people of the State of Georgia, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained:

That the ordinance adopted by the people of the State of Georgia in Convention on the second day of January in the year of our Lord seventeen hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was assented to, ratified and adopted; and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded and abrogated.

We do further declare and ordain, That the Union now subsisting between the State of Georgia and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Georgia is in the


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/40

32 full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

The report was taken up, and, on motion of Mr. Toombs, the ordinance was twice read.

Mr. Hill, of Troup, moved that the preamble and resolutions offered by Mr. Johnson, of Jefferson, on yesterday, as a substitute for the resolutions adopted by the Convention raising the committee to report an ordinance to assert the right and fulfil the obligation of the State of Georgia to secede from the Union, be received as a substitute for the same.

On which motion the yeas and nays were demanded.

There are yeas 133; nays 164, to wit:

Those who voted in the affirniative are Messrs.:


text: Folk-Lore/Volume 3/Balochi Tales, 1

title: Folk-Lore/Volume 3/Balochi Tales, 1


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/112

104 Be it resolved, That upon sufficient information being given to him of any such interference with arms or ammunition, intended for Georgia, the Governor of this State be, and he is herby authorized, immediately to demand of the Governor of the State where such outrage is committed, a restitution of the property, or ample remuneration for the same, with security against the repetition of such outrage. And if such indemnity is not given within twelve days from the date of the demand, the Governor of this State is hereby authorized to make reprisals from the property of the citizens of such recreant State, to be found within the borders of this State, or the waters adjacent thereto; and in his discretion he may issue in addition thereto, letters of Marque and Reprisal against the commerce going to and coming from the ports of such recusant State under the flag of the United States of America.

Be it further resolved, That whenever the Governor shall thus proceed, the judgment and other liens in favor of citizens of such recusant State proceeded against shall be suspended, and such citizens shall lose and not be allowed to hold any status as Plaintiffs in any of the Courts of this State.

The report was read and laid on the table till after the recess.

Mr. Nisbet, from the committee of seventeen, to report the Ordinance of Secession, after stating that it was written by Mr. Toombs made the following

which was taken up, read, and adopted.

" The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates, and the world, the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States, with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/113

Rh express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government, have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union, for many years past, in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union, from habit and National traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason and argument, would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from farther insults, injuries and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes, and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have, by a large majority, committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness, that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress and policy of anti-slavery, and of the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed, will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party, while it attracts to itself by its creed, the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government; anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the State. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race were fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slaveholding States of the original thirteen; the


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/114

 106 to slavery was then, as now, general in those States, and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States, for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was, that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore, such an orginazition must have resulted, either in utter failure, or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic, the navigating, commercial and manufacturing interests of the North, began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks, sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business, which yet continue—and half a million of dollars are now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign ship builders, and against competition in the coasting trade; Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts, gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burthens of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen, upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above two millions annually for the support of these objects. These interests in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers, and the reduction of postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about seven millions of dollars annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury, under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interest entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slaveholding States. Wielding these great States, it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/115

 Rh proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons, rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor, the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries towards them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence; these reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased, they were no less clamorous for government protection; but their clamors were less heeded,—the country had put the principle of protection upon trial, and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent, upon their entire business, for above thirty years, the Act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free-trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South, and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal,—upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this, and felt it, and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support; but a united North was now strong enough to control the government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time, and issues upon slavery, were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive,—it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us: we had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it, how—in relation to slavery—was the question, then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North, and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/116

 108 of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation, and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmnesss by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it, on the line of the Missouri restriction, or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections—of all; and therefore it belonged to all, upon the principles of equity and justice. The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to exclude either party from its free enjoyment; therefore, our right was good, under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country Northwest of the Ohio river, by what is called the Ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation, and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country; and, therefore, this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain; acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina; by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves),—all were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property, until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous, and otherwise capable of bearing the burthens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union, upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy, law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/117

 Rh every step of the progress of these new communities, until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820, the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy, and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union, unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits, by her Constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle, the North was defeated in her special object; but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law, for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France, lying North of 36 deg. 30 min. North latitude, and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison, at the time of its adoption, declared it unconstitutional; Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction, and foresaw its consequences, and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico, and all other parts of the public domain, then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain and finally to abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South, with great unanimity, declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852, resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result, the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party, resolved to unite all the elements in the North, opposed to slavery, and to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party to whom the people of the North have committed the government. They raised their standard in


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/118

 110 1856, and were barely defeated; they entered the Presidential contest again, in 1860, and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarrantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders, and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips, the majority of the people of the North demand, that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question had been considered, and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860, decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal, we offer the constitution of our country, and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us; we offer the practice of our government, for the first thirty years of its existence, in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive, that we have never surrendered this right; the conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries, is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union; they are content, if they can only injure us. The constitution declares, that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another, shall be delivered up on the demand of the Executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity; yet, for above


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


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/119

 Rh twenty years, the non-slaveholding State, generally, have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property; our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals, who seek to deprive us of this property, or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it, we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to, were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States; without them, it is historically true, that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic, Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates of the several States for its efficiency; the non-slaveholding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution, and their oaths, might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal Officers. This law which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensable for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings, and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local Courts, with equal unanimity, (with the single and temporary exception of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin,) sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter, for all practicable purposes, in every non-slaveholding State in the Union. We have their covenants, we have their oaths, to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal Officer, with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met, with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments, to elude, to resist and defeat him; claimants are murdered with impunity; Officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs, instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public


text:
Fugitive Slave Act

 * Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.
 * Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

title: Fugitive Slave Act


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/120

 112 in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States, a citizen can not travel the high-way with his servant, who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon, and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility, than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and safety of any other State, and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquility of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offences against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries, and all centuries. But they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past, the Abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States, have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions, and to excite insurrection and servile war amongst us. They have sent emissaries among us, for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the National Councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries, who escaped public justice by flight, have found fraternal protection among our Northern Confederates.

These are the men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican Party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States; we know their treachery, we know the shallow pretences under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations; if we submit to them, it will


text:
Page:Journal of Georgia Secession Convention.djvu/121

 Rh be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government, they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race, through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights, in treacherous hands, and therefore, they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offer us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy, they have outlawed three thousand millions of our property in the common territories of the Union, put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists, and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society, and subject us, not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils, we resume the powers which our Fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security and tranquility. "

On motion of Mr. Nisbet, 10,000 copies of the report were ordered to be printed in pamphlet form, for the use of the Convention.

