text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/304

 298 “What are you a doin’ on?” says she.

“I’m going to make some gruel for the young master,” says the cook, “for he’s dying for love of the lady.”

“Let me make it,” says Cap o’ Rushes.

“Well, the cook wouldn’t at first, but at last she said yes, and Cap o’ Rushes made the gruel. And when she had made it she slipped the ring into it on the sly before the cook took it upstairs.

The young man he drank it and he saw the ring at the bottom.

“Send for the cook,” says he.

So up she comes.

“Who made this here gruel?” says he.

“I did,” says the cook, for she were frightened.

And he looked at her.

“No, you didn’t,” says he. “Say who did it, and you shan’t be harmed.”

“Well, then, ’twas Cap o’ Rushes,” says she.

“Send Cap o’ Rushes here,” says he.

So Cap o’ Rushes came.

“Did you make my gruel?” says he.

“Yes, I did,” says she.

“Where did you get this ring,” says he.

“From him as gave it me,” says she.

“Who are you, then?” says the young man.

“I’ll show you,” says she. And she offed with her cap o’ rushes, and there she was in her beautiful clothes.

Well, the master’s son he got well very soon, and they was to be married in a little time. It was to be a very grand wedding, and everyone was asked far and near. And Cap o’ Rushes’ father was asked. But she never told nobody who she was.

But before the wedding she went to the cook, and says she:

“I want you to dress every dish without a mite o’ salt,”

“That’ll be rarely tasty,” says the cook.

“That don’t signify,” says she.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Brian

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


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/305

 Rh “Very well,” says the cook.

Well, the wedding-day came, and they was married. And after they was married all the company sat down to their vittles. When they began to eat the meat, that was so tasteless they couldn’t eat it. But Cap o’ Rushes’ father he tried first one dish and then another, and then he burst out crying.

“What is the matter?” said the master’s son to him.

“Oh!” says he, “I had a daughter. And I asked her how much she loved me. And she said, ‘As much as fresh meat loves salt.’ And I turned her from my door, for I thought she didn’t love me. And now I see she loved me best of all. And she may be dead for aught I know.”

“No, father, here she is!” says Cap o’ Rushes. And she goes up to him and puts her arms round him.

And so they was happy ever after.

A. W. T.

IV..

Once upon a time there was a king and a queen, as in many lands have been. The king had a dochter, Kate, and the queen had one. The queen was jealous of the king’s dochter being bonnier than her own, and cast about to spoil her beauty. So she took counsel of the henwife, who told her to send the lassie to her next morning fasting. The queen did so, but the lassie found means to get a piece before going out. When she came to the henwife’s she asked for eggs, as she had been told to do; the henwife desired her to “lift the lid off that pot there” and see. The lassie did so, but naething happened. “Gae hame to


text:
User:Inductiveload/textids

TextIDs and page ranges.

'http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/image.cfm?PagePosition=%d&TextID=%s' % (i, textid) # specific links 'http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/image.cfm?TextID=%s' % textid # first page image 'http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=%s' % textid # book with nav links

title: User:Inductiveload/textids


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/306

 300 your minnie and tell her to keep her press door better steekit,” said the henwife. The queen knew from this that the lassie had had something to eat, so watched the next morning and sent her away fasting; but the princess saw some country folk picking peas by the roadside, and being very affable she spoke to them and took a handful of the peas, which she ate by the way.

In consequence, the answer at the henwife’s house was the same as on the preceding day.

The third day the queen goes along with the girl to the henwife. Now, when the lid is lifted off the pot, off jumps the princess’s ain bonny head and on jumps a sheep’s head.

The queen, now quite satisfied, returns home.

Her own daughter, however, took a fine linen cloth and wrapped it round her sister’s head and took her by the hand and gaed out to seek their fortin. They gaed and they gaed far, and far’er than I can tell, till they cam to a king’s castle. Kate chappit at the door and sought a “night’s lodging for hersel’ and a sick sister.” This is granted on condition that Kate sits up all night to watch the king’s sick son, which she is quite willing to do. She is also promised a “pock of siller” “if a’s right”. Till midnight all goes well. As twelve o’clock rings, however, the sick prince rises, dresses himself, and slips downstairs, followed by Kate unnoticed. The prince went to the stable, saddled his horse, called his hound, jumped into the saddle, Kate leaping lightly up behind him. Away rode the prince and Kate through the greenwood, Kate, as they pass, plucking nuts from the trees and filling her apron with them. They rode on and on till they came to a green hill. The prince here drew bridle and spoke, “Open, open, green hill, an’ let the young prince in with his horse and his hound,” and, added Kate, “his lady him behind.”

Immediately the green hill opened and they passed in. A magnificent hall is entered, brightly lighted up, and many beautiful ladies surround the prince and lead him off to the dance, while Kate, unperceived, seats herself by the


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Burnard, Nevill Northey


text: Author:Frances Freeling Broderip

title: Author:Frances Freeling Broderip


text:
Author:Charlotte Sophia Burne

Works

 * Shropshire Folk-Lore: A Sheaf of Gleanings, London: Trübner & Co., 1883.

title: Author:Charlotte Sophia Burne


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/336

 330 have left off transmitting them to their children. If the folk-lore of England is not recorded soon it will never be recorded at all, for these “foot-prints in the sands of time” are fast being trampled out by the hurrying feet of the busy multitudes of the Present.

.


text:
Page:Condor24(6).djvu/18

204 NOTES ON THE YELLOW-BILLED LOON

By ALFRED M. BAILEY

HE following notes on the Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsi) were made in southeastern Alaska while I was carrying on field work for the Biological Survey and are published with the permission of Dr. E. W. Nelson, Chief of that Bureau.

The migration of the Yellow-billed Loon has long been one of the problems of northern ornithological work and has been dealt with by numerous authors, Dixon (Auk, October, 1916) and Bent (Life Histories of North American Diving Birds, 1919) being the latest. The presence of this species in southeastern Alaska has been authenticated by the taking of a few specimens, but without positive notes for any extended period. Mr. George Willett has spent considerable time in the vicinity of Craig and Sitka since 1913, and has recorded the species but twice; one was seen in the winter of 1919, and an immature specimen was collected near Wrangell during the fall of 1920. Mr. Gray with 18 years active field work has never collected a specimen, although he has seen it a few times and has a specimen taken from a fish trap.

As I had rather exceptional opportunities for observing the water birds in southeastern Alaska during 1920, I was able to collect a series of nine of these rare loons and make many sight records ranging throughout the year except during the months of July and August. I first saw the yellow-bills at Oliver Inlet, on Admiralty Island, February 6. In my report for the trip I listed them as "two abnormally large loons" which were noted flying up the Inlet. I identified these as Yellow-bills, but as I had never encountered the species prior to this time, and do not believe in sight records for rare species when one is not actually acquainted with the bird, I allowed the record to rest for future verification. I next saw an immature in Rocky Pass, between Kuiu and Kupreanoff islands, March 4; and again, the next day, while bucking a heavy wind in a blinding snow storm in the boat Auklet in Keku Straits, one came within a few feet of the bow of our boat. I again saw the species in the harbor at Wrangell on April 23, although I again failed to bring the bird to bag. It is to be emphasized that I identified these birds as Yellow-billed Loons at the time, but had no specimens to back the records.

Any one who has attempted to collect loons knows that the element of luck plays a far greater part than skill, and if he guesses wrongly as to the direction a loon takes when diving the first time, he might as well give up the bird. It was not until May 25 that I secured any specimens. I saw a fine adult bird off Marmon Island, the lower point of Douglas Island; and shortly after, in Gastineau Channel, I collected a big female in full plumage (length, 840 ram.; tarsus, 90; tail, 70; wing, 385). The ovaries of this specimen were undeveloped. Early the same morning, as we came down Stephens Passage, along Douglas Island, at least thirty loons were seen, but it was so foggy I could not identify them. Yellow-bills were next seen June 10 between Douglas and Admiralty islands, in Stephens Passage. There were three of them, two adults and an immature, of which I collected an adult and the immature. These birds appeared very conspicuous as they raised partly out of water, with wings outspread and strikingly colored beaks thrust skyward. Two other

title: Page:Condor24(6).djvu/18


text:
Page:Condor24(6).djvu/25

 FROM FIELD AND STUDY

The Capture of Water-fowl in Fish Nets.—The recent note by Mr. Stanley G. Jewett on the accidental capture of a White-winged Scoter (Oidemia deglandi) in a salmon net, is of particular interest in view of the fact that the Bureau of Biological Survey is giving attention to the use of nets to capture birds for banding purposes.

As stated in the paper referred to in the accompanying foot-note, several forms of net traps have been successfully used, among them being the well-known "fyke" net. This contrivance is made by covering a series of tour iron hoops, three to tour test in diameter, with cord webbing. When fully extended the hoops are about two feet apart, and the web cylinder thus produced is divided into two chambers by means of web funnels. The first of these has a large mouth while the second is much reduced. Short wings or guides of webbing are extended from the mouth of the trap and the whole affair is held in place in shallow water by long stakes forced into the mud.

In the marshes of the Illinois River these nets are used extensively for the capture of carp, buffalo, and other fishes, an energetic fisherman frequently running a line of forty to fifty "tykes". The nets are placed in areas where large numbers of ducks gather to feed, and it is common to find halt a dozen mallards or pintails in a single net. During March, 1922, while engaged in banding work in this region, I made a practice of trying to beat the fisherman to the nets that were set in my neighborhood for the purpose of securing any ducks that might have been caught. Pintails were most frequently taken and it was noticeable that they were usually caught in flocks of tour to six, indicating that they fed in small groups. and were strongly inclined to "follow the leader".

In this connection, mention may also be made of a recent "return" from a Buffle-head duck that was banded by Mr. Verdi Burtch, at Branchport, New Ycrk, on April 6, 1922. Eleven days later (April 17) the bird was found entangled in a herring net in Georgian Bay near Coilingwood, Ontario.

