text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/7

 clause, when a question is raised whether a certain phrase or expression was up for consideration at all or not, a reference to debates may be permitted." The European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Committee on Human Rights all allow their deliberations to be informed by travaux préparatoires.

Our Constitution was the product of negotiations conducted at the Multi-Party Negotiating Process. The final draft adopted by the forum of the Multi-Party Negotiating Process was, with few changes, adopted by Parliament. The Multi-Party Negotiating Process was advised by technical committees, and the reports of these committees on the drafts are the equivalent of the travaux préparatoires, relied upon by the international tribunals. Such background material can provide a context for the interpretation of the Constitution and, where it serves that purpose, I can see no reason why such evidence should be excluded. The precise nature of the evidence, and the purpose for which it may be tendered, will determine the weight to be given to it.

It has been said in respect of the Canadian constitution that:

"…the Charter is not the product of a few individual public servants, however distinguished, but of a multiplicity of individuals who played major roles in the negotiating, drafting and adoption of the Charter. How can one say with any confidence that within this enormous multiplicity of actors … the comments of a few federal civil servants can in any way be determinative."

Our Constitution is also the product of a multiplicity of persons, some of whom took part in the negotiations, and others who as members of Parliament enacted the final draft. The same caution is called for in respect of the comments of individual actors in the process, no matter how prominent a role they might have played.

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/7


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/22

 driven out; from this custom must be distinguished another, which consists in dismissing the souls of the dead at the close of the year and sending them on their journey to the other world; this latter custom seems to have an entirely different origin and to be due to love and not fear of the dead. In other cases it is believed that evil spirits generally or even non-personal evils such as sins are believed to be expelled. In these customs originated perhaps the scapegoat, some forms of (q.v.) and other cathartic ceremonies.

 DE MORGAN, AUGUSTUS (1806–1871), English mathematician and logician, was born in June 1806, at Madura, in the Madras presidency. His father, Colonel John De Morgan, was employed in the East India Company’s service, and his grandfather and great-grandfather had served under Warren Hastings. On the mother’s side he was descended from James Dodson, F.R.S., author of the Anti-logarithmic Canon and other mathematical works of merit, and a friend of Abraham Demoivre. Seven months after the birth of Augustus, Colonel De Morgan brought his wife, daughter and infant son to England, where he left them during a subsequent period of service in India, dying in 1816 on his way home.

Augustus De Morgan received his early education in several private schools, and before the age of fourteen years had learned Latin, Greek and some Hebrew, in addition to acquiring much general knowledge. At the age of sixteen years and a half he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, and studied mathematics, partly under the tuition of Sir G. B. Airy. In 1825 he gained a Trinity scholarship. De Morgan’s love of wide reading somewhat interfered with his success in the mathematical tripos, in which he took the fourth place in 1827. He was prevented from taking his M.A. degree, or from obtaining a fellowship, by his conscientious objection to signing the theological tests then required from masters of arts and fellows at Cambridge.

A career in his own university being closed against him, he entered Lincoln’s Inn; but had hardly done so when the establishment, in 1828, of the university of London, in Gower Street, afterwards known as University College, gave him an opportunity of continuing his mathematical pursuits. At the early age of twenty-two he gave his first lecture as professor of mathematics in the college which he served with the utmost zeal and success for a third of a century. His connexion with the college, indeed, was interrupted in 1831, when a disagreement with the governing body caused De Morgan and some other professors to resign their chairs simultaneously. When, in 1836, his successor was accidentally drowned, De Morgan was requested to resume the professorship.

In 1837 he married Sophia Elizabeth, daughter of William Frend, a Unitarian in faith, a mathematician and actuary in occupation, a notice of whose life, written by his son-in-law, will be found in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (vol. v.). They settled in Chelsea (30 Cheyne Row), where in later years Mrs De Morgan had a large circle of intellectual and artistic friends.