Mr. Moor, from the Committee on Enrolment, made the following report:

The Committee on Enrolment report that they have enrolled and have now ready for the signature of the President the following ordinances, to-wit:

An ordinance to adopt certain laws of the late United States.

Also an ordinance to define certain offences against the State of Georgia.

Also an ordinance concerning citizenship.


text:
Page:Jews and Judaism in America (Ezra).djvu/8

[ 2 ] have practically demonstrated their loyalty to the land of their adoption by shedding their blood on the battlefields, and in various other ways, until, they are at present, second to none in their patriotism and zeal to their Motherland. This fact is admitted by no less a person than the present head of the Republic—Theodore Roosevelt. They have likewise contributed largely by their wisdom, broad-mindedness and public-spirited actions towards destroying to a great extent public prejudices towards them, and to-day they live on terms of perfect equality, harmony and brotherhood with their fellow-citizens of other creeds. To-day the Jews are represented in America in every walk of life, professional, commercial, educational, industrial and financial. This end they have achieved by dint of honest perseverance and labour.

The city of New York has a population of over 750,000 Jews, which is the largest assemblage of the race to be found in any place out of Russia. The history of the growth of Jews in New York falls into three periods; the first runs to 1812, when the community totalled 500 souls; the second, the period of German emigration, runs to about 1881; the third period extends from that date to the present time when the Jewish population is estimated at over 750,000. Very rapid is the growth of the community, which is mainly due to the persecution of the Jews in Russia and Roumania. New York possesses about nine homes and hospitals; about fourteen educational and charitable institutions; six clubs and thirty—five synagogues. It has been jocularly remarked recently that New York will soon have a right to be known as the "city of Synagogues." As far back as 1748, a Swedish naturalist, Peter Kahn, wrote: "There are many Jews settled in New York, who possess great privileges. They have a synagogue and houses, and great country, seats of their


text: Page:Journal of Florida Secession Convention.djvu/1


text: Page:Journal of Florida Secession Convention.djvu/2


text: Page:Journal of Florida Secession Convention.djvu/3


text: Page:Journal of Florida Secession Convention.djvu/4


text: Index:Journal of Florida Secession Convention.djvu


text: Page:Journal of Florida Secession Convention.djvu/102


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/285

VII.] man, German mein-en, our I mean): distinct analogies lead us to see in it a development—probably through a derivative noun, of which it is the denominative—of the older root mā, meaning either 'to make' or 'to measure;' a designation for the mental process having been won by figuratively regarding it as a mental manufacture or production, or else as an ideal mensuration of the object of thought, a passing from point to point of it, in estimation of its dimension and quality. Some linguistic scholars go much farther than others in their attempts at analyzing the Indo-European roots, and referring them to more primitive elements; all the methods of secondary origin which we have illustrated above have been sought for and thought to be recognized among them; and there are those who are unwilling to believe that any absolutely original root can have ended otherwise than in a vowel, or begun with more than a single consonant, and who therefore regard all radical syllables not conforming with their norm as the product of composition or fusion with formative elements. We need not here enter into the question as to the justice of these extreme views, or a criticism of the work of the root-analysts; we are compelled at any rate to concede that the results of growth are to be seen among even the earliest traceable historical roots; that we must be cautious how we claim ultimateness for any given radical syllable, unless we can succeed in establishing an ultimate and necessary tie between it and the idea it represents; and that the search after the absolutely original in human speech is a task of the most obscure and recondite character.

But these concessions do not impair our claim that the inflective structure of Indo-European speech is built up upon a historical foundation of monosyllabic roots. If the particular roots to which our analysis brings us are not in all cases the products of our ancestors' first attempts at articulation, they are at any rate of the same kind with these, and represent to us the incipient stage of speech. If in every dissyllable whose history we can trace we recognize a compound structure, if in every nominal and verbal form we find a formative element which gives it character as


text:
Page:Journal of Florida Secession Convention.djvu/103

That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the Confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America, and from the existing government of said States; and that all political connection between her and the government of said States ought to be and the same is hereby totally annulled and said Union of States dissolved, and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent Nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded, and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be and they are hereby repealed.

Done in open Convention, January 10th, 1861.

Be it Ordained by the People of the State of Florida, in Convention Assembled, That until otherwise provided by the General Assembly of the State of Florida, no duties shall be collected upon imports from the States forming the late Federal Union, nor upon the tonnage of vessels, owned in whole or in part by the citizens of said States, nor shall any act of Congress regulating foreign commerce, or prescribing forms to be observed by foreign vessels, be held or deemed applicable to said State.

That all the official acts of the officers in which it is usual and proper to set forth the authority under which they act, the style of the documents hereafter issued by them, or any of them, shall be in the name of the State of Florida: Provided, That these Ordinances shall not go into effect, so far as they may be applicable to any Collector of Customs in this State, until such time as the Governor of said State shall, by public proclamation, have given ten days notice


text:
Page:Jews and Judaism in America (Ezra).djvu/9

[ 3 ] own property, and are allowed to keep shops in town. They have likewise several ships which they freight and send out with their own goods. In fine, they enjoy all the privileges common to the other inhabitants of this town and province."

Of all the institutions, the Jewish Theological Seminary stands first and foremost in the mind of the thinking Jew. The future of historical Judaism depends largely on this Seminary, which has been founded by the late Dr. S. Morais, of blessed memory. At present it is presided over by an illustrious scholar, Dr, Solomon Schechter, and the Seminary has an endowment fund of over $1,000,000 (Mexican,) which was secured by individual subscription. New York has over 110 congregations, exclusive of numerous small ones. I have singled out New York above all the other cities in the United States, because it has the largest Jewish population. Time and space within the limited compass of this essay, would not permit any detailed accounts of such other places as Philadelphia, Chicago, Cincinnati, San Francisco and many others, where Jews have built and developed important Jewish institutions, which stand for the glory of Judaism. I will therefore only make a brief reference to them.