The problem of evolving suitable methods for the capture of diving ducks for banding purposes will still require considerable experimentation, but present indications are that some form of a submerged net will prove most satisfactory. Such a device will, of course, require an arrangement that will bring captured birds safely to the surface after hey have entered the chambers or pockets of the trap.—, U. S. Biological Survey, Washington, D. C., August 14, 1922. Northward Range of the Gray Vireo in California.—While on a short collecting trip as guest of Mr. A. Brazier Howell, I spent the afternoon of July 25, 1922, on the west slope of Walker Pass, which is in northeastern Kern County, California, at the southern end of the main high Sierra Nevada. The feature of the occasion was my meeting with an adult pair of Gray Vireos (Vireo vicinor). The exact spot was on a steep, north-facing hillside within one-fourth mile south of "Jack's Station" (now merely a roadside camping place); altitude close to 4500 feet; life-zone Upper Sonoran, in a semi-arid phase of it. The birds were in sparse brush (Garrya, Kunzia, Artemisia tridentata, and Cercocarpus betulaefolius); and a digger pine and a pinyon both grew within one hundred feet of where they were discovered.

I was first attracted by the broken, post-nuptially rendered song of the male—intermittent and sketchy, yet distinct enough from the songs of other vireos to be recognized at once. This male Gray Vireo was promptly shot. It proved to be in molt, with only two of the old tall-feathers remaining and with new feathers showing where old ones had fallen out, in the wings and in most of the body tracts. The weight of the bird was 12.5 grams. It is now catalogued as no. 43295 of the bird collection in the California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.

A minute or two after shooting the singing bird, I caught sight of the other bird which I concluded was the female of the pair. The only note she gave was a low harsh churr or shray, given now and then as she hopped slowly through the twiggery. From the bushes she went into the pinyon tree before mentioned, and thence into the digger

title: Page:Condor24(6).djvu/25


text:
Page:Condor24(6).djvu/26

 pine, reaching the unusual height of some fifteen feet above the slope at the base of the tree. Her head was turned from side to side at frequent intervals, especially when she approached and eyed me curiously at a range of not more than twelve feet.

As for field characters, besides the general deliberateness of movement, the thick, dark-colored bill was well seen; the gray tone of color both above and below was noticeable; there was no crest, nor inclination to a crest. I was particularly struck by the relative great length of tail, for a vireo; also this member drooped, most of the time, below the axis-line of the body. It will be recalled that chaparral-dwellers in general, whatever their genetic affiliations, have relatively long tails—for example, Bell Sparrows, Bewick Wrens, Wren-tits, Gnatcatchers, Towhees, and Thrashers.

Some of the above observations will be found new or supplementary to those reported for the Gray Vireo from the San Jacinto region (Grinnell and Swarth, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., vol. 10, 1913, pp. 291-297).

This Walker Pass record is the northernmost in California so far known for the species. In fact, only one other occurrence has been reported from north of west-central Los Angeles County (whence reported by Loye Miller, Condor,, 1921, p. 194). This other northern record (Grinnell, Pac. Coast Avifauna no. 11, 1915, p. 144) is for a point at 2400 feet altitude near Bodfish, on the Kern River, in Kern County. An adult female (now no. 20679, Mus. Vert. Zool.) was collected there by Waiter P. Taylor on June 16, 1911. It is in worn "breeding" plumage. Mr. Taylor's field-notes indicate that the bird was taken on a slope clothed in part with junipers and digger pines—evidently good Upper Sonoran. The date of capture would argue for its nesting in the immediate vicinity.

There are vast areas of the same sort of territory as has afforded the two Kern County records, around the southern Sierra Nevada. It all looks like perfectly proper country for Gray Vireos. I am tempted to believe that the species will be found widely, though not abundantly, represented there by someone seeking it in May or June, who is familiar with its song and habitat predilections.—, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of Calilornia, Berkeley, August 19, 1922. Two Birds from the Bitterroot Valley, Montana.—Ross Goose (Chen rossi). As most of the records of this goose in Montana are from points east of the divide, it seems worth while to record one that was taken at Corvallis, October 10, 1911. The specimen is a female, and is now in the Zoological Museum, University of Minnesota.

Rough-legged Hawk (Archibuteo lagopus sancti-johannis). Through an oversight I omitted this species from the list sent to Mr. Saunders several years ago. There is a specimen, a male bird, taken by the writer at Corvallis, January 10, 1910, in the Museum collection at the University of Minnesota. The species was a fairly common winter visitant in this vicinity.—, Elk River, Minnesota, June 2, 1922.

Blackbirds Flocking.—In the May, 1922, issue of (p. 93) mention is made of the Yellow-headed Blackbird flocking with Brewer Blackbirds. It is not an unusual occurrence here to see a combined flock of Brewer and Red-winged Blackbirds, Cowbirds and one or two Yellow-heads all feeding together on the ground, generally about the early part of May. By that time the Cowbirds have arrived and the other several species have not yet scattered to their widely differing nesting grounds. On May 3, this year, I passed by one bull lying out in the pasture with an attendant group of three or four Cowbirds and one Yellow-headed Blackbird, though I cannot say I saw the latter perch on the bull's back like the Cowbirds.—, Eastend, Saskatchewan, July 8, 1922.

Notes from Southwestern New Mexico.—White-winged Scoter (Oidemia deglandi). An adult female was brought to me November 10, 1921. It had been taken from a flock of six, on a small irrigation pond on Duck Creek, thirty miles northwest of Silver City. None of our local shooters remember to have taken this species in this country.

Zone-tailed Hawk (Buteo abbreviatus). From Tyrone, Grant County, New Mexico, a fine adult female was brought to me on April 15, 1922. Another was seen on several occasions in the same locality. I have never before seen this species in ten years careful collecting in southwestern New Mexico.

title: Page:Condor24(6).djvu/26


text:
Page:Condor24(6).djvu/27

 Arizona Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis superbus). On May 8, 1922, at Red Rock, Grant County, New Mexico, these Cardinals were abundant, at least a dozen being seen, and a pair taken. The Gila River comes out of a tight "box" just northeast of Red Rock, and at that point their distribution up the river seems to end.

White-winged Dove (Melopelia asiatica). At Red Rock on the same date as above. I took a male of this species. Ranchmen told me that these birds had appeared in this locality in the spring of the previous year (1921), but that they had never been noticed before that time.—, Silver City, New Mexico, July 13, 1922.

Birds Eating Snails.—In connection with the survey of infested areas and subsequent clean-up of the European snail, Helix pisana, at La Jolla, it is interesting to note that two birds have been observed by the writer as feeding on this mollusk.

The infested territory was burned over about three years ago and at that time enormous numbers of snails were killed, a very strong odor of burning flesh being apparent. Immediately thereafter flocks of sea gulls came in and feasted on the roasted snails; but, although outside of the burned area many live snails were in evidence on low bushes and shrubs, no gulls were observed to feed on them.

Another infestation of this snail at La Jolla has now occurred, and while making a survey of the district last week with Mr. A. J. Basinger of the Pest Control Division of the State Department of Agriculture, I noted a male English Sparrow busily engaged in feeding on young live snails clustered on a small dead Monterey cypress tree. At this stage the shells are, of course, soft and easily broken. The English Sparrow has long been regarded as an undesirable immigrant, but it would seem that it has scored a point in its own favor if it is to be regarded as an enemy of this destructive snail.—, County Horticultural Commissioner, San Diego, July 26, 1922. The Snowy Egret in Los Angeles County, California.—While studying shorebirds at Playa del Rey, September 25, 1922, Mesdames C. H. Hall, A.. J. Mix, and F. T. Bicknell, members of the Los Angeles Audubon Society, were fortunate in having a close and unobstructed view of a Snowy Egret (Egretta candidissima candidissima). It was on a sand bar in the lagoon in company with a small flock of Western Gulls. Mrs. Hall was the first to sight the bird.

Standing in a semi-meditative attitude among the Gulls, not over two hundred feet from shore, the Egret offered a perfect opportunity for study. With field glasses as aids, though not a necessity, its pure white plumage, size, movements, graceful poses and other identification marks were carefully noted. We also observed the uplifting of one slender black leg, the opening and closing of the yellow toes, the stretching of the beautiful white wing, the opening of the long slender ebony bill with its yellow base, and the sleepy blinking of the eyes which enhanced the yellow of the iris. An occasional light puff of the sea-breeze raised and ruffled the snowy feathers on the bird's head and back, giving a momentary semi-nuptial plumage effect.

The encroaching waters of the incoming tide moistened the sand under the Egret's feet, which it resented by moving a few paces nearer the indifferent Gulls. For fully twenty minutes we studied this beautiful and rare bird, when suddenly, alone and without warning, it took flight above the lagoon and disappeared among the sloughs of the adjoining marsh lands.

The larger, American Egret (Herodias egretta) is a regular winter visitant on the San Pedro tide lands and Seal Beach salt marshes and is often studied by the Audubon members. Reporting the event to Mr. L. E. Wyman, Ornithologist at the Los Angeles Museum, he suggested, since the Snowy Egret has so few records in this vicinity, that it was well worth mentioning.—, Los Angeles, California, October 2, 1922.

Perching Pelicans.—Three times in the past three years I have seen individuals of the California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus californicus) perch on the wire stretched just above the top of the rail of our pier. This wire is about ⅛ inch in diameter and it is stretched fairly taut, being supported at intervals of about ten feet by upright spikes so that its height above the pier rail is about four inches.