As a teacher of mathematics De Morgan was unrivalled. He gave instruction in the form of continuous lectures delivered extempore from brief notes. The most prolonged mathematical reasoning, and the most intricate formulae, were given with almost infallible accuracy from the resources of his extraordinary memory. De Morgan’s writings, however excellent, give little idea of the perspicuity and elegance of his viva voce expositions, which never failed to fix the attention of all who were worthy of hearing him. Many of his pupils have distinguished themselves, and, through Isaac Todhunter and E. J. Routh, he had an important influence on the later Cambridge school. For thirty years he took an active part in the business of the Royal Astronomical Society, editing its publications, supplying obituary notices of members, and for eighteen years acting as one of the honorary secretaries. He was also frequently employed as consulting actuary, a business in which his mathematical powers, combined with sound judgment and business-like habits, fitted him to take the highest place.

De Morgan’s mathematical writings contributed powerfully towards the progress of the science. His memoirs on the “Foundation of Algebra,” in the 7th and 8th volumes of the Cambridge Philosophical Transactions, contain some of the most important contributions which have been made to the philosophy of mathematical method; and Sir W. Rowan Hamilton, in the preface to his Lectures on Quaternions, refers more than once to those papers as having led and encouraged him in the working out of the new system of quaternions. The work on Trigonometry and Double Algebra (1849) contains in the latter part a most luminous and philosophical view of existing and possible systems of symbolic calculus. But De Morgan’s influence on mathematical science in England can only be estimated by a review of his long series of publications, which commence, in 1828, with a translation of part of Bourdon’s Elements of Algebra, prepared for his students. In 1830 appeared the first edition of his well-known Elements of Arithmetic, which did much to raise the character of elementary training. It is distinguished by a simple yet thoroughly philosophical treatment of the ideas of number and magnitude, as well as by the introduction of new abbreviated processes of computation, to which De Morgan always attributed much practical importance. Second and third editions were called for in 1832 and 1835; a sixth edition was issued in 1876. De Morgan’s other principal mathematical works were The Elements of Algebra (1835), a valuable but somewhat dry elementary treatise; the Essay on Probabilities (1838), forming the 107th volume of Lardner’s Cyclopaedia, which forms a valuable introduction to the subject; and The Elements of Trigonometry and Trigonometrical Analysis, preliminary to the Differential Calculus (1837). Several of his mathematical works were published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, of which De Morgan was at one time an active member. Among these may be mentioned the Treatise on the Differential and Integral Calculus (1842); the Elementary Illustrations of the Differential and Integral Calculus, first published in 1832, but often bound up with the larger treatise; the essay, On the Study and Difficulties of Mathematics (1831); and a brief treatise on Spherical Trigonometry (1834). By some accident the work on probability in the same series, written by Sir J. W. Lubbock and J. Drinkwater-Bethune, was attributed to De Morgan, an error which seriously annoyed his nice sense of bibliographical accuracy. For fifteen years he did all in his power to correct the mistake, and finally wrote to The Times to disclaim the authorship. (See Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. xxvi. p. 118.) Two of his most elaborate treatises are to be found in the Encyclopaedia metropolitana, namely the articles on the Calculus of Functions, and the Theory of Probabilities. De Morgan’s minor mathematical writings were scattered over various periodicals. A list of these and other papers will be found in the Royal Society’s Catalogue, which contains forty-two entries under the name of De Morgan.

In spite, however, of the excellence and extent of his mathematical writings, it is probably as a logical reformer that De Morgan will be best remembered. In this respect he stands alongside of his great contemporaries Sir W. R. Hamilton and George Boole, as one of several independent discoverers of the all-important principle of the quantification of the predicate. Unlike most mathematicians, De Morgan always laid much stress upon the importance of logical training. In his admirable papers upon the modes of teaching arithmetic and geometry, originally published in the Quarterly Journal of Education (reprinted in The Schoolmaster, vol ii.), he remonstrated against the neglect of

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

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/22


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Demonology

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Demonology


text:
Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Montevideo

MONTEVIDEO , capital of Uruguay, on a small peninsula on the N. coast of the estuary of the La Plata, 130 miles E. S. E. of Buenos Ayres. It is one of the best built towns in South America. The chief exports are wool, hides, tallow, dried beef, and extracts of flesh. Montevideo sends out above half the whole exports of Uruguay, and receives all but a small fraction of the imports. Pop. (1918) 378,993.