Philadelphian Jewry owes much to the zeal and ability of the late Isaac Leeser who wrote and edited some good works, in the early part of the Jewish settlement, on Jewish religion and ethics. His ten volumes of discourses on the Jewish religion, which were delivered in his lifetime, stamp the author as one of the most ardent and zealous champions of orthodox Judaism on record. He laboured indefatigably for the weal Jewry in his days; and never wavered one jot in his attitude of opposition to the rise of the reform movement. His apprehension that the innovations demanded by the advocates of "New" Judaism


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/286

264 noun or verb, then we must believe that the germs out of which our language grew were not more complicated than single syllables, and that they possessed no distinct character as nouns or verbs, but were equally convertible into both. Our researches are only pointed a step farther back, without a change of method or result. That in these roots we approach very near to, if we do not quite touch, the actual beginnings of speech, is proved by other considerations. In order to bring into any language new apparent roots, and give them mobility by clothing them with inflections, a system of inflections must have been already elaborated by use with other roots in other forms. We cannot apply our d as sign of the imperfect tense to form such words as I electrified, I telegraphed, until we have worked down our preterit did, in substance and meaning, to such a mere formative element. And when we have traced the suffix back until we find it identical with the independent word out of which it grew, we know that we are close upon the beginning of its use, and have before us virtually that condition of the language in which its combinations were first made. So also with the adverbial suffix ly, when we have followed it up to lîce, a case of the adjective lîc, 'like.' Now, in connection with the roots of which examples have been given above, we see in actual process of elaboration the general system of Indo-European inflection, the most ancient, fundamental, and indispensable part of our grammatical apparatus; and we infer that these roots and their like are the foundation of our speech, the primitive material out of which its high and complicated fabric has been reared. It is not possible to regard them as the worn-down relics of a previous career of inflective development. The English, it is true, has been long tending, through the excessive prevalence of the wearing-out processes, toward a state of flectionless monosyllabism; but such a monosyllabism, where the grammatical categories are fully distinguished, where relational words and connectives abound, where every vocable inherits the character which the former possession of inflection has given it, where groups of related terms are applied to related uses, is a very different thing from a primitive


text:
Page:Jews and Judaism in America (Ezra).djvu/10

[ 4 ] would engulf the Jewish religion in the long run, proved sadly to be true, as I will show you later on.

The city of Chicago has become notorious as a hotbed of anti-Judaism. The community is presided over by a distinguished modern Jeroboam, namely, Dr. Emil G. Hirsch, (who, by the way, has recently celebrated his 25 years of activity in Sinai Temple Congregation.) This rabbi, (mind you I do not say Jewish rabbi) has fathered the reform movement with all his might and has carried the campaign so far as to deliberately alter the Decalogue Sabbath into the first day of the week. With characteresticcharacteristic [sic] energy this modern apostle of new-fangled Judaism has officiated at a marriage ceremony between Jews and Gentiles. His "radicalism" is so extreme that he is hardly to be distinguished from a Christian clergyman. It is said that he finds pleasure in seeing his views and actions assailed by his opponents, which only proves an incentive to him to add more fuel to the fire.

Cincinnati, is renowned for its seat of Jewish learning, to wit, the, which was founded by the late Dr. I. M, Wise for the purpose of raising and equipping Rabbis in Israel with reform proclivities. At present it is presided over by Dr. K. Kohler and his extreme radicalism proves that the College no longer stands for the glory of Judaism but just the opposite. Were Dr. Wise alive to-day he would lament over the departure of this glory. But circumstances have changed and those who are powerful to take action tolerate such differences of opinion.

San Francisco possesses over 20,000 Jews, most of whom are under the baneful influence of Dr. Jacob Voorsanger, a most radical reformed rabbi, and who was one of the advocates at the recent Central Conference of American Rabbis, urging the necessity of substituting


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/24

 and this dragging out of the process has been characterised as being cruel and degrading. The difficulty of implementing a system of capital punishment which on the one hand avoids arbitrariness by insisting on a high standard of procedural fairness, and on the other hand avoids delays that in themselves are the cause of impermissible cruelty and inhumanity, is apparent. Justice Blackmun, who sided with the majority in Gregg's case, ultimately came to the conclusion that it is not possible to design a system that avoids arbitrariness. To design a system that avoids arbitrariness and delays in carrying out the sentence is even more difficult.

The United States jurisprudence has not resolved the dilemma arising from the fact that the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, but also permits, and contemplates that there will be capital punishment. The acceptance by a majority of the United States Supreme Court of the proposition that capital punishment is not per se unconstitutional, but that in certain circumstances it may be arbitrary, and thus unconstitutional, has led to endless litigation. Considerable expense and interminable delays result from the exceptionally-high standard of procedural fairness set by the United States courts in attempting to avoid arbitrary decisions. The difficulties that have been experienced in following this path, to which Justice Blackmun and Justice Scalia have both referred, but from which they have drawn different conclusions, persuade me that we should not follow this route.

The Right to Dignity

Although the United States Constitution does not contain a specific guarantee of human dignity, it has been accepted by the United States Supreme Court that the concept of human dignity is at the core of the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. For Brennan J this was decisive of the question in Gregg

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/24


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Barton, Elizabeth


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/25

 v. Georgia.

"The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats "members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. [It is] thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being possessed of common human dignity.""

Under our constitutional order the right to human dignity is specifically guaranteed. It can only be limited by legislation which passes the stringent test of being 'necessary'. The weight given to human dignity by Justice Brennan is wholly consistent with the values of our Constitution and the new order established by it. It is also consistent with the approach to extreme punishments followed by courts in other countries.

In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has stressed this aspect of punishment.

"Respect for human dignity especially requires the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishments. [The state] cannot turn the offender into an object of crime prevention to the detriment of his constitutionally protected right to social worth and respect."

That capital punishment constitutes a serious impairment of human dignity has also been recognised by judgments of the Canadian Supreme Court. Kindler v Canada was concerned with the extradition from Canada to the United States of two fugitives, Kindler, who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in the United States, and Ng who was facing a murder charge there and a possible death sentence. Three of the seven judges who heard the cases expressed the opinion that the death penalty was cruel and unusual:

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/25


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Barton, John de


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/203

 BALOCHI TALES.

VIII.

.