At 7:52 on September 19, 1922, while working at the end of the pier I noticed a Brown Pelican alight on the rail about one hundred feet away. I quickly took

title: Page:Condor24(6).djvu/27


text:
Page:Condor24(6).djvu/28

 a fairly comfortable position with the intention of observing the bird's actions as carefully as possible. I could see his feet distinctly and his toes seemed to curl around and grasp the wire in the same way as those of a perching bird. He was standing almost erect and teetering a good deal in an effort to find his balance. Several times the pelican tried to stoop to a sitting posture but with very unsettling results. Once while trying to preen his breast feathers he almost fell over backward and had to flap his wings vigorously to get balanced again. Finally he became satisfied with the erect posture and remained in it for probably ten minutes. In the erect posture for a time his balancing movements were so nearly imperceptible at one hundred feet distance that I would not have been able to detect them if I had not had the advantage of a series of cross wires on a gate within about thirty feet of the bird. By use of these wires I was able to estimate that at best there was rhythmic movement of the head up and down through a distance of at least a half inch, varied every few seconds by a longer swing of two to three inches.

Just before this relatively stable period he had lifted first one foot and then the other several times as though the wire hurt his feet. Indeed, this performance reminded me very much of a barefoot boy trying to stand on a hot pavement. At the end of the quiet period the pelican began side-stepping and walked on the wire a distance of about four feet at the end of which he turned around facing in the opposite direction. Ii making the turn he got a good deal unbalanced and saved himself from falling by stepping onto the wooden rail with one foot. He again assumed the erect position and remained thus for some little time until excited by the screeching of a flock of gulls which flew near him. At 8:15 he flew away after having perched on the small wire for twenty-three minutes.

When first alighting he had been facing the pier and away from the water. The half turn made after the side-stepping performance brought him into a position facing the water. Before beginning the side-stepping he had made several efforts to stoop, with very strong appearance of getting ready to fly. Every effort to stoop destroyed his balance and he could not get a good jump into the air for starting flight. I do not think it possible that he could have gotten enough jump to enable him to clear the opposite rail. Whatever the actual reason for the half turn it certainly put him into position (facing the water) to launch easily into flight.

I have mentioned a failure to keep balance while attempting to preen. There were two or three fairly successful attempts but they were confined to very small adjustments of breast feathers with very brief action. At various times in the perching period the head was rotated from side to side but this did not involve much shifting in weight and was not very disturbing to balance.

The three cases which I have seen indicate that pelicans do have perching ambitions and that they can make a very creditable showing in a difficult situation. Do such performances indicate vestigial or initiatory tendencies in behavior?—, Scripps Institution for Biological Research of the University of California, La Jolla, September 20, 1922.

EDITORIAL NOTES AND NEWS

The editors of are once more indebted to Mr. J. R. Pemberton for assistance. The annual index concluding our present volume was in large measure prepared by him.

Volume II, numbers 3-4 (in one), of Dawson's "Journal of the Museum of Comparative Oology" (Santa Barbara) reached our desk on October 31. A very important new nesting record for California is that, by Mr. W. L. Dawson, of the Yellow Rail in Mono County. Mr. A. B. Howell contributes an article on "The Ethics of Collecting" which is fraught with sound sense; the principles set forth ought to be followed conscientiously by all collectors, and then there would be far less of criticism levied at the fraternity than is, unfortunately, now the case. The greater part of this issue of the "Journal" is occupied by accounts of nest-hunting, chiefly with the Sierra Nevada Rosy Finch as the objective, and with the human-interest element emphasized rather than the ornithological.

title: Page:Condor24(6).djvu/28


text:
Page:Condor24(6).djvu/29

 Volume III, number 3, of "The Murrelet", mimeographed "Official Bulletin of the Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Club", reached us November 10. The editor, Mr. F. S. Hall of the Washington State Museum, Seattle, is to be congratulated upon the success of his efforts to produce a creditable journal with small resources. This issue contains several articles and notes on birds, valuable at least from a local standpoint, under the authorship of J. Hooper Bowles, S. F. Rathbun, Kenneth Racey, Walter F. Burton, C. de B. Green, E. A. Kitchin, and others.

The Chicago meeting of the American Ornithologists' Union, held October 23 to 26, was well attended. More than forty papers were read. Elections included Dr. Arthur A. Allen to the class of Fellows, and D. R. Dickey, A. O. Gross, W. Huber, T. I. Storer and J. T. Zimmer to the class of Members.

Mr. M. P. Skinner, Yellowstone Park, Wyoming, is contemplating early publicatio of his book on the "birds of Yellowsone". Readers of are already familiar with the type of literature produced by Mr. Skinner. He is an accurate observer and good writer, and his book, we predict, will constitute a worthy contribution to western ornithology.

Mr. Howard H. Cleaves, formerly with the San Diego Natural History Museum, is now located at Clarksburg, West Virginia, where he is serving as state secretary for the Wild Life League of West Virginia. The object of this society is to spread the conservation-of-game idea in a state where conservation is badly needed.

It is our conviction that the best piece of conservation legislation proposed for a long time is just now pending before Congress. This is Senate bill 1452 (H. R. 5823), which bill provides for the establishment of game refuges and properly regulated public shooting grounds. Its provisions would be carried out under the auspices of the United States Bureau of Biological Survey, and this would mean its administration upon a logical, scientific basis. We recommend that Cooper Club members support this bill by expressing their approval of it to their legislative representatives in Washington. The bill is likely to be brought up for flnal action early in the new session of Congress.

Mr. Edgar Chance, a British ornithologist, is the author of a late book entitled "The Cuckoo's Secret" (London, Sedgwick and Jackson), in which the egg-laying habits of the European Cuckoo are described and illustrated from photographs in great detail. A moot point has long been as to whether the bird lays its egg directly into the nest of the victim, or deposits its egg elsewhere and places said egg by the way of its beak into the foster nest. Mr. Chance is so sure of the correctness of his own conclusions, which are of the former import, that he has issued a "challenge" involving a wager of 500 pounds with anyone who wishes to set out to prove the contrary. Thus he hopes to stimulate further careful and scientific enquiry into "the cuckoo's secret". And at the same time the Englishman's love of sport will come into play! Professor Lynds Jones, head of the Ecology department at Oberlin College, conducted a party of eleven students, via "Fords", from Ohio to California the past summer. The enterprising members of the party thus had the advantage of a course in geographical distribution.

COMMUNICATIONS

THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE SUBSPECIES

To the Editor of The Condor:

In these days when ornithological nomenclature and taxonomy seem to have become of more importance than the birds themselves, the primary or, indeed, the sole object of our system is not to be lost sight of. A scientific name, once it is bestowed, is after all only an assembly of two or three words so grouped as to convey an idea of the approximate perch height of the lucky or unlucky recipient in the genealogical tree; or, to put it differently, a statement of the evolutionary progress made by the particular group or individual in question, down to the year A. D. 1922, or whenever the baptism took place. Now, it seems to me that the fact that a certain horned lark's back, or a certain fox sparrow's bill is different from the backs or the bills of horned larks or fox sparrows occupying other areas is distinctly secondary to the fact that separate geographic situations have caused certain changes to take place. Unfortunately, our only way of expressing what has happened is in terms of millimeters or of color, or by some other equally unsatisfactory designation. These means of describing what changes have occurred

title: Page:Condor24(6).djvu/29


text:
Page:Condor24(6).djvu/3

 A Bi-Monthly Magazine of

Western Ornithology

Volume XXIV

[Issued December 19, 1922]

THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG COSTA HUMMINGBIRDS

By ROBERT S. WOODS

WITH FOUR PHOTOS BY THE AUTHOR

HILE following the progress of a pair of young Costa Hummingbirds (Calypte costae) at Azusa, California, in May, 1921, I was impressed with their slow growth as compared with that of the smaller passerine birds; so, on finding another nest, on May 18, 1922, I kept as accurate a record as possible of their development. This latter nest (figure 46) was located about four feet from the ground on a lower limb of an avocado tree some ten feet in height. It contained the usual two eggs when discovered and for two weeks thereafter. On the morning of June 1 there appeared one black, grub-like young hummer, with stubby, triangular bill and a double row of yellowish down along the back, the body being otherwise bare. The afternoon of the following day the second egg was hatched. The egg shells were not removed from the nest. The bill of the newly hatched hummingbird is a little longer than the width at the base, light in color, and abruptly differentiated from the head, which is comparatively broad and straight across the front. The abdomen is reddish brown, and the sides as well as the upper parts are black.

On the morning of June 7 pin-feathers had appeared on the older bird and by the afternoon of June 8 on the younger also. The bills were longer by this time and more tapering from the head and were mainly dark colored. On the 10th the older one had assumed the peculiar position shown in figure 47, with bill pointing straight up. This attitude is apparently made necessary by the fact that the young hummer is too long for the nest, but not yet large enough to hold its head above the edge. On the 13th the feathers were becoming soft and fluffy-looking and the older bird could open its eyes, at least partly. By the 15th both birds were able to sit up and stretch their wings and view the surroundings.

When inspected on June 17 the older hummer appeared fully feathered except for the shortness of tail and wing feathers. The bill was about the length of the head and was still straight and conical in outline. On the evening of the 21st the older bird seemed alert and ready to leave the nest. Upon moving the limb on which the nest was placed both birds suddenly flew to neighboring trees thirty feet away. The younger, though it could fly from one tree to another,

title: Page:Condor24(6).djvu/3


text:
Page:Condor24(6).djvu/30

 are undoubtedly what have given most people a wrong conception of systematic work in general, and of the so-called "subspecific" races in particular. If the rank and file of bird students would put aside the idea that "microscopic" subdivisions of plastic species are made only for the purpose of bestowing new names, and think of the determined "subspecies" as admittedly short, but still definite steps along the evolutionary highway, not only would the whole science of ornithology be benefited by a new interest, but we would be spared much of the ranting about "hair splitting", in which well-meaning but misguided souls indulge from time to time. What constitutes a subspecies is just now a difficult question to answer. A composite opinion gained by personal conversation, and by perusal of current literature can be best expressed by, "Why is a hen?" Some would use only a binomial for every recognizable form, others want to reduce to subspecific status all species bearing close resemblances to one another, and still others champion two kinds of subspecies: Obviously, the adoption of any of these extremes would work much harm, if for no other reason than that the true genetic relationships between most forms would not properly be expressed by the terms employed.