text:
Author talk:William Henry Smith (1833-1896)

Might be the author of "The Public Career of Charles Sumner", in The Dial, Vol. 15, Num. 170 (July 16, 1893)


text:
Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Montez, Lola

MONTEZ, LOLA, the stage name of , an Irish adventuress; born in Limerick, Ireland, in 1818. Her father was an Ensign Gilbert, her mother of Spanish descent. Taken out to India, she lost her father, and, her mother having remarried, “Lola” was sent home in 1826 to Europe, and brought up at Montrose, in Paris, and at Bath. To escape the match,

arranged by her mother, with an old judge, she eloped with a Captain James, whom in July, 1837, she married, but the marriage ended in a separation. She appeared as a dancer in London and other European capitals. In 1846, at Munich, she captivated the eccentric King Louis I., who created her Countess of Landsfeld, and allowed her $25,000 a year. For more than a year she was all-powerful, her power directed in favor of Liberalism and against the Jesuits; but the revolution of 1848 sent her once more adrift. Again she married (this time a Lieutenant Heald), a marriage as unlucky as the first. She died, a penitent, in Astoria, L. I., on Jan. 17, 1861.


text:
Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 018.djvu/16

 10 House of Commons crushed it, than it determined that those who had composed it—the O'Connells and Shiells—were most fit and proper persons to be the legislators and ministers of Britain. This was unquestionably quite free from bigotry ; perhaps it was not quite so free from foolishness.

In the session of 1823, sixty-two members of the House of Commons supported a resolution, which, in substance, declared that the Irish Church establishment was too large, and ought to be reduced. It was pretty well known, that these members had manifested anything but friendship towards the Church of England and its clergy. Mr Canning adverted to this in the debate on the Bill for putting down the Association, and declared, that Catholic emancipation, and the measure for spoiling the Irish Church, could not pass simultaneously. Unluckily Mr Hume, the famous arithmetic-master, had already given notice that he meant to place a similar resolution before the House for its adoption. Well—Mr Hume, sweet, pliant man ! was prevailed on to withdraw his notice ; and the nation, sweet, credulous creature ! was to imagine that the sixty-two had changed their opinion. No disavowal was made, and the nation was not to be so illiberal as to look for one. The nation was to believe, that when the Catholics got into Parliament, the sixty-two would not assist them to lay the established church in ruins. Things being thus prepared, the Catholic question was ushered into the House of Commons.

Sir Francis Burdett opened the business with a speech that astounded every one. It was all—every syllable—every letter—sugar and butter. He had, in the preceding sessions, lavished everything upon the Orangemen that could be called abuse ; now he declared these Orangemen to be the most noble and the best of beings. Those who, before, had always received from him the most bitter diatribes, were now honoured with an overflowing share of his panegyric. The established clergy were fine men—the Ministers were excellent men—even the opponents of the Catholics were very decent, honest people. The Catholic priests were the first of human beings ; and the Catholics, generally, were the most finished specimens of purity, intelligence, wisdom, patriotism, and loyalty. Poor Sir Francis !—We never dreamed that he was capable of plunging himself into such degradation. We have laughed at his follies, we have pitied his failings, we have detested his schemes, we have execrated his conduct, and still we never, before this, ceased to respect him. We never mistook him for a statesman, but we always thought that he possessed a share of that manly, frank, blunt, honest, downright, old English spirit, which disdains trickery and cunning, and which we shall ever honour wherever we may find it. He blundered amazingly in his new tactics ; he overdid the thing in the most shocking manner. His speech did but little service to his cause, and it lost him Westminster.

The advocates of the Catholics, generally speaking, were, no doubt, placed in a very distressing situation. Instead of being able to expatiate on Catholic desert, they had only Catholic delinquency to extenuate ; instead of being able to claim the removal of the disabilities on the ground of qualification, they were actually compelled to claim it on the ground of disqualification !—Our clients have certainly acted in a most improper manner—they have manifested very bad religious and political feelings—they have uttered language and done deeds which we cannot possibly defend—but this constitutes their merit. This ought to be irresistible with you in their favour. If you decide against them they will become rebels, therefore you ought to make them your legislators and ministers !—A large part of their reasoning amounted to this, and no more. It certainly displayed great liberality, and this was no slight matter. It was new, and new sophistry is often more effectual than old arguments, however unanswerable.