HREE foolish Baloches went out one day to rob. When they came to a distant land, they met a rider. The rider stopped some way off and made a salaam. He thought in his heart: "They are three, and I am one; may be they'll attack me." Then those three men went on their way, and the rider went on his way. The three men on foot began to talk together, and each of them said: "The horseman salaamed to me," and they began to quarrel about it. Then one of them said: "Come on! let us ask the horseman himself to which of us he salaamed." So they started off after the horseman, and he thought they were coming to attack him. So he spurred on ahead, and they followed behind, till he came to a village, and, as soon as he stopped there to exchange greetings, up came the foot-men behind him, and said: "We want only to ask you one question: to which of us did you salaam?" The horseman said: "I salaamed to the biggest fool of you." Then they said: "Let us tell stories of our foolishness, and see who is the biggest fool." The first one said:

THE FIRST FOOL'S STORY.

One night I was sleeping in my house with my wife. I told her to get up and shut the door, and she said: "Get up and shut the door yourself" At last we settled it that the one who spoke first should have to shut the door. Now there was a thief listening to what we said, who had made his way into the house. First he robbed our house, and I see him, and my wife sees him; but


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Barton, John (15th cent.)


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/287

VII.] monosyllabism like that to which the linguistic analyst is conducted by his researches among the earliest representatives of Indo-European language; and he finds no more difficulty in distinguishing the one from the other, and recognizing the true character of each, than does the geologist in distinguishing a primitive crystalline formation from a conglomerate, composed of well-worn pebbles, of diverse origin and composition, and containing fragments of earlier and later fossils. If the English were strictly reduced to its words of one syllable, it would still contain an abundant repertory of developed parts of speech, expressing every variety of idea, and illustrating a rich phonetic system. The Indo-European roots are not parts of speech, but of indeterminate character, ready to be shaped into nouns and verbs by the aid of affixes; they are limited in signification to a single class of ideas, the physical or sensual, the phenomenal, out of which the intellectual and moral develop themselves by still traceable processes; and in them is represented a system of articulated sounds of great simplicity. It will be not uninstructive to set down here, for comparison with the spoken alphabet of our modern English, already given (see p. ), that scanty scheme of articulations, containing but three vowels and twelve consonants, which alone is discoverable in the earliest Indo-European language; it is as follows:


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/205

 Rh when a man passed by me. I called out to this man: "Look for a wife for me." One day, as fate would have it, this man came back again while I was grazing my herd, and said: "I have just come from performing your betrothal." So I divided my cattle into shares, and gave him one-third. After a year had passed the man came back again, and said: "I have now celebrated your wedding." On this I gave him another third part of my herd. Another year passed, and again he came back, and said: "A son has been born to you." I then gave him the third that was left, and said: "Take them away. Now show me my wife and show me my son." He went in front, and I went behind, till we came to a village, A woman was sitting there, rocking a child in a swinging cradle. The man said: "Go on, that's your wife, and that's your son." So I went up close to the woman. Just then the child began to cry. I said to the woman: "Rock the child!" She said nothing, but went on rocking. The child cried again, and again I called out: "Woman! why aren't you rocking the child?" She said: "My curse upon you! who are you, to come chattering to me?" I said: "Woman! you are my wife, this is my child; I have given a whole herd of cattle for you! Why do you make a disturbance?" On this she called out to her husband and brother, and when they came up she said: "This coward has been calling me names!" They seized me by the arm, and said: "Who are you?" I said: "I am the master here; that's my wife and child." On this these two men bound me and dragged me before the king, and accused me of being a thief I was condemned, and lay in prison for a year, and after a year I was let out. This is the story of my foolishness. Now which of these three was the biggest fool? The horseman said: "The biggest fool was the cowherd, for he gave up all he had without ever seeing wife or child. It was to him that I salaamed."


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/26

 "It is the supreme indignity to the individual, the ultimate corporal punishment, the final and complete lobotomy and the absolute and irrevocable castration. [It is] the ultimate desecration of human dignity…"

Three other judges were of the opinion that:

"[t]here is strong ground for believing, having regard to the limited extent to which the death penalty advances any valid penological objectives and the serious invasion of human dignity it engenders, that the death penalty cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, be justified in this country."

In the result, however, the majority of the Court held that the validity of the order for extradition did not depend upon the constitutionality of the death penalty in Canada, or the guarantee in its Charter of Rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The Charter was concerned with legislative and executive acts carried out in Canada, and an order for extradition neither imposed nor authorised any punishment within the borders of Canada.

The issue in Kindler's case was whether the action of the Minister of Justice, who had authorised the extradition without any assurance that the death penalty would not be imposed, was constitutional. It was argued that this executive act was contrary to section 12 of the Charter which requires the executive to act in accordance with fundamental principles of justice. The Court decided by a majority of four to three that in the particular circumstances of the case the decision of the Minister of Justice could not be set aside on these grounds. In balancing the international obligations of Canada in respect of extradition, and another purpose of the extradition legislation—to prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for criminals, against the likelihood that the fugitives would be executed if returned to the United States, the view of the majority was that the decision to return the fugitives to the United States could not be said to be contrary to the fundamental principles of justice. In their view, it would not shock the conscience of Canadians to permit this to be done.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Ng and Kindler took their cases to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, contending that Canada had breached its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Once again, there was a division of opinion within the tribunal. In Ng's case it was said: "The Committee is aware that, by definition, every execution of a sentence of death may be considered to constitute cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the covenant."

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/26


text:
Page:Jews and Judaism in America (Ezra).djvu/11

[ 5 ] Sunday as a day of rest unto Israel, instead of the Decalogue Sabbath. Recently, Dr. Voorsanger created a sensation in orthodox Jewish circles by announcing his conversion to the Mosaic dietary law. It so happened that he was delivering a drosohodrasha [sic] according to orthodox style on the second day of the New Year, before a conservative congregation at San Francisco, in the course of which he, "ed against the Shochotim, of his country who refused to be examined or to show their knives to the Rabbis. This refusal the preacher stigmatized as Chilul Hashem, just like many other reprovable acts which he enumerated. Then towards the end of his discourse Dr. Voorsanger said that it would naturally be expected that he should practice what he preached, and therefore he announced his resolve not to turn tail on his own utterances" This piece of news, wittingly declared a Jewish journalist may be greeted with the Psalmist's words, Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be glad. To my mind, most of the reform rabbis in America are woefully deficient in the knowledge of true Judaism. They know very little of Hebrew; they ignore the laws of Schulhan Aruch and most of them never care to study them. Once a question was put to one of them, whether according to the Jewish law, a deer was prohibited or not, when he, who was not less ignorant than the majority of his congregtioncongregation [sic], answered in the affirmative. Therefore most of the so-called rabbis hailing from this camp, hardly deserve the title affixed to their names. Amongst them may be found the Chutzpah or Shegets rabbi, and preferentially represented by tho "half-baked" product. He derides the Talmud (of which he is densely ignorant); sneers at Jewish customs and observances, mocks at every attempt to retain the ancient form of Jewish worship. On Sabbaths, at the conclusion of the services, he lights a cigar in the vestibule of the


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/206

 198 IX.

.