Most conservative ornithologists advocate a middle course and believe that intergradation should be actually proven before reducing any form to subspecific status. But, what sort of intergradation? If we take into consideration all angles of the problem, what can we possibly accept save that of geographic continuity,—an actual blood relationship? To designate as varieties geographically isolated forms which have been completely segregated for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years from similar organisms found in another area (or even on another continent!) simply because overlapping characters are shown by a few individuals is not telling the true story of conditions which now exist. True, there was undoubtedly one common ancestor; but so, for example, was there for all the grebes, or for all the gulls. If intergradation of all present-day species of grebes, or between any two of them were to be established through fossil remains—and this is not an impossible hypothesis—then, to be consistent, we should have now to regard them as subspecies: Intergradation through individual variation is inviting too many chances for error. As Grinnell (Auk, vol. 37, 1921, p. 469) has pointed out, what assurance is there that young or subadults or even "sports" may not be used in attempting to prove the point?

The criteria of isolation for the use of the binomial and of actual blood fusion for use of the trinomial will, I believe, prove the ultimate ones to be adopted not only because they permit of more accuracy in allocation, but also because of the uniformity possible under their use.

Yours very truly,

Pasadena, California, July 14, 1922.

The Editor of The Condor:

Realizing that no one man can know all there is to know about all the birds and that the completeness of the Life Histories of North American Birds depends on the cooperation which the author receives from others, I wish to make this report of progress and appeal to your readers for contributions, trusting that you will find the space to publish it at an early date.

Two volumes have been published and the third, containing the Petrels and Pelicans and their allies, is printed and should soon be out. The manuscript for the fourth volume, containing the Ducks, up to and including the Ring-necked Duck, is now in Washington in finished form and ready. for publication. It is not too late to add to this, when I correct the galley proof, any notes of importance on habits or distribution, and not too late to substitute any particularly fine photographs for those that I have already selected.

I am now at work on the fifth volume, which will contain the remainder of the Ducks and the Geese and Swans. I expect to finish this during the winter and send it to the publishers in the spring. The life histories are practically all written, subject to revision, but the photographs have not been selected.

I have no notes on the courtship of the American and White-winged Scoters or of any of the Geese, except the Canada, or on any of the Swans or Tree Ducks. I have no nesting photographs of Harlequin Duck, Barrow Golden-eye, any Geese except White-fronted and Canada, any Swans, or any Tree Ducks. I should be glad to receive contributions of notes or photographs to fill in any of these gaps. Or I should be glad to correspond with anyone who has anything else to offer. I am, of course,

title: Page:Condor24(6).djvu/30


text: Index:The Art of Distillation, 1651.djvu


text: Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day/Anthony Trollope


text:
User talk:128.187.97.4

--Eliyak T · C 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:128.187.97.4


text:
Page:The Art of Distillation, 1651.djvu/1

OR

performed by way of Distillation, being party taken out of the most, and partly out of the Authors manuall Experience;

TOGETHER WITH

The Description of the used by and

ALSO,

A Discourse of divers , and of the with the cheifest , and thereof, and  of them all.

All of which are contained in six ,

Composed by Dr. of Physick.

London Printed by Richard Cotes and are to be sold by Thomas Williams at the Bible in Little-Britain without Aldergate, 1651.


text:
Page:Sturla the Historian.djvu/17

 Rh found in English history and even in English popular poetry (Havelok the Dane). But their leader Sverre was not merely a captain of bandits. He had ideas and he carried them out. He was one of Carlyle's heroes, though unfortunately Carlyle was old and tired before he came to him in his notes on the kings of Norway, and could not tell the history of Sverre in full. He was a good talker, and used to speak straight to his Birkibeinar about their faults, and give them the whole duty of man in simple moral tales. He drilled his own army, and with them he drilled the country, 'making the peace' there effectively, so that a time came when the Birkibeinar were received as benefactors, and the power of King Sverre was established and made legitimate.

The difficulty about Carlyle's heroes is to know what is going to happen when the hero dies. After Sverre's death in 1202 the old games began again—faction fights as ruinous as those of Iceland. The difference between the two countries was that in Norway there was always a semblance of a principle to fight about; which did not make things any more comfortable for Norway.

As a specimen, there is the fight in Trondhjem, at the end of April, 1206.

Ingi, the Birkibein king (Sverre's nephew), was in Trondhjem at his sister's wedding. The other faction, the Crosiers (Baglar)—'bloated Aristocracy', as Carlyle called them—had been sailing for three weeks from Tunsberg in the south, round the Ness and up the west coast, meaning to attack; news of this was sent to the king from Bergen, but it did not interrupt the feast. Orders were given to the king's guard to set a proper watch round the hall at night, but when the time came the bridegroom said it would be a pity to spoil the

title: Page:Sturla the Historian.djvu/17


text: Page:The Art of Distillation, 1651.djvu/2


text:
Page:Sturla the Historian.djvu/18

 18 entertainment for the king's men. He, the bridegroom, would send some of his own people to the shore, at the mouth of the river, to keep a look out; and that would do well enough. The king assented, and the drinking went on far into the night. The bridegroom kept his promise and sent out his men, but they talked it over among themselves and said they would not keep watch for the king's men and the country squires; they would go to bed.

It was a dark sleety morning when the enemy came to Trondhjem; they rowed up to the land and held their oars and listened, and found everything quiet in the town: they put some men ashore to go scouting up to the king's house, who came back and reported that no one was stirring anywhere. Then they blew their trumpets and fell on the town.

The king slept hard, and was very slow to waken when the alarm came, and asked what the matter was. However, he got up and climbed from the balcony to the roof and lay there till the Crosiers had gone past along the street. Then he went down Chapman Street to the river, and jumped in and swam to a merchant ship that was lying moored there, and caught hold of the cable and tried to climb on board. A man came to the bow and told him to let go the rope and remove himself. The king hung on and said nothing. Then the man took a boat-hook and pushed him off, and the king had to swim across the river, and a number of his men also. On the other side he fell down numb with cold; it was sleeting hard. One of his men, Ivar, came out of the river, and the king called on him to help him; but he said, 'I must help myself first'. Shortly after another came, Reidulf and said: 'Are you here, my lord?' (eru þér hér, herra). The king said: 'So you

title: Page:Sturla the Historian.djvu/18


text:
Page:Sturla the Historian.djvu/19

 Rh called me yesterday'. Reidulf said: 'So art thou still, and so shalt thou be, while we are alive, the two of us'. Then he took off his mantle and packed the king in it on his back, and brought him safe away.

A story is told here in one of the versions of this which is significant, whether it is true or not.

A 'Bagling'—one of the Crosier party—chased a Birkibein along the street; the Birkibein tried to get to the church for safety. At the church corner he was cut down, and then the pursuer saw that he had killed his brother.

It reminds one of the formal scene in Henry VI—'enter, a Son who has killed his Father', 'enter, a Father who has killed his Son'—where the moral of the faction fights is expounded by King Henry as a sort of chorus.

Reading this story and others like it from the early part of the thirteenth century, one thinks of the country as fallen back into helpless misgovernment—gluttony, sloth, and selfishness, with flashes of energy through it, but all too undisciplined to do any good. What actually happened was better than expectation, to use an Icelandic way of speaking. The ideas of King Sverre and the results of his drill lived on, and that is what the life of Hacon has to show. The child Hacon was taken up by the Birkibeinar, the Old Guard of King Sverre, men with one idea, who would do anything for their cause, i. e. the right line of the kings of Norway, which Sverre had taught them to recognize as being the same thing as the Law of St. Olaf. In Sverre's contest with the Bishops and their allies he had made the Law of St. Olaf into a sort of watchword and emblem for his men, and Hacon, Sverre's grandson, was the king for them, the king whom the Law of St. Olaf required.

title: Page:Sturla the Historian.djvu/19


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Conny, Robert


text:
Portal:Delaware case law

Supreme Court

 * Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d 548, 41 Del. Ch. 494 (1964)
 * Schnell v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 285 A.2d 437 (1971)
 * Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (1985)
 * Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (1985)
 * Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (1986)
 * McDermott, Inc. v. Lewis, 531 A.2d 206 (1987)
 * Kahn v. Sullivan, 594 A.2d 48 (1991)
 * Nixon v. Blackwell, 626 A.2d 1366 (Del. 1993)
 * Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361 (1995)
 * Klang v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc., 702 A.2d 150 (1997)
 * Vantagepoint Venture Partners 1996 v. Examen, Inc., 871 A.2d 1108 (2005)

Court of Chancery

 * Campbell v. Loew's, Inc., 36 Del. Ch. 563, 134 A.2d 852 (Del. Ch. 1957)
 * Hariton v. Arco Electronics, Inc., 40 Del. Ch. 326, 182 A.2d 22 (Del. Ch. 1962)
 * Theodora Holding Corp. v. Henderson, 257 A.2d 398 (Del. Ch. 1969)
 * In re Caremark International, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996)
 * Equity-Linked Investors, L.P. v. Adams, 705 A.2d 1040 (Del. Ch. 1997)
 * Haley v. Talcott, 864 A.2d 86 (Del. Ch. 2004)
 * Ryan v. Gifford, 918 A.2d 341 (Del. Ch. 2007)
 * In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder Litigation, 919 A.2d 563 (Del. Ch. 2007)
 * In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 964 A.2d 106 (Del. Ch. 2009)

title: Portal:Delaware case law


text: Index:Conventional Lies of our Civilization.djvu


text: Page:Conventional Lies of our Civilization.djvu/11


text:
Page:Conventional Lies of our Civilization.djvu/14

The Imperial Council of Vienna has prohibited the further sale of this book in Austria and confiscated all copies of it to be found. The official decree condemns the book on account of the "Crime of insulting the members of the imperial family," the "Crime of disturbing the public peace by attempting to arouse contempt or hatred for the person of the Emperor, etc.," the "Crime of denouncing religion," the "Crime of inciting hostility against religious communities, etc.," and in conclusion,, the "Crime of insulting a church and sect recognized by the State." Every word of these indictments is a calumny from first to last. It is not true that I have "insulted any member of the imperial family;" it is not true that I have attempted to "arouse contempt or hatred for the person of the Emperor." I do not attack persons, neither high nor low, but ideas. Further it is not true that I have disturbed any one in the exercise of his religion (how could a book do this?) nor incited hostility against religious communities at the most I have only attempted to arouse compassion for them.