It was speedily discovered that the securities, as they were called, appended to the Catholic Bill, were universally laughed at, and that without something else in the shape of security, the bill would never pass the House of Commons. Two wings, as they have been called, were therefore added, to enable the clumsy paper-kite to soar to the Lords.

We have spoken as warmly as any one against the present system of


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/8

 Background evidence may, however, be useful to show why particular provisions were or were not included in the Constitution. It is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage in the development of our constitutional law to express any opinion on whether it might also be relevant for other purposes, nor to attempt to lay down general principles governing the admissibility of such evidence. It is sufficient to say that where the background material is clear, is not in dispute, and is relevant to showing why particular provisions were or were not included in the Constitution, it can be taken into account by a Court in interpreting the Constitution. These conditions are satisfied in the present case.

Capital punishment was the subject of debate before and during the constitution-making process, and it is clear that the failure to deal specifically in the Constitution with this issue was not accidental.

In February 1990, Mr F W de Klerk, then President of the Republic of South Africa, stated in Parliament that "the death penalty had been the subject of intensive discussion in recent months", which had led to concrete proposals for reform under which the death penalty should be retained as an option to be used in "extreme cases", the judicial discretion in regard to the imposition of the death sentence should be broadened, and an automatic right of appeal allowed to those under sentence of death. These proposals were later enacted into law by the Criminal Law Amendment Act No. 107 of 1990.

In August 1991, the South African Law Commission in its Interim Report on Group and Human Rights described the imposition of the death penalty as "highly controversial". A working paper of the Commission which preceded the Interim Report had proposed that the right to life be recognised in a bill of rights, subject to the proviso that the discretionary imposition of the sentence of death be allowed for the most serious crimes. As a result of the comments it received, the Law Commission decided to change the draft and to adopt a "Solomonic solution" under which a constitutional court would be required to decide whether a right to life expressed in unqualified terms could be circumscribed by a limitations clause contained in a bill of rights. "This proposed solution" it said "naturally imposes an onerous task on the Constitutional Court. But it is a task which this Court will in future have to carry out in respect of many other laws and executive and administrative acts. The Court must not shrink from this task, otherwise we shall be back to parliamentary sovereignty."

In March 1992, the then Minister of Justice issued a press statement in which he said:

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/8


text:
Page:Nature and Man.djvu/61

58 Giard and Billet were obtained at Wimereux near Boulogne. I found the disease very abundant at Ouistreham near Caen in the summer of 1900. I have not observed it nor heard of its occurrence on the English coast. Sea-water commonly contains a free-living phosphorescent bacterium which can be cultivated in flasks of liquid food so as to give rich growths which glow like a lamp when the flask is agitated so as to expose the contents to oxidation. This bacterium is not, however, the cause of the 'phosphorescence' of the sea often seen on our coasts. That is due in most cases to a much larger organism, as big as a small pin's head, and known as Noctiluca miliaris.

NOTE 9 (p. 33).

As little is the question of the use and abuse of food and drink dealt with, as yet, by civilized man. As in many other matters man has carried into his later crowded, artificial, nature-controlling life habits and tendencies derived from savage prehistoric days, so has he perpetuated ways of feeding which are mere traditions from his early 'animal' days and have never been seriously called in question and put to proof. The persistence under new conditions of either habit or structure which belonged to old conditions may be attended with great danger and difficulty to an organism which changes, as man does, with great rapidity important features in its general surroundings and mode of life. This is in effect Metschnikoff's doctrine of 'désharmonies.' It is probable that in very early days when a tribe of primitive men killed a mammoth, they all rushed on to the dead monster and gorged as much of its flesh as they could swallow (cooked or possibly uncooked). They had to take in enough to last for another week or two—that is to say, until another large animal should be trapped and slain. Accordingly he who could eat most would be strongest and best able to seize a good share when the next opportunity arrived, and it naturally became considered an indication of strength, vigour, and future prosperity to be capable of gorging large quantities