A certain king went out to hunt with his followers, and when they came to a certain place the king gave this order: "When any hunter puts up any game he must pursue it alone: no one else must go with him." By God's order it so happened that the king put up a buck. The buck went off and the king after it; no one else came. But the king's wazir followed a long way behind, thinking to keep himself informed of what the king did. As the buck bounded on he alighted in the midst of a flock of goats. The goatherd shouted to the king: "Who are you, scattering my herd?" The king said nothing. Then the goatherd struck at him with his hatchet, and hit him on the head; the king fell off his mare dead. Up came the wazir on his track. "You have killed the king," said he to the goatherd, "I didn't know he was the king," said the goatherd; "he scattered my herd and so I struck him, and he fell down dead. You can do whatever you think proper," "Dig a hole," said the wazir, "and let us bury him." So the goatherd dug a hole. The wazir then took off the king's clothes, and he took off his weapons, and gave them to the goatherd. They buried the king there, and then the wazir said: "Now you are king, come now and take the king's place." So the goatherd hid his face from the army, and the wazir said to the army: "The king is not well; he has caught a fever. You are dismissed; I will take the king home myself" So all the king's followers returned, each man to his own house, and the wazir brought the king home. Now the king had two wives, and the wazir said to them: "Your former husband is dead, now this man is your husband." They said: "If this is the man, we accept him." Then the wazir said to the goatherd: "You must stay in the house, and not go out. You are king, but I will administer justice myself." So for some days he stayed in the house and did not go out.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/204

 196 neither of us says a word, lest we should have to shut the door. Then the thief tied our things up in a bundle, and carried it out, and put it down outside. Then he came back and rubbed his hand on the bottom of the griddle, and came and rubbed it over the faces of both of us, man and wife, and made both our faces black, and then went out and walked off with our things. But we did not say a word. In the morning, when it was day, my wife called out: "Man, your face is black!" and I called out: "Well done, wife! Now you get up and shut the door." This is the story of my foolishness.

THE SECOND FOOL'S STORY.

Then the next one said: My foolishness is as follows! I had two wives. One day one of my wives, who was searching my head for vermin, noticed a white hair in my head, and she pulled out that white hair. Then my other wife said: "I saw that white hair, that you have pulled out, every day; now, what have you pulled it out for?" Then I said: "Wife, don't quarrel; you pull out a black hair." So she pulled out a black hair. On this the first wife said: "I only pulled out a white one, why have you gone and pulled out a black one?" I said: "Don't quarrel; you pull out a black one, too." So she also pulled out a black one. Then the second said: I have only pulled out one, and she has pulled out two!" I said to her: "You can pull out another." Then the first wife complained, saying: "Hers are both black, but mine are one black and one white." I said: "Don't be vexed; pull out another black one." So they went on quarrelling till they pulled out all my hair, and my beard, and my love-locks; they rooted out everything. This was my foolishness, that I would not vex my wives, and have lost all my hair, and am left quite bald.

THE THIRD FOOL'S STORY.

Then the third said: My foolishness is as follows. I had a herd of cattle, and one day I was grazing my herd,


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/207

 Rh till one day he said to himself: "I have now become a king, let me go to the court-house and see what law and justice are." When he came there he sees the wazir sitting on a throne; so he came up, thinking he would sit on the throne with the wazir, but the wazir said: "Keep off! You are a goatherd, and have a goatherd's wit!" He turned back and went home. Next day he went again while the wazir was seated on the throne, and again the wazir told him to get away, and that day also he went home. The third day he came again, and the wazir again spoke as before. Then the goatherd struck the wazir, and drove him away, and threw him off the throne, and cast him forth out of the town. The wazir fled away, and the goat-herd exercised the royal sway, and sat upon the throne. The wazir became poor and hungry, and one day he went out and sat on the river-bank. He sees a flower come floating down on the water, and he put out his hand and pulled it out. He saw it was a flower of heavenly beauty, and thought he would take it to the king, and perchance he would show him some favour. So he took it to the king, and the king took it into his house and gave it to his wives. The two wives began to quarrel about the flower, each one saying, "I will have it." The king came back to the wazir, and said: "Bring me another flower like this by to-morrow morning, or I will rip you up." The wazir returned, and sat down on the river-bank, thinking, "Where can I find another such flower?" He sat there all day, and passed the night there too. When the sun rose in the morning, he said to himself: "Now there is no way back for me; if I go back the king will rip me up; rather than go back to die, I will here and now jump into the river." With that he threw himself into the river. When he got to the bottom he sees a heavenly garden laid out, and, going on, he sees a lordly fort built there. He went in, and there, God be praised! the Holy Prophet was holding his court, and the goatherd who had become the new king was standing before him, and fanning him to keep off flies!


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/288

266 These are the sounds which are distinguished from one another by the most marked differences, which our organs most readily utter, and which are most universally found in human speech: all others are of later origin, having grown out of these in the course of the phonetic changes which words necessarily undergo, as they pass from one generation's keeping to another's. Our race has learned, as we may truly express it, by long ages of practice, of both mouth and ear, what the child now learns, by imitation and instruction, in a few months or years: namely, to add to its first easy utterances others more nicely differentiated, and produced by a greater effort of the organs. In like manner, starting from the mere rudiments of expression in radical monosyllables, the tribes of our family have acquired, through centuries and thousands of years of effort, the distinction and designation of innumerable shades of meaning, the recognition and representation of a rich variety of relations, in the later wealth of their inflective tongues—resources which, being once won, the child learns to wield dexterously even before he is full grown. It will be our next task to review the steps by which our language advanced out of its primitive monosyllabic stage, by which it acquired the character of inflective speech. To follow out the whole process in detail would be to construct in full the comparative grammar and history of the Indo-European dialects—a task vastly too great for us to grapple with here; we can only direct our attention to some of the principal and characteristic features of the development.