I wish to warn those people who would never read this book from any interest in the questions of which it treats, but who may perhaps infer from its suppression, that it contains all sorts of piquant and scandalous things. This class of readers is hereby warned that this is not the case. If they spend their money upon this supposition they will be disappointed. The Vienna committee thus commits an intentional or unconscious fraud upon the public. I, at least, will have no share in it.


text:
Page:Conventional Lies of our Civilization.djvu/15

never is, but always to be blest," and perhaps at no time was he so far removed from the actual attainment of happiness as at present. Culture and civilization are spreading and conquering even the most benighted regions of the globe. Those countries where darkness reigned but yesterday, are to-day basking in a glorious sunshine. Each day witnesses the birth of some new, wonderful invention, destined to make the world pleasanter to live in, the adversities of life more endurable, and to increase the variety and intensity of the enjoyments possible to humanity. But yet, notwithstanding the growth and increase of all conditions to promote comfort, the human race is to-day more discontented, more irritated and more restless than ever before. The world of civilization is an immense hospital-ward, the air is filled with groans and lamentations, and every form of suffering is to be seen twisting and turning on the beds. Go through the world, and ask each country you come to: "Does contentment dwell here? Have you peace and happiness?" From each you will hear the same reply: "Pass on, we have not that which you are seeking." Pause and listen at the borders, and the breeze will bring to your ears from each one, the same confused echoes of contention and tumult, of revolt and of oppression.


text:
Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co.

A. Gilchrist Sparks, III (argued), and Kenneth J. Nachbar, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington; James R. Martin and Mitchell A. Karlan, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, California, Of Counsel; Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Los Angeles, California, Of Counsel, for Appellant.

Charles F. Richards, Jr. (argued), Samuel A. Nolen, and Gregory P. Williams, of Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, for Appellees.

McNeilly, Moore, Justices, and Taylor, Judge (Sitting by designation pursuant to Del. Const., Art. 4, § 12.)

title: Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co.


text:
Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co./Opinion of the Court

[p949] We confront an issue of first impression in Delaware -- the validity of a corporation's self-tender for its own shares which excludes from participation a stockholder making a hostile tender offer for the company's stock.

The Court of Chancery granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, Mesa Petroleum Co., Mesa Asset Co., Mesa Partners II, and Mesa Eastern, Inc. (collectively "Mesa"), enjoining an exchange offer of the defendant, Unocal Corporation (Unocal) for its own stock. The trial court concluded that a selective exchange offer, excluding Mesa, was legally impermissible. We cannot agree with such a blanket rule. The factual findings of the Vice Chancellor, fully supported by the record, establish that Unocal's board, consisting of a majority of independent directors, acted in good faith, and after reasonable investigation found that Mesa's tender offer was both inadequate and coercive. Under the circumstances the board had both the power and duty to oppose a bid it perceived to be harmful to the corporate enterprise. On this record we are satisfied that the device Unocal adopted is reasonable in relation to the threat posed, and that the board acted in the proper exercise of sound business judgment. We will not substitute our views for those of the board if the latter's decision can be "attributed to any rational business purpose." Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Levien, Del. Supr., 280 A.2d 717, 720 (1971). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Chancery and order the preliminary injunction vacated.

I.
The factual background of this matter bears a significant relationship to its ultimate outcome.

On April 8, 1985, Mesa, the owner of approximately 13% of Unocal's stock, commenced a two-tier "front loaded" cash tender offer for 64 million shares, or approximately 37%, of Unocal's outstanding stock at a price of $54 per share. The "back-end" was designed to eliminate the remaining publicly held shares by an exchange of securities purportedly worth $54 per share. However, pursuant to an order entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 26, 1985, Mesa issued a supplemental proxy statement to Unocal's stockholders disclosing that the securities offered in the second-step merger would be highly subordinated, and that Unocal's capitalization would differ significantly from its present [p950]  structure. Unocal has rather aptly termed such securities "junk bonds".

Unocal's board consists of eight independent outside directors and six insiders. It met on April 13, 1985, to consider the Mesa tender offer. Thirteen directors were present, and the meeting lasted nine and one-half hours. The directors were given no agenda or written materials prior to the session. However, detailed presentations were made by legal counsel regarding the board's obligations under both Delaware corporate law and the federal securities laws. The board then received a presentation from Peter Sachs on behalf of Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman Sachs) and Dillon, Read & Co. (Dillon Read) discussing the bases for their opinions that the Mesa proposal was wholly inadequate. Mr. Sachs opined that the minimum cash value that could be expected from a sale or orderly liquidation for 100% of Unocal's stock was in excess of $60 per share. In making his presentation, Mr. Sachs showed slides outlining the valuation techniques used by the financial advisors, and others, depicting recent business combinations in the oil and gas industry. The Court of Chancery found that the Sachs presentation was designed to apprise the directors of the scope of the analyses performed rather than the facts and numbers used in reaching the conclusion that Mesa's tender offer price was inadequate.

Mr. Sachs also presented various defensive strategies available to the board if it concluded that Mesa's two-step tender offer was inadequate and should be opposed. One of the devices outlined was a self-tender by Unocal for its own stock with a reasonable price range of $70 to $75 per share. The cost of such a proposal would cause the company to incur $6.1 -- 6.5 billion of additional debt, and a presentation was made informing the board of Unocal's ability to handle it. The directors were told that the primary effect of this obligation would be to reduce exploratory drilling, but that the company would nonetheless remain a viable entity.

The eight outside directors, comprising a clear majority of the thirteen members present, then met separately with Unocal's financial advisors and attorneys. Thereafter, they unanimously agreed to advise the board that it should reject Mesa's tender offer as inadequate, and that Unocal should pursue a self-tender to provide the stockholders with a fairly priced alternative to the Mesa proposal. The board then reconvened and unanimously adopted a resolution rejecting as grossly inadequate Mesa's tender offer. Despite the nine and one-half hour length of the meeting, no formal decision was made on the proposed defensive self-tender.

On April 15, the board met again with four of the directors present by telephone [p951]  and one member still absent. This session lasted two hours. Unocal's Vice President of Finance and its Assistant General Counsel made a detailed presentation of the proposed terms of the exchange offer. A price range between $70 and $80 per share was considered, and ultimately the directors agreed upon $72. The board was also advised about the debt securities that would be issued, and the necessity of placing restrictive covenants upon certain corporate activities until the obligations were paid. The board's decisions were made in reliance on the advice of its investment bankers, including the terms and conditions upon which the securities were to be issued. Based upon this advice, and the board's own deliberations, the directors unanimously approved the exchange offer. Their resolution provided that if Mesa acquired 64 million shares of Unocal stock through its own offer (the Mesa Purchase Condition), Unocal would buy the remaining 49% outstanding for an exchange of debt securities having an aggregate par value of $72 per share. The board resolution also stated that the offer would be subject to other conditions that had been described to the board at the meeting, or which were deemed necessary by Unocal's officers, including the exclusion of Mesa from the proposal (the Mesa exclusion). Any such conditions were required to be in accordance with the "purport and intent" of the offer.

Unocal's exchange offer was commenced on April 17, 1985, and Mesa promptly challenged it by filing this suit in the Court of Chancery. On April 22, the Unocal board met again and was advised by Goldman Sachs and Dillon Read to waive the Mesa Purchase Condition as to 50 million shares. This recommendation was in response to a perceived concern of the shareholders that, if shares were tendered to Unocal, no shares would be purchased by either offeror. The directors were also advised that they should tender their own Unocal stock into the exchange offer as a mark of their confidence in it.

Another focus of the board was the Mesa exclusion. Legal counsel advised that under Delaware law Mesa could only be excluded for what the directors reasonably believed to be a valid corporate purpose. The directors' discussion centered on the objective of adequately compensating shareholders at the "back-end" of Mesa's proposal, which the latter would finance with "junk bonds". To include Mesa would defeat that goal, because under the proration aspect of the exchange offer (49%) every Mesa share accepted by Unocal would displace one held by another stockholder. Further, if Mesa were permitted to tender to Unocal, the latter would in effect be financing Mesa's own inadequate proposal.

On April 24, 1985 Unocal issued a supplement to the exchange offer describing the partial waiver of the Mesa Purchase Condition. On May 1, 1985, in another supplement, Unocal extended the withdrawal, proration and expiration dates of its exchange offer to May 17, 1985.

Meanwhile, on April 22, 1985, Mesa amended its complaint in this action to challenge the Mesa exclusion. A preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled for May 8, 1985. However, on April 23, 1985, Mesa moved for a temporary restraining order in response to Unocal's announcement that it was partially waiving the Mesa Purchase Condition. After expedited briefing, the Court of Chancery heard Mesa's motion on April 26.

[p952] On April 29, 1985, the Vice Chancellor temporarily restrained Unocal from proceeding with the exchange offer unless it included Mesa. The trial court recognized that directors could oppose, and attempt to defeat, a hostile takeover which they considered adverse to the best interests of the corporation. However, the Vice Chancellor decided that in a selective purchase of the company's stock, the corporation bears the burden of showing: (1) a valid corporate purpose, and (2) that the transaction was fair to all of the stockholders, including those excluded.

Unocal immediately sought certification of an interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42(b). On May 1, 1985, the Vice Chancellor declined to certify the appeal on the grounds that the decision granting a temporary restraining order did not decide a legal issue of first impression, and was not a matter to which the decisions of the Court of Chancery were in conflict.