title: Page:Nature and Man.djvu/61


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/23

 logical doctrine. In 1839 he produced a small work called First Notions of Logic, giving what he had found by experience to be much wanted by students commencing with Euclid. In October 1846 he completed the first of his investigations, in the form of a paper printed in the Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (vol. viii. No. 29). In this paper the principle of the quantified predicate was referred to, and there immediately ensued a memorable controversy with Sir W. R. Hamilton regarding the independence of De Morgan’s discovery, some communications having passed between them in the autumn of 1846. The details of this dispute will be found in the original pamphlets, in the Athenaeum and in the appendix to De Morgan’s Formal Logic. Suffice it to say that the independence of De Morgan’s discovery was subsequently recognized by Hamilton. The eight forms of proposition adopted by De Morgan as the basis of his system partially differ from those which Hamilton derived from the quantified predicate. The general character of De Morgan’s development of logical forms was wholly peculiar and original on his part.

Late in 1847 De Morgan published his principal logical treatise, called Formal Logic, or the Calculus of Inference, Necessary and Probable. This contains a reprint of the First Notions, an elaborate development of his doctrine of the syllogism, and of the numerical definite syllogism, together with chapters of great interest on probability, induction, old logical terms and fallacies. The severity of the treatise is relieved by characteristic touches of humour, and by quaint anecdotes and allusions furnished from his wide reading and perfect memory. There followed at intervals, in the years 1850, 1858, 1860 and 1863, a series of four elaborate memoirs on the “Syllogism,” printed in volumes ix. and x. of the Cambridge Philosophical Transactions. These papers taken together constitute a great treatise on logic, in which he substituted improved systems of notation, and developed a new logic of relations, and a new onymatic system of logical expression. In 1860 De Morgan endeavoured to render their contents better known by publishing a Syllabus of a Proposed System of Logic, from which may be obtained a good idea of his symbolic system, but the more readable and interesting discussions contained in the memoirs are of necessity omitted. The article “Logic” in the English Cyclopaedia (1860) completes the list of his logical publications.

Throughout his logical writings De Morgan was led by the idea that the followers of the two great branches of exact science, logic and mathematics, had made blunders,—the logicians in neglecting mathematics, and the mathematicians in neglecting logic. He endeavoured to reconcile them, and in the attempt showed how many errors an acute mathematician could detect in logical writings, and how large a field there was for discovery. But it may be doubted whether De Morgan’s own system, “horrent with mysterious spiculae,” as Hamilton aptly described it, is fitted to exhibit the real analogy between quantitative and qualitative reasoning, which is rather to be sought in the logical works of Boole.

In 1866 his life became clouded by the circumstances which led him to abandon the institution so long the scene of his labours. The refusal of the council to accept the recommendation of the senate, that they should appoint an eminent Unitarian minister to the professorship of logic and mental philosophy, revived all De Morgan’s sensitiveness on the subject of sectarian freedom; and, though his feelings were doubtless excessive, there is no doubt that gloom was thrown over his life, intensified in 1867 by the loss of his son George Campbell De Morgan, a young man of the highest scientific promise, whose name, as De Morgan expressly wished, will long be connected with the London Mathematical Society, of which he was one of the founders. From this time De Morgan rapidly fell into ill-health, previously almost unknown to him, dying on the 18th of March 1871. An interesting and truthful sketch of his life will be found in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for the 9th of February 1872, vol. xxii. p. 112, written by A. C. Ranyard, who says, “He was the kindliest, as well as the most learned of men—benignant to every one who approached him, never forgetting the claims which weakness has on strength.”

De Morgan left no published indications of his opinions on religious questions, in regard to which he was extremely reticent. He seldom or never entered a place of worship, and declared that he could not listen to a sermon, a circumstance perhaps due to the extremely strict religious discipline under which he was brought up. Nevertheless there is reason to believe that he

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/23


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/9

 "Opinions regarding the death penalty differ substantially. There are those who feel that the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment. Others are of the opinion that it is in some extreme cases the community's only effective safeguard against violent crime and that it gives effect in such cases to the retributive and deterrent purposes of punishment."