The first beginning of polysyllabism seems to have been made by compounding together roots of the two classes already described, pronominal and verbal. Thus were produced true forms, in which the indeterminate radical idea received a definite significance and application. The addition, for example, to the verbal root vak, 'speaking,' of pronominal elements mi, si, ti (these are the earliest historically traceable forms of the endings: they were probably yet earlier ma, sa, ta), in which ideas of the nearer and remoter relation, of the first, second, and third persons, were already distinguished, produced combinations vakmi, vaksi,


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/209

 Rh herd to Sammi, saying: "This herd is yours; for when I die the heir will not give you the rest of my cattle." After this he moved away and went to live under the protection of Doda Gorgezh, and he said to Doda: "When I die, let my heirs carry off all the rest of my cattle, but this herd is Sammi's; do not then give them up to anyone, for they are under your guardianship." One day Sammi's husband died, and the heirs came and demanded his cattle. Doda gave them all the rest of the cattle, but did not give up Sammi's herd. One day soon after, the Bulethis came and carried off that herd. Doda went in pursuit, and came up with them at Garmaf, and there they fought. Doda was slain by the Bulethis, and his tomb is still there. After this the Bulethis came again, and drove off a herd of camels belonging to Rāis, Doda's cousin. Rāis, with his brethren Kāuri, Chandrām, Tota, Murid, and Summen, pursued them, overtook them, and gave them battle, but they were all slain there by the Bulethis, together with Rais. Only one brother was left, named Balach, who was a man of no spirit. Then Balach went to the shrine of Sakhi-Sarwar, and for three years he fetched water for the visitors at the shrine. After three years were passed, one night he saw a dream: Sakhi-Sarwar came to Balach, and roused him, saying, "Go and fight with the Bulethis." Getting up, he went and bought a bow, and at night he took it and unstrung it. When he arose next morning he finds the bow strung. Then Sakhi-Sarwar gave him his dismissal,—"Now thy bow is strung, go and fight thy enemies." So Balach went and waged war on the Bulethis; he had only one companion, Nakhifo by name (they were half-brothers, their father being Hassan, but Nakhifo's mother was a slave). No one else was with him. They fought in the Sham and Nesao plains, in Barkhan, and Syahaf, and Kahan, for in those days all that country belonged to the Bulethis. When men lay down to rest at night they would discharge their arrows at them; threescore-and-one men they slew. Then the Bulethis left the


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/289

VII.] vakti, to which usage assigned the meaning 'I here speak,' 'thou there speakest,' 'he yonder speaks,' laying in them the idea of predication or assertion, the essential characteristic which makes a verb instead of a noun, just as we put the same into the ambiguous element, love, when we say I love. Other pronominal elements, mainly of compound form, indicating plurality of subject, made in like manner the three persons of the plural; they were masi (ma-si, 'I-thou', i.e. 'we'), tasi (ta-si, 'he-thou,' i.e. 'ye'), and anti (of more doubtful genesis). A dual number of the same three persons was likewise added; but the earliest form and derivation of its endings cannot be satisfactorily made out. Thus was produced the first verbal tense, the simplest and most immediate of all derivative forms from roots. The various shapes which its endings have assumed in the later languages of the family have already more than once been referred to, in the way of illustration of the processes of linguistic growth: our th or s, in he goeth or goes, still distinctly represents the ti of the third person singular; and in am we have a solitary relic of the mi of the first. Doubtless the tense was employed at the outset as general predicative form, being neither past, present, nor future, but all of them combined, and doing duty as either, according as circumstances required, and as sense and connection explained; destitute, in short, of any temporal or modal character; but other verbal forms by degrees grew out of it, or allied themselves with it, assuming the designation of other modifications of predicative meaning, and leaving to it the office of an indicative present. The prefixion of a pronominal adverb, a or ā, the so-called "augment," pointing to a 'there' or 'then' as one of the conditions of the action signified, produced a distinctively past or preterit tense. Although only very scanty and somewhat dubious traces of such an augment-preterit (aorist or imperfect) are found in any languages of the family beside the Aryan and the Greek, it is looked upon as an original formation, once shared by them all. Again, the repetition of the root, either complete, or by "reduplication," as we term it, the repetition of its initial part, was made to indicate


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/210

 202 hill country, and marched down into the Indus plains. When Balach grew old he made his dwelling at Sangsila, and there a band of Bulethi horsemen fell upon him, and slew him, and lost one of their own men too. This was how it happened. The Bulethis, as they came up, called out to Balach: "Balach! give up that money you carried off!" Balach said: "Come nearer; I am deaf in my ears." So they came close up, and again demanded it. Then Balach said: "In byegone days, when I had the money by me, you never asked for it; but now, when it has all melted away from me, now you come asking for it." He had a razor in his hand, and he plunged it into the belly of the Bulethi, saying, "There's your money for you." The Bulethi fell dead, and then they fell upon Balach and slew him. 'Twas thus the Bulethis and the Gorgezhes fought.

XI.

.

There was once a king, and he had no son, till, as it fell out, a fakir prayed that a son might be born to him. After this a son was born. When the king's son grew up, they made him a bow and clay pellets to play with, and one day, when a woman came to fetch a pot of water, he let fly a pellet at her, and broke her water-pot. So he went on breaking them, till the whole tribe assembled and complained to the king, saying: "Thy son fires pellets at us and breaks our water-pots." Then the king issued orders to the coppersmiths to make copper waterpots for all whose vessels were broken. So they made them copper water-pots. On this the king's son made him steel bullets, and when the women carried forth their water-pots to fetch water he discharged these steel bullets at them, and broke their water-pots. Again the tribe gathered together and came to the king, and said:


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/208

 200 When the wazir turned back he filled a basketful of the flowers and took it with him. Then he closed his eyes, and opening them again, he sees that he is still standing on the river-bank. The wazir took up the basket of flowers, and went and presented them to the king. The king asked him whence he had brought them, and the wazir told him how it had happened. The king said: "Did you recognise anyone there?" "Yes, my lord," said the wazir, "I recognised thee!" "Where was I?" said he. "Thou wast waving a fan before the Prophet," said the wazir. "Then do not call me Goatherd," said the king, "for God has given me the kingdom. Now you can return to your own place as wazir, and I will rule as king myself."

So the king ruled as king, and the wazir served as wazir.

X.

.