However, in an Order dated May 2, 1985, this Court ruled that the Chancery decision was clearly determinative of substantive rights of the parties, and in fact decided the main question of law before the Vice Chancellor, which was indeed a question of first impression. We therefore concluded that the temporary restraining order was an appealable decision. However, because the Court of Chancery was scheduled to hold a preliminary injunction hearing on May 8 at which there would be an enlarged record on the various issues, action on the interlocutory appeal was deferred pending an outcome of those proceedings.

In deferring action on the interlocutory appeal, we noted that on the record before us we could not determine whether the parties had articulated certain issues which the Vice Chancellor should have an opportunity to consider in the first instance. These included the following:

"a) Does the directors' duty of care to the corporation extend to protecting the corporate enterprise in good faith from perceived depredations of others, including persons who may own stock in the company?" "b) Have one or more of the plaintiffs, their affiliates, or persons acting in concert with them, either in dealing with Unocal or others, demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to justify a reasonable inference by defendants that a principle objective of the plaintiffs is to achieve selective treatment for themselves by the repurchase of their Unocal shares at a substantial premium?" "c) If so, may the directors of Unocal in the proper exercise of business judgment employ the exchange offer to protect the corporation and its shareholders from such tactics? See Pogostin v. Rice, Del. Supr., 480 A.2d 619 (1984)." "d) If it is determined that the purpose of the exchange offer was not illegal as a matter of law, have the directors of Unocal carried their burden of showing that they acted in good faith? See Martin v. American Potash & Chemical Corp., 33 Del.Ch. 234, 92 A.2d at 302."

After the May 8 hearing the Vice Chancellor issued an unreported opinion on May 13, 1985 granting Mesa a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the trial court noted that "the parties basically agree that the directors' duty of care extends to protecting the corporation from perceived harm whether it be from third parties or shareholders." The trial court also concluded in response to the second inquiry in the Supreme Court's May 2 order, that "although the facts, . . . do not appear to be sufficient to prove that Mesa's principle objective is to be bought off at a substantial premium, they do justify a reasonable inference to the same effect."

As to the third and fourth questions posed by this Court, the Vice Chancellor stated that they "appear to raise the more fundamental issue of whether directors owe fiduciary duties to shareholders who they perceive to be acting contrary to the best interests of the corporation as a whole." While determining that the directors' decision to oppose Mesa's tender [p953] offer was made in a good faith belief that the Mesa proposal was inadequate, the court stated that the business judgment rule does not apply to a selective exchange offer such as this.

On May 13, 1985 the Court of Chancery certified this interlocutory appeal to us as a question of first impression, and we accepted it on May 14. The entire matter was scheduled on an expedited basis.

II.
The issues we address involve these fundamental questions: Did the Unocal board have the power and duty to oppose a takeover threat it reasonably perceived to be harmful to the corporate enterprise, and if so, is its action here entitled to the protection of the business judgment rule?

Mesa contends that the discriminatory exchange offer violates the fiduciary duties Unocal owes it. Mesa argues that because of the Mesa exclusion the business judgment rule is inapplicable, because the directors by tendering their own shares will derive a financial benefit that is not available to all Unocal stockholders. Thus, it is Mesa's ultimate contention that Unocal cannot establish that the exchange offer is fair to all shareholders, and argues that the Court of Chancery was correct in concluding that Unocal was unable to meet this burden.

Unocal answers that it does not owe a duty of "fairness" to Mesa, given the facts here. Specifically, Unocal contends that its board of directors reasonably and in good faith concluded that Mesa's $54 two-tier tender offer was coercive and inadequate, and that Mesa sought selective treatment for itself. Furthermore, Unocal argues that the board's approval of the exchange offer was made in good faith, on an informed basis, and in the exercise of due care. Under these circumstances, Unocal contends that its directors properly employed this device to protect the company and its stockholders from Mesa's harmful tactics.

III.
We begin with the basic issue of the power of a board of directors of a Delaware corporation to adopt a defensive measure of this type. Absent such authority, all other questions are moot. Neither issues of fairness nor business judgment are pertinent without the basic underpinning of a board's legal power to act.

The board has a large reservoir of authority upon which to draw. Its duties and responsibilities proceed from the inherent powers conferred by 8 Del.C. § 141(a), respecting management of the corporation's "business and affairs". Additionally, the powers here being exercised derive from 8 Del.C. § 160(a), conferring broad authority upon a corporation to deal in its own stock. From this it is now well established that in the acquisition of its shares a [p954]  Delaware corporation may deal selectively with its stockholders, provided the directors have not acted out of a sole or primary purpose to entrench themselves in office. Cheff v. Mathes, Del. Supr., 41 Del. Ch. 494, 199 A.2d 548, 554 (1964); Bennett v. Propp, Del. Supr., 41 Del. Ch. 14, 187 A.2d 405, 408 (1962); Martin v. American Potash & Chemical Corporation, Del. Supr., 33 Del. Ch. 234, 92 A.2d 295, 302 (1952); Kaplan v. Goldsamt, Del. Ch., 380 A.2d 556, 568-569 (1977); Kors v. Carey, Del. Ch., 39 Del. Ch. 47, 158 A.2d 136, 140-141 (1960).

Finally, the board's power to act derives from its fundamental duty and obligation to protect the corporate enterprise, which includes stockholders, from harm reasonably perceived, irrespective of its source. See e.g. Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 297 (7th Cir. 1981); Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Internorth, Inc., 634 F.2d 690, 704 (2d Cir. 1980); Heit v. Baird, 567 F.2d 1157, 1161 (1st Cir. 1977); Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d at 556; Martin v. American Potash & Chemical Corp., 92 A.2d at 302; Kaplan v. Goldsamt, 380 A.2d at 568-69; Kors v. Carey, 158 A.2d at 141; Northwest Industries, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 301 F. Supp. 706, 712 (M.D. Ill. 1969). Thus, we are satisfied that in the broad context of corporate governance, including issues of fundamental corporate change, a board of directors is not a passive instrumentality.

Given the foregoing principles, we turn to the standards by which director action is to be measured. In Pogostin v. Rice, Del. Supr., 480 A.2d 619 (1984), we held that the business judgment rule, including the standards by which director conduct is judged, is applicable in the context of a takeover. Id. at 627. The business judgment rule is a "presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company." Aronson v. Lewis, Del. Supr., 473 A.2d 805, 812 (1984) (citations omitted). A hallmark of the business judgment rule is that a court will not substitute its judgment for that of the board if the latter's decision can be "attributed to any rational business purpose." Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Levien, Del. Supr., 280 A.2d 717, 720 (1971).

When a board addresses a pending takeover bid it has an obligation to determine whether the offer is in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders. In that respect a board's duty is no different from any other responsibility it shoulders, and its decisions should be no less entitled to the respect they otherwise would be accorded in the realm of business judgment. See also Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 287, 292-293 (3d Cir. 1980). There are, however, certain caveats to a proper exercise of this function. Because of the omnipresent specter that a board may be acting primarily in its own interests, rather than those of the corporation and its shareholders, there is an enhanced duty which calls for judicial examination at the threshold before the protections of the business judgment rule may be conferred.

This Court has long recognized that:

"[p955] We must bear in mind the inherent danger in the purchase of shares with corporate funds to remove a threat to corporate policy when a threat to control is involved. The directors are of necessity confronted with a conflict of interest, and an objective decision is difficult."

Bennett v. Propp, Del. Supr., 41 Del. Ch. 14, 187 A.2d 405, 409 (1962). In the face of this inherent conflict directors must show that they had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger to corporate policy and effectiveness existed because of another person's stock ownership. Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d at 554-55. However, they satisfy that burden "by showing good faith and reasonable investigation. . . ." Id. at 555. Furthermore, such proof is materially enhanced, as here, by the approval of a board comprised of a majority of outside independent directors who have acted in accordance with the foregoing standards. See Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d at 812, 815; Puma v. Marriott, Del. Ch., 283 A.2d 693, 695 (1971); Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 295 (7th Cir. 1981).

A.
In the board's exercise of corporate power to forestall a takeover bid our analysis begins with the basic principle that corporate directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the corporation's stockholders. Guth v. Loft, Inc., Del. Supr., 23 Del. Ch. 255, 5 A.2d 503, 510 (1939). As we have noted, their duty of care extends to protecting the corporation and its owners from perceived harm whether a threat originates from third parties or other shareholders. But such powers are not absolute. A corporation does not have unbridled discretion to defeat any perceived threat by any Draconian means available.

The restriction placed upon a selective stock repurchase is that the directors may not have acted solely or primarily out of a desire to perpetuate themselves in office. See Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d at 556; Kors v. Carey, 158 A.2d at 140. Of course, to this is added the further caveat that inequitable action may not be taken under the guise of law. Schnell v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., Del. Supr., 285 A.2d 437, 439 (1971). The standard of proof established in Cheff v. Mathes and discussed supra at page 16, is designed to ensure that a defensive measure to thwart or impede a takeover is indeed motivated by a good faith concern for the welfare of the corporation and its stockholders, which in all circumstances must be free of any fraud or other misconduct. Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d at 554-55. However, this does not end the inquiry.

B.
A further aspect is the element of balance. If a defensive measure is to come within the ambit of the business judgment rule, it must be reasonable in relation to the threat posed. This entails an analysis by the directors of the nature of the takeover bid and its effect on the corporate enterprise. Examples of such concerns may include: inadequacy of the price offered, nature and timing of the offer, questions of illegality, the impact on "constituencies" other than shareholders (i.e., creditors, customers, employees, and perhaps even the community generally), the risk of nonconsummation, and the quality of securities being offered in the exchange. See Lipton and Brownstein, Takeover Responses and Directors' Responsibilities: An Update, p.7, ABA National Institute on the Dynamics of Corporate Control (December 8, 1983). While not a controlling factor, it also seems to us that a board may reasonably consider the basic stockholder [p956]  interests at stake, including those of short term speculators, whose actions may have fueled the coercive aspect of the offer at the expense of the long term investor. Here, the threat posed was viewed by the Unocal board as a grossly inadequate two-tier coercive tender offer coupled with the threat of greenmail.