He went on to say that policy in regard to the death penalty might be settled during negotiations on the terms of a Bill of Fundamental Rights, and that pending the outcome of such negotiations, execution of death sentences which had not been commuted, would be suspended. He concluded his statement by saying that:

"The government wishes to see a speedy settlement of the future constitutionality of this form of punishment and urges interested parties to join in the discussions on a Bill of Fundamental Rights."

The moratorium was in respect of the carrying out, and not the imposition, of the death sentence. The death sentence remained a lawful punishment and although the courts may possibly have been influenced by the moratorium, they continued to impose it in cases in which it was considered to be the "only proper" sentence. According to the statistics provided to us by the Attorney General, 243 persons have been sentenced to death since the amendment to section 277 in 1990, and of these sentences, 143 have been confirmed by the Appellate Division.

In the constitutional negotiations which followed, the issue was not resolved. Instead, the "Solomonic solution" was adopted. The death sentence was, in terms, neither

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/9


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/10

 sanctioned nor excluded, and it was left to the Constitutional Court to decide whether the provisions of the pre-constitutional law making the death penalty a competent sentence for murder and other crimes are consistent with Chapter Three of the Constitution. If they are, the death sentence remains a competent sentence for murder in cases in which those provisions are applicable, unless and until Parliament otherwise decides; if they are not, it is our duty to say so, and to declare such provisions to be unconstitutional.

Section 11(2) - Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment

Death is the most extreme form of punishment to which a convicted criminal can be subjected. Its execution is final and irrevocable. It puts an end not only to the right to life itself, but to all other personal rights which had vested in the deceased under Chapter Three of the Constitution. It leaves nothing except the memory in others of what has been and the property that passes to the deceased's heirs. In the ordinary meaning of the words, the death sentence is undoubtedly a cruel punishment. Once sentenced, the prisoner waits on death row in the company of other prisoners under sentence of death, for the processes of their appeals and the procedures for clemency to be carried out. Throughout this period, those who remain on death row are uncertain of their fate, not knowing whether they will ultimately be reprieved or taken to the gallows. Death is a cruel penalty and the legal processes which necessarily involve waiting in uncertainty for the sentence to be set aside or carried out, add to the cruelty. It is also an inhuman punishment for it "…involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity", and it is degrading because it strips the convicted person of all dignity and treats him or her as an object to be eliminated by the state. The question is not, however, whether the death sentence is a cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment in the ordinary meaning of these words but whether it is a cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment within the meaning of section 11(2) of our Constitution. The accused, who rely on section 11(2) of the

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/10


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/29

 Rh all know what an improvement physics has been upon natural philosophy, and biology upon natural history. Sociology stands in about the same relation to the old philosophy of history, but any one can see how greatly it modifies and amplifies that conception. Another of its marked advantages is that it is a single word and as such has its appropriate derivatives, especially its adjective sociological, which so greatly simplifies expression. When we consider, therefore, that this science, new as it is, has its definite name and several useful synonyms, and that besides the regular adjective sociological it has the shorter one social which conveys a somewhat different idea, we may well regard this most complex field of investigation as even better equipped with the necessary implements of culture than many of the simpler fields. So much for words.

Philosophers of all ages have been at work upon the problem of a logical and natural classification of the sciences. Not to speak of the ancients, we have had systems by Oken, Hegel, d'Alembert, Ampere, Locke, Hobbes, and many others before Comte and Spencer. Each of these systems has been largely a product of the quality of the author's mind and was specially adapted to the general thesis of his philosophy. In selecting from among them all that of Comte as best adapted to the subject of social philosophy I am far from condemning all others or even making odious comparisons. There is always more than one entirely correct way of classifying the phenomena of any great field. For example, the classification of the sciences which Spencer proposes as a substitute for Comte's, although a good one for certain purposes, is not a substitute for that


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/31

Rh Comte found that there were five great groups of phenomena of equal classificatory value but of successively decreasing positivity. To these he gave the names astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology. A glance at these suffices to show that they conform to the conditions outlined and that they must stand in this order. To complain, as some have done, that many well recognized sciences are not named in this list is totally to misconceive the object of the classification. The conception is a great and grand one and before it all captious criticisms must yield if it is to do its proper work. But really, when carefully scanned, nearly every proper science can be assigned its natural place in this scheme. For my own part, I should add one to the number of these great coordinate sciences. I should recognize psychology as such and place it, as Spencer has done, between biology and sociology. Not that Comte ignored it, but in the mighty sweep of his logic he made it a part of biology, calling it "transcendental biology."