A certain Bulethi dwelt in the land of Sangsila; he had much cattle but no son. And in that place he grew a crop of millet. One day he went to stroll round the field, and saw that a herd of cattle had been eating the millet. So he looked for their tracks all round the field to see which side they had come from. But he could find no track outside the banks, although the herd had grazed down the millet inside. The next day when he came he found the millet again grazed down, and again he searched for the tracks, but no track went outside the bank. Then he made a smoky fire, and left it burning at the millet-field that the cattle might come to it, for it is the custom of cattle to collect round a fire. When he came the third day he sees that the cattle, after grazing on the millet, had come and lain down by the fire. Then he knew in his heart that this herd had come from heaven. There were nineteen cows in the herd; he drove them off and brought them home. His wife's name was Sammi. He gave the


text:
Page:Stubbs's Calendar or The Fatal Boots.djvu/120

had kept the house in Duke-Street for more than two years. I recollected some of the chairs and tables from dear old Squiggle, and the bowl in which I had made that famous rum-punch, the evening she went away, which she and my sisters left untouched, and I was obliged to drink after they were gone; but that's not to the purpose.

Think of my sister Mary's luck! That chap, Waters, fell in love with her, and married her; and she now keeps her carriage, and lives in state near Squiggle. I offered to make it up with Waters; but he bears malice, and never will see or speak to me. He had the impudence, too, to say, that he took in all letters for mamma at Squiggle; and that as mine were


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/290

268 the completion of the action signified by the root, and furnished another past tense, a perfect: for example, from the root dā, 'give,' Sanskrit dadāu, Greek dedōka, Latin dedi; from dhā, 'put, make,' Greek tetheika, Old High-German tēta, Anglo-Saxon dide, our did. This reduplicated perfect, as is well known, is a regular part of the scheme of Greek conjugation; in the Latin, not a few of the oldest verbs show the same, in full, or in more or less distinct traces; the Mœso-Gothic has preserved it in a considerable number of verbs (for example, in haihald, 'held,' from haldan, 'hold;' saislep, 'slept,' from slepan, 'sleep'); in the other Germanic dialects it is nearly confined to the single word did, already quoted. Moods were added by degrees: a conjunctive, having for its sign a union-vowel, a, interposed between root and endings, and bearing perhaps a symbolical meaning; and an optative, of which the sign is i or ia in the same position, best explained as a verbal root, meaning 'wish, desire.' From this optative descends the "subjunctive" of all the Germanic dialects. The earliest future appears to have been made by compounding with the root the already developed optative of the verb 'to be,' as-yâ-mi; for 'I shall call,' then, the language literally said 'I may be calling' (vak-s-yâ-mi). Of primitive growth, too, was a reflexive or "middle" voice, characterized by an extension of the personal endings, which is most plausibly explained as a repetition of them, once as subject and once as object: thus, vak-mai, for vak-ma-mi, 'call-I-me,' i.e. 'I call myself:' it was also soon employed in a passive sense, 'I am called'—as reflexives, of various age and form, have repeatedly been so employed, or have been converted into distinct passives, in the history of Indo-European language. Other secondary forms of the verb, as intensives, desideratives, causatives, were created by various modifications of the root, or compositions with other roots; yet such verbal derivatives have played only a subordinate part in the


text:
Page:Stubbs's Calendar or The Fatal Boots.djvu/121

Rh all begging letters, he burned them, and never said a word to her concerning them. He allowed mamma fifty pounds a year, and, if she were not such a fool, she might have had three times as much; but the old lady was high and mighty, forsooth, and would not be beholden, even to her own daughter, for more than she actually wanted. Even this fifty pounds she was going to refuse; but when I came to live with her, of course I wanted pocket money as well as board and lodging, and so I had the fifty pounds for my share, and eked out with it as well as I could.

Old Bates and the Captain, between them, gave mamma a hundred pounds when she left me (she had the deuce's own luck, to be sure—much more than ever fell to me, I know) and as she said she would try and work for her living, it was thought best to take a house and let lodgings, which she did. Our first and second floor paid us four guineas a week, on an average; and the front parlor and attic made forty pounds more. Mamma and Eliza used to have the front attic: but I took that, and they slept in the servants'


text:
Page:Stubbs's Calendar or The Fatal Boots.djvu/122

106 room. Lizzy had a pretty genius for work, and earned a guinea a week that way; so that we had got nearly two hundred a year over the rent to keep house with,—and we got on pretty well. Besides, women eat nothing; my women didn't care for meat for days together sometimes,—so that it was only necessary to dress a good steak or so for me.

Mamma would not think of my continuing in the Post Office. She said her dear JohnBob [sic], her husband's son, her gallant soldier, and all that, should remain at home and be a gentleman—which I was, certainly, though I didn't find fifty pounds a year very much to buy clothes and be a gentleman upon; to be sure, mother found me shirts and linen, so that that wasn't in the fifty pounds. She kicked a little at paying the washing too; but she gave in at last, for I was her dear John, you know; and I'm blest if I could not make her give me the gown off her back. Fancy! once she cut up a very nice rich black silk scarf, which my sister Waters sent her, and made me a waistcoat and two stocks of it. She was so very soft, the old lady!


text:
Page:Stubbs's Calendar or The Fatal Boots.djvu/123

Rh I'd lived in this way for five years or more, making myself content with my fifty pounds a year (perhaps, I’d saved a little out of it; but that's neither here nor there). From year's end to year's end I remained faithful to my dear mamma, never leaving her except for a month or so in the summer—when a bachelor may take a trip to Gravesend or Margate, which would be too expensive for a family. I say a bachelor, for the fact is, I don't know whether I am married or not—never having heard a word since of the scoundrelly Mrs. Stubbs.