Specifically, the Unocal directors had concluded that the value of Unocal was substantially above the $54 per share offered in cash at the front end. Furthermore, they determined that the subordinated securities to be exchanged in Mesa's announced squeeze out of the remaining shareholders in the "back-end" merger were "junk bonds" worth far less than $54. It is now well recognized that such offers are a classic coercive measure designed to stampede shareholders into tendering at the first tier, even if the price is inadequate, out of fear of what they will receive at the back end of the transaction. Wholly beyond the coercive aspect of an inadequate two-tier tender offer, the threat was posed by a corporate raider with a national reputation as a "greenmailer".

In adopting the selective exchange offer, the board stated that its objective was either to defeat the inadequate Mesa offer or, should the offer still succeed, provide the 49% of its stockholders, who would otherwise be forced to accept "junk bonds", with $72 worth of senior debt. We find that both purposes are valid.

However, such efforts would have been thwarted by Mesa's participation in the exchange offer. First, if Mesa could tender its shares, Unocal would effectively be subsidizing the former's continuing effort to buy Unocal stock at $54 per share. Second, Mesa could not, by definition, fit within the class of shareholders being protected from its own coercive and inadequate tender offer.

Thus, we are satisfied that the selective exchange offer is reasonably related to the threats posed. It is consistent with the principle that "the minority stockholder shall receive the substantial equivalent in value of what he had before." Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., Del. Supr., 33 Del. Ch. 293, 93 A.2d 107, 114 (1952). See also Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co., Del.Supr., 493 A.2d 929, 940 (1985). This concept of fairness, while stated in the merger context, is also relevant [p957]  in the area of tender offer law. Thus, the board's decision to offer what it determined to be the fair value of the corporation to the 49% of its shareholders, who would otherwise be forced to accept highly subordinated "junk bonds", is reasonable and consistent with the directors' duty to ensure that the minority stockholders receive equal value for their shares.

V.
Mesa contends that it is unlawful, and the trial court agreed, for a corporation to discriminate in this fashion against one shareholder. It argues correctly that no case has ever sanctioned a device that precludes a raider from sharing in a benefit available to all other stockholders. However, as we have noted earlier, the principle of selective stock repurchases by a Delaware corporation is neither unknown nor unauthorized. Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d at 554; Bennett v. Propp, 187 A.2d at 408; Martin v. American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 92 A.2d at 302; Kaplan v. Goldsamt, 380 A.2d 556 at 568; Kors v. Carey, 158 A.2d at 140-141; 8 Del.C. § 160. The only difference is that heretofore the approved transaction was the payment of "greenmail" to a raider or dissident posing a threat to the corporate enterprise. All other stockholders were denied such favored treatment, and given Mesa's past history of greenmail, its claims here are rather ironic.

However, our corporate law is not static. It must grow and develop in response to, indeed in anticipation of, evolving concepts and needs. Merely because the General Corporation Law is silent as to a specific matter does not mean that it is prohibited. See Providence and Worcester Co. v. Baker, Del. Supr., 378 A.2d 121, 123-124 (1977). In the days when Cheff, Bennett, Martin and Kors were decided, the tender offer, while not an unknown device, was virtually unused, and little was known of such methods as two-tier "front-end" loaded offers with their coercive effects. Then, the favored attack of a raider was stock acquisition followed by a proxy contest. Various defensive tactics, which provided no benefit whatever to the raider, evolved. Thus, the use of corporate funds by management to counter a proxy battle was approved. Hall v. Trans-Lux Daylight Picture Screen Corp., Del. Supr., 20 Del. Ch. 78, 171 A. 226 (1934); Hibbert v. Hollywood Park, Inc., Del. Supr., 457 A.2d 339 (1983). Litigation, supported by corporate funds, aimed at the raider has long been a popular device.

More recently, as the sophistication of both raiders and targets has developed, a host of other defensive measures to counter such ever mounting threats has evolved and received judicial sanction. These include defensive charter amendments and other devices bearing some rather exotic, but apt, names: Crown Jewel, White Knight, Pac Man, and Golden Parachute. Each has highly selective features, the object of which is to deter or defeat the raider.

Thus, while the exchange offer is a form of selective treatment, given the nature of the threat posed here the response is neither unlawful nor unreasonable. If the board of directors is disinterested, has acted in good faith and with due care, its decision in the absence of an abuse of discretion will be upheld as a proper exercise of business judgment.

To this Mesa responds that the board is not disinterested, because the directors are receiving a benefit from the tender of their own shares, which because of the Mesa exclusion, does not devolve upon all stockholders equally. See Aronson v. Lewis, Del. Supr., 473 A.2d 805, 812 (1984). However, Mesa concedes that if the exclusion is valid, then the directors and all other stockholders share the same benefit. The answer of course is that the exclusion is valid, and the directors' participation in the exchange offer does not rise to the level of a disqualifying interest. The excellent discussion in Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d at 292-293, of the use of the business judgment rule in takeover contests also seems pertinent here.

[p958] Nor does this become an "interested" director transaction merely because certain board members are large stockholders. As this Court has previously noted, that fact alone does not create a disqualifying "personal pecuniary interest" to defeat the operation of the business judgment rule. Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d at 554.

Mesa also argues that the exclusion permits the directors to abdicate the fiduciary duties they owe it. However, that is not so. The board continues to owe Mesa the duties of due care and loyalty. But in the face of the destructive threat Mesa's tender offer was perceived to pose, the board had a supervening duty to protect the corporate enterprise, which includes the other shareholders, from threatened harm.

Mesa contends that the basis of this action is punitive, and solely in response to the exercise of its rights of corporate democracy. Nothing precludes Mesa, as a stockholder, from acting in its own self-interest. See e.g., DuPont v. DuPont, 251 F. 937 (D.Del. 1918), aff'd 256 F. 129 (3d Cir. 1918); Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Ringling, Del. Supr., 29 Del. Ch. 610, 53 A.2d 441, 447 (1947); Heil v. Standard Gas & Electric Co., Del. Ch., 17 Del. Ch. 214, 151 A. 303, 304 (1930). But see, Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. Steel & Tube Co. of America, Del. Ch., 14 Del. Ch. 1, 120 A. 486, 491 (1923) (majority shareholder owes a fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders). However, Mesa, while pursuing its own interests, has acted in a manner which a board consisting of a majority of independent directors has reasonably determined to be contrary to the best interests of Unocal and its other shareholders. In this situation, there is no support in Delaware law for the proposition that, when responding to a perceived harm, a corporation must guarantee a benefit to a stockholder who is deliberately provoking the danger being addressed. There is no obligation of self-sacrifice by a corporation and its shareholders in the face of such a challenge.

Here, the Court of Chancery specifically found that the "directors' decision [to oppose the Mesa tender offer] was made in the good faith belief that the Mesa tender offer is inadequate." Given our standard of review under Levitt v. Bouvier, Del. Supr., 287 A.2d 671, 673 (1972), and Application of Delaware Racing Association, Del. Supr., 42 Del. Ch. 406, 213 A.2d 203, 207 (1965), we are satisfied that Unocal's board has met its burden of proof. Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d at 555.

VI.
In conclusion, there was directorial power to oppose the Mesa tender offer, and to undertake a selective stock exchange made in good faith and upon a reasonable investigation pursuant to a clear duty to protect the corporate enterprise. Further, the selective stock repurchase plan chosen by Unocal is reasonable in relation to the threat that the board rationally and reasonably believed was posed by Mesa's inadequate and coercive two-tier tender offer. Under those circumstances the board's action is entitled to be measured by the standards of the business judgment rule. Thus, unless it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the directors' decisions were primarily based on perpetuating themselves in office, or some other breach of fiduciary duty such as fraud, overreaching, lack of good faith, or being uninformed, a Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the board.

In this case that protection is not lost merely because Unocal's directors have [p959]  tendered their shares in the exchange offer. Given the validity of the Mesa exclusion, they are receiving a benefit shared generally by all other stockholders except Mesa. In this circumstance the test of Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d at 812, is satisfied. See also Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d at 554. If the stockholders are displeased with the action of their elected representatives, the powers of corporate democracy are at their disposal to turn the board out. Aronson v. Lewis, Del. Supr., 473 A.2d 805, 811 (1984). See also 8 Del.C. §§ 141(k) and 211(b).

With the Court of Chancery's findings that the exchange offer was based on the board's good faith belief that the Mesa offer was inadequate, that the board's action was informed and taken with due care, that Mesa's prior activities justify a reasonable inference that its principle objective was greenmail, and implicitly, that the substance of the offer itself was reasonable and fair to the corporation and its stockholders if Mesa were included, we cannot say that the Unocal directors have acted in such a manner as to have passed an "unintelligent and unadvised judgment". Mitchell v. Highland-Western Glass Co., Del. Ch., 19 Del. Ch. 326, 167 A. 831, 833 (1933). The decision of the Court of Chancery is therefore REVERSED, and the preliminary injunction is VACATED.


text: Talk:Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co.

title: Talk:Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co.


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/34

 The hone being the only means of sharpening a dull razor, its use becomes at once of the utmost importance to those who wish to keep their razors in perfect order.

Hones are seldom used dry, but are usually covered with either water, lather or oil: first—to prevent heating the blade which would quickly spoil its temper; second—to keep the particles of steel that are ground off the blade from entering the pores of the stone, which would soon fill up and result in what is known as a glazed surface; and third—to make

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/34


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/35

 the surface of the hone as smooth as possible.

Before commencing the operation, wipe the hone clean, then put on a few drops of oil or else cover it with water or lather. This will float the little particles of steel ground off the razor, thus preventing them from remaining directly on the hone to impede its full and equal effect. With most hones you may use either water, lather or oil; but do not change from one to the other; whichever you begin with, use that exclusively. It requiesrequires [sic] a longer time to produce a keen edge when oil is used but the edge is somewhat smoother. Most barbers use lather and we should advise the beginner to do so.