Much has been said about the relation of economics to sociology, and some have gone so far as to regard sociology as in some way subordinate to economics. The latter is simply one of those great fields of phenomena which lie outside the lines upon which the classification is based. Not that it is not recognized or appreciated, nor that it does not have its fixed and proper place in the scheme. To illustrate this we can best consider some of the other and less complex of the five great groups. Take astronomy, for example. It might be asked: Where is geology or geography? They do not appear in the series. Are they ignored or omitted ? By no means. They simply belong under the broad conception of astronomy. The earth is to the astronomer simply a planet and as such only does he study it. He may have more to say of Jupiter or Saturn. This illustrates the sweeping character of Comte's generalization. Those who raise these objections do not grasp it in its true magnitude. And I may say here, parenthetically, that Comte was typical of the French mind in general when at its best. There is no greater error than that of thinking it light and trivial. I have heard


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/33

Rh species which are also coordinate. Usually there are found to be more subdivisions than these and we have in botany at least, suborders, subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, and subgenera. Even species have their varieties, and in some sciences, particularly in ornithology, these are called subspecies and have a special significance. What most concerns us here is that in characterizing these sucessively lower and lower groups, when scientifically done, none of the characters are described in a lower that have already been employed to mark off the next higher group. All the characters of a family are additional to those of the order to which it belongs, all those of a genus additional to those of its family, and all those of a species additional to those of its genus. In correct synoptical work there is no repetition or mixing up of the characters belonging to these respective groups, so that we speak of ordinal, family, generic, and specific characters.

All this may at first sight seem irrelevant to the question before us, but natural history furnishes the best possible example of the primary process of the mind in reasoning upon concrete facts. There is a certain school of biologists who are somewhat disposed to sneer at the old-fashioned study of systematic botany and zoölogy, but if it had no other claims it could be defended from the pedagogic standpoint as the best possible discipline of the mind, as the supreme object lesson in logic. It may sound paradoxical to assert that the study of living organisms can be made an aid in grasping the abstruse problems of metaphysics, but it certainly can do this. One of the most difficult of those problems has always been the Platonic idea, and few students ever readily grasp it. Yet every one of these groups in natural history classification to which I have referred is nothing more nor less than a Platonic idea. A species, a genus, a family, an order, a class or a kingdom is this and nothing else, and every schoolgirl who has analyzed a flower has, unknown to herself and without mental effort, obtained a clear conception of what constitutes the Platonic idea.

We come then to the last and highest of the sciences, viz., sociology, and what has been said is calculated to prepare us


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/35

Rh Not content with thus broadly outlining a science to which he would have undoubtedly applied the name sociology if Comte or any one else had at that date suggested it, he proceeds to show how this science differs from that of political economy, and in these terms:

Although it is the old abstract political economy which is here described, and although the modern economics is much broader in its scope and rests to a far greater extent upon the observed facts of human life and action, still it remains true that the two sciences here so clearly marked off from each other by Mill are distinguished in substantially the way he shows them to be. The distinction is not essentially different from that between biology as now universally understood and taught and botany or zoölogy. It is a distinction of position in a scheme of classification. Rigidly construed, while the whole of the latter falls under the former, nothing that is distinctively botanical or zoölogical should be called biology. And in the same way,


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/37

Rh separate departments or sciences. Reverting to a former illustration, we may regard sociology as one of the great natural orders of cosmical phenomena under which we may range the next most general departments as so many genera, each with its appropriate species. That is, the classification of the sciences may be made strictly synoptical. When this is done it will be possible for philosophers, like good systematists, to avoid making their ordinal characters include any properly generic ones, or their generic characters include any that are only specific.

Thus understood, sociology is freed from the unnecessary embarrassment of having hanging about it in more or less disorder a burden of complicated details in a great variety of attitudes which make it next to impossible to secure due attention to the fundamental principles of so vast a science. These details are classified and assigned each to its proper place (genus or species) and the field is cleared for the calm contemplation of the central problem of determining the facts, the law and the principles of human association.

I would not have it inferred from the high systematic rank thus given to sociology that the logical order in which the entire scheme is to be taken up and studied or taught is to begin with the highest or ordinal principles and end with the lowest or specific ones. Quite the contrary. Sociology is an advanced study, the last and latest in the entire curriculum. It should perhaps be mainly postgraduate. It involves high powers of generalization, and what is more, it absolutely requires a broad basis of induction. It is largely a philosophy, and in these days philosophy no longer rests on assumptions but on facts. To understand the laws of society the mind must be in possession of a large body of knowledge. This knowledge should not be picked up here and there at random, but should be instilled in a methodical way. It should be fed to the mind with an intelligent purpose in view, and that purpose should be the preparation of the mind for ultimately entering the last and most difficult as well as most important field of human thought, that of sociology. Therefore history, political economy, and the


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/14

xiv

 * }

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/14


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Montessori, Maria

MONTESSORI, mon'tës-sō'rē, Maria, Italian educator: b. Rome, about 1872. She was educated to be a physician, and while studying applied herself especially to the investigation of nervous diseases in children, and to the problem of evolving a form of training that would draw out the capabilities of those of diseased and abnormal temperaments. She was the first woman to be graduated in medicine at the University of Rome (1894), and for some time she acted as an assistant in the Psychiatric Clinic and later as a lecturer on anthropology in that institution. Then for six years she was in charge of one of the hospitals for defective children in Rome. Having acquired a familiarity with the systems of Pestalozzi, Fröbel, Seguin, Itard and other early masters, she now developed therefrom a method of educating feeble-minded children under more modern conditions. In 1898-1900 she was directress of the Scuola Ortofrencia, or mind-strengthening school, where she met with marked success in applying the methods, particularly, of Seguin and Ilard to the education of defectives. She then devoted herself to the study of experimental psychology, pedagogic anthropology and the methods of modern education. An occasion offered in 1907 for putting her theories to practical test, when a school was established in connection with the tenants erected by the Roman Association for Good Building. The first house (Cora dei Bambini) was opened in January 1907, and was soon followed by three others. Dr. Montessori maintained her connection with these schools until 1911 when she devoted her time to the extension of her methods to older children. Both professional educators and laymen have taken a deep interest in her work, the principles of which she has set down in ‘Antropologia pedagogica’ (Eng. trans. by F. T. Cooper, ‘Pedagogic Anthropology,’ New York 1913) and ‘Il metodo della pedagogia scientifica applicato all'educazione infantile nelle case dei Bambini’ (Eng. trans. by A. E. George, ‘The Montessori Method,’ New York 1912).


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/39

Rh Now the pedagogic principle alluded to is that none of the more complex and less exact sciences can be properly understood until after all the simpler and more exact ones below it have first been acquired. What Comte insisted upon was that no one was competent to treat the higher sciences who was ignorant of the lower, and the same would of course be true of teaching. But the important qualification should be made that this canon does not imply a mastery of the details of these sciences, but only a comprehensive grasp of their principles. Thus qualified I believe it to be sound, and it is very important to set it forth at such a time as this when mathematicians, astronomers, and physicists, having no acquaintance with biology, psychology or sociology, are setting themselves up, on the strength of their reputation in the simpler fields, as authorities on economics and social and political science. And not less forcibly is the truth of this principle exemplified in those economists who almost boast that they know nothing of biology and the other great sciences from which the broadest principles of their own department are derived.

We see, then, the high place which sociology, properly defined, should hold among the sciences, and how clear and incisive are the boundaries which mark it off from all other branches of learning. It is the cap-sheaf and crown of any true system of classification of the sciences, and it is also the last and highest landing on the great staircase of education.


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/24

 was of a deeply religious disposition. Like M