I never went to the public house before meals; for, with my beggarly fifty pounds, I could not afford to dine away from home; but there I had my regular seat, and used to come home pretty glorious, I can tell you. Then, bed till eleven; then, breakfast and the newspaper; then, a stroll in Hyde Park or Saint James's; then, home at half-past three to dinner—when I jollied, as I call it, for the rest of the day. I was my mother's delight; and thus, with a clear conscience, I managed to live on.


text:
Page:Stubbs's Calendar or The Fatal Boots.djvu/124

108 How fond she was of me, to be sure! Being sociable myself, and loving to have my friends about me, we often used to assemble a company of as hearty fellows as you would wish to sit down with, and keep the nights up royally. "Never mind, my boys," I used to say. "Send the bottle round: mammy pays for all." as she did, sure enough; and sure enough we punished her cellar too. The good old lady used to wait upon us, as if for all the world she had been my servant, instead of a lady and my mamma. Never used she to repine, though I often, as I must confess, gave her occasion (keeping her up till four o'clock in the morning, because she never could sleep until she saw her "dear Bob" in bed, and leading her a sad anxious life). She was of such a sweet temper, the old lady, that I think in the course of five years I never knew her in a passion, except twice: and then with sister Lizzy, who declared I was ruining the house, and driving the lodgers away, one by one. But mamma would not hear of such envious spite on


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/291

VII.] of the languages of our family, and need not be dwelt upon here. Of more consequence is the frequent formation of a special theme for the present tense, to which was then added a corresponding imperfect, made by means of the augment. This was accomplished in various ways: either by vowel-increment (as in Greek leipō, from lip, 'leave'), by reduplication (as in Greek dadāmi, from dā: the repetition of the root doubtless indicated repetition or continuity of the action), or by the addition or even insertion of formative elements (as in Greek deiknumi from dik, 'point out,' Sanskrit yunajmi from yuj, 'join;' Greek gignōscō, Latin gnosco, from gnā, 'know'); these last are, at least in part, noun-suffixes, and the forms they make are by origin denominatives.

Of this system of primitive verbal forms, produced before the separation of the family into branches, almost every branch has abandoned some part, while each has also new forms of its own to show, originated partly for supplying the place of that which was lost, partly in order to fill up the scheme to greater richness, and capacity of nicer and more varied expression. The Greek verb is, among them all, the most copious in its wealth, the most subtle and expressive in its distinctions: it has lost hardly anything that was original, and has created a host of new forms, some of which greatly tax the ingenuity of the comparative philologist who would explain their genesis. The Latin follows not very far behind, having made up its considerable losses, and supplied some new uses, by combinations of secondary growth: such are its imperfect in bam, its future in bo, and its derivative perfects in ui and si, in all of which are seen the results of composition with the roots of the substantive verb. Both these are greatly superior to the Sanskrit, in copiousness of forms, and in preciseness of their application. The Germanic verb was reduced at one period almost to the extreme of poverty, having saved only the ancient present, which was used also in the sense of a future, and a preterit, the modern representative of the original reduplicated perfect; each of the two tenses having also its subjunctive mood. The existing dialects of the branch have supplied a


text: Stubbs's Calendar or The Fatal Boots/Chapter 12


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/27

 There was no dissent from that statement. But the International Covenant contains provisions permitting, with some qualifications, the imposition of capital punishment for the most serious crimes. In view of these provisions, the majority of the Committee were of the opinion that the extradition of fugitives to a country which enforces the death sentence in accordance with the requirements of the International Covenant, should not be regarded as a breach of the obligations of the extraditing country. In Ng's case, the method of execution which he faced if extradited was asphyxiation in a gas chamber. This was found by a majority of the Committee to involve unnecessary physical and mental suffering and, notwithstanding the sanction given to capital punishment, to be cruel punishment within the meaning of article 7 of the International Covenant. In Kindler's case, in which the complaint was delivered at the same time as that in the Ng's case, but the decision was given earlier, it was held that the method of execution which was by lethal injection was not a cruel method of execution, and that the extradition did not in the circumstances constitute a breach of Canada's obligations under the International Covenant.

The Committee also held in Kindler's case that prolonged judicial proceedings giving rise to the death row phenomenon does not per se constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. There were dissents in both cases. Some Commissioners in Ng's case held that asphyxiation was not crueller than other forms of execution. Some in Kindler's case held that the provision of the International Covenant against the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life took priority over the provisions of the International Covenant which allow the death sentence, and that Canada ought not in the circumstances to have extradited Kindler without an assurance that he would not be executed.

It should be mentioned here that although articles 6(2) to (5) of the International Covenant specifically allow the imposition of the death sentence under strict controls "for the most serious crimes" by those countries which have not abolished it, it provides in article 6(6) that "[n]othing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant." The fact that the International Covenant sanctions capital punishment must be seen in this context. It tolerates but does not provide justification for the death penalty.

Despite these differences of opinion, what is clear from the decisions of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations is that the death penalty is regarded by it as cruel and inhuman punishment within the ordinary meaning of those words, and that it was because of the specific provisions of the International Covenant authorising the imposition of capital punishment by member States in certain circumstances, that the words had to be given a narrow meaning.

The European Convention on Human Rights

Similar issues were debated by the European Court of Human Rights in Soering v United Kingdom .

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/27


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/28

 Kingdom. This case was also concerned with the extradition to the United States of a fugitive to face murder charges for which capital punishment was a competent sentence. It was argued that this would expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 2 of the European Convention protects the right to life but makes an exception in the case of "the execution of a sentence of a court following [the] conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law." The majority of the Court held that article 3 could not be construed as prohibiting all capital punishment, since to do so would nullify article 2. It was, however, competent to test the imposition of capital punishment in particular cases against the requirements of article 3—the manner in which it is imposed or executed, the personal circumstances of the condemned person and the disproportionality to the gravity of the crime committed, as well as the conditions of detention awaiting execution, were capable of bringing the treatment or punishment received by the condemned person within the proscription.

On the facts, it was held that extradition to the United States to face trial in Virginia would expose the fugitive to the risk of treatment going beyond the threshold set by article 3. The special factors taken into account were the youth of the fugitive (he was 18 at the time of the murders), an impaired mental capacity, and the suffering on death row which could endure for up to eight years if he were convicted. Additionally, although the offence for which extradition was sought had been committed in the United States, the fugitive who was a German national was also liable to be tried for the same offence in Germany. Germany, which has abolished the death sentence, also sought his extradition for the murders. There was accordingly a choice in regard to the country to which the fugitive should be extradited, and that choice should have been exercised in a way which would not lead to a contravention of article 3. What weighed with the Court was the fact that the choice facing the United Kingdom was not a choice between extradition to face a possible death penalty and no punishment, but a choice between extradition to a country which allows the death penalty and one which does not. We are in a comparable position. A holding by us that the death penalty for murder is unconstitutional, does not involve a choice between freedom and death; it involves a choice between death in the very few cases which would otherwise attract that penalty under section 277(1)(a), and the severe penalty of life imprisonment.

Capital Punishment in India

In the amicus brief of the South African Police, reliance was placed on decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, and it is necessary to refer briefly to the way the law has developed in that country.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code authorises the imposition of the death sentence as a penalty for murder. In Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, the constitutionality of this provision was put in issue. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides that:

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/28