The hone, with its fine surface up, should be placed perfectly flat on a table or other solid foundation. (The rough surface is intended merely as a support and not for use.) After covering the

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/35


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/37

 hone with lather, place the razor flat upon it as shown in Fig. A. With the thumb and fore finger, grasp the razor back of the heel, so as to have firm hold of both the blade and the handle. Draw the blade from heel to point, forward against the edge, and with a moderate degree of pressure, until it comes into the position shown in Fig. B. Now, without lifting the blade from the stone, turn the edge up, so that the razor rests on the back of the blade. Slide it forward on its back from point to heel and let it fall into the position indicated in Fig. C. Push the blade from heel to point against the edge, finishing the stroke as in Fig. D. Turn the blade on its back, slide from point to heel and let it fall into the first position, as shown in Fig. A. Continue honing until the blade is sufficiently keen and free from nicks and inequalities. This may be known by drawing the edge, very lightly, across the moistened thumb nail. If it sticks to the nail slightly, it is an

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/37


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/38

 that the honing has developed the little teeth which constitute the perfect razor edge, and that the razor is now ready for stropping.

If the honing be carried too far, a "wire edge" will be produced, and this must be removed. To do this, draw the edge with a steady hand across the moistened thumb nail in the manner indicated above. The blade should then be drawn once or twice across the hone as before, in order to unite all parts of the edge and cause a perfect equality of keenness from one end of the blade to the other. With this done, the operation is in general performed, and the wondrous difficulty of honing the razor vanishes.

The following directions should be specially observed.

First—The blade should be held perfectly flat on the hone, so that the back, as well as the edge, touches the stone. If the back is raised from the stone so

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/38


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/39

 that only the edge touches, the bevel will be short and the edge blunt.

Second—In drawing the blade across the hone diagonally against the edge, the heel should be about one and a half inches in advance of the point, and care should be taken to maintain the same angle when the stroke is reversed and throughout the entire operation. This sets the teeth at the proper angle, that is, slightly inclined toward the heel. We have likened the edge of a razor to that of a saw, but there is this difference: saw teeth incline away from the handle and toward the point, while the razor teeth incline away from the point and toward the heel. This is correct in principle, for the saw in use is pushed away from the handle toward the point, while the razor is usually drawn away from the point toward the heel.

Third—Press with equal force on all parts of the edge. With a good hone, very little pressure will be required.

The time required to hone a razor

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/39


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/40

 depends much on the condition of the razor and the hardness of the steel composing it. When the edge is in the usual condition—that is when it is free from nicks and has merely become thick in consequence of the injudicious use of the razor strop—it will need very little honing: eight or ten strokes in each direction will be quite sufficient. When, however, the edge has nicks: though so small as to be scarcely perceptible, the operation will require more time and attention. Should the nicks be large, it will be better to send the razor to a cutler to be ground.

If the razor is well cared for and properly stropped, it will not require very frequent honing, probably not oftener than once in from six to eight weeks. When it is required you will become aware of it, from the fact that stropping will not sharpen it.

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/40


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/41

 The object of honing the razor, as has been explained, is to abraid and wear away the edge of the blade so that it becomes as thin as possible. But when this is done, the process of sharpening the razor is still incomplete, for the edge, when taken from the hone, is left rough and unfit to put on the face. Another process is necessary, and that is stropping. The object of stropping is not to make the blade thinner, but to smooth the edge, taking off the rough surface of the little teeth which have been developed, and setting them all in perfect

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/41


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/42

 alignment. This gives the razor its exceeding keenness.

You should have a first-class strop. It little matters how good your razor may be if your strop is a poor one, for it is absolutely impossible to keep a razor in good condition if the strop is of poor quality or rough and haggled. Many a razor has been blamed when the fault lie entirely with the strop and the manner of using it. So called sharpening preparations, sometimes applied to the surface of strops, as a substitute for the hone, should be avoided. Most of them contain acid or emery, which is likely to gradually spoil the temper of the razor.

There are many kinds of strops manufactured and placed on the market, some good and some bad. The most common is the swing strop, made of leather or horse hide on one side and canvas or hose on the other. Some of the cheaper grades have a very coarse canvas, and unless you wish to ruin your

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/42


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/43

 razor, you should never put it on such a strop. In our opinion a good leather or horse hide strop is the best, and meets every requirement; but if a combination strop is used, the linen or hose side should be of the finest quality.

The strop should be not less than twenty inches long and two inches wide. Its surface should be very soft and smooth—not glazed—and you can tell whether it is so, by rubbing the hand over it. Do not fold the strop when putting it away, for if you do you are likely to crack or roughen the surface, and this will injure the edge of the blade when it is drawn across it.

After the strop has been put to a great deal of use, it will sometimes be found that it will not "take hold" on the razor—that is it will allow the blade to slip over it with little or no resistance and thus fail to impart a keen, smooth-cutting edge. The reason is that the

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/43


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/44

 strop has become dry and porous. Do not attempt to remedy the matter by applying oil or razor paste; these will only make matters worse. Hang the strop on a hook, and with the left hand stretch as tightly as possible. Apply a good thick lather to the surface and rub it in with the palm of the hand. Barbers sometimes nail the strop to a board and rub the lather in with a smooth bottle; but the hand will do quite as well, and indeed, we think it preferable. What the strop requires is to have the pores filled with the lather; so put on and work in coat after coat, until the leather will take up no more. Then leave the strop to dry. This simple treatment will completely change the action of the strop, and the next time you use it, you will be surprised and delighted to note its improved effect on the razor. It will have that "cling" and "resistance" which barbers so much desire in a strop, and which, indeed, is quite essential to its efficiency.

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/44


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/45

 Place a hook in a door or a window casing about four or five feet from the floor. Put the ring of the strop over the hook, and hold the handle firmly in the left hand as shown in the accompanying illustration. The strop should be pulled tight—not allowed to hang loosely — otherwise the edge of the razor will become rounded and require frequent honing.

Open the razor, so that the handle is in line with the blade. Grasp it firmly with the right hand, the first two fingers and thumb holding the razor just back of the heel, so that perfect control is had

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/45


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/46

 of both the blade and handle. With the razor held in this manner it is an easy matter to turn the razor back and forth from one side to the other.

HOW TO STROP THE RAZOR.

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/46


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/47

 Lay the blade flat on the further end of the strop, as shown in Fig. E, with the edge away from you. Draw the blade toward you, always keeping the heel of the razor in advance of the point. When at the end of the strop, rotate the razor on its back till the unstropedunstropped [sic] side of the blade comes in contact with the strop, as shown in Fig. F. Then, with the heel in advance, push the razor away from you, until it reaches the further end of the strop. Again rotate, and continue the stropping until the razor is sharp.

Always hold the blade at the same angle, and perfectly flat on the strop. You will observe that the stroke is exactly opposite to that used in honing. In honing, the edge is in advance; in stropping, the back. During the operation the back of the razor should never he taken from the strop. By observing this, and always turning the blade on its back, instead of on the edge, you will avoid cutting the strop.

Beginners should not attempt to make

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/47


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/48

 a quick stroke. Let the stroke be slow and even, developing speed gradually until a complete mastery of the movement is acquired.

If the razor is in good condition and not in need of honing, fifteen or twenty strokes in each direction will be sufficient. If, however, the razor should require honing, no amount of stropping will put a keen edge on it. It will usually be necessary to strop the razor each time you shave, and with stiff beards more than once may be required.

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/48


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/49

 Purchase a good brush. The cheap ones are usually the most expensive in the end, and nearly always prove unsatis-

SECTIONAL VIEW OF THE BRUSH SHOWING INTERNAL CONSTRUCTION.

factory. It sholdshould [sic] be remembered that the vital part of a brush is in the setting, and particular attention should therefore

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/49


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/50

 be paid to that part of it. Cheap brushes are commonly set with glue, rosin or cement, which soon cracks and becomes unadhesive; whereupon the bristles fall out. We recommend a brush made of bristles or badger hair and set in hard vulcanized rubber. A brush so con-

THE BRUSH.

structed, with wood, bone or ivory handle, and hard rubber ferule, will not shed the bristles or crack open, and with proper care will last for years.

Do not leave the lather to dry in the brush, but after shaving rinse it out thoroughly and dry the brush with a

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/50


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/52

 The shaving cup should be of earthen ware or china, and large enough to accommodate the ordinary round cake of shaving soap. Some cups are made with two compartments, one for soap and the other for water, but this arrangement is unnecessary, and in fact, not so convenient as the ordinary cup, for it leaves too little room for making the lather.

If possible, the cake of soap should entirely fill the bottom of the cup so that no space is left between the soap and the sides; otherwise water will get in and keep the bottom of the cake

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/52


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/53

 soaked. If it is found that the cake does not quite fill the space, take the soap out and warm it until it becomes somewhat soft, then put it back in the cup, and with the hand press down the sides all around, thus flattening out the cake until it quite fills the intervening space. If at any time the soap should cleave away from the sides of the cup, it should be pressed back as at first. This will be found the most convenient way of using the soap.

Great care should be taken to keep the cup scrupulously clean, rinsing it out thoroughly each time after shaving, in order to remove any lather that may have been left unused. Keep the cup away from dust.

Some use the sticks of shaving soap and make the lather on the face. While this is permissable, we think the better way is to make the lather in the cup and put it on with the brush.

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/53


text:
Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/54

 Next to the razor, the most important article of the shaving outfit is the soap. In its proper use lies the real secret of easy shaving. The razor may be ever so good, but unless the beard is properly lathered with a good soap, shaving will be anything but a pleasure. Use only a regular recognized standard make of shaving soap, not, under any circumstances, a toilet soap. The latter is not intended for shaving, and is likely to produce irritations of the skin and leave the face rough and sore.

A wrong idea prevails regarding the

title: Page:Shaving Made Easy 1905.djvu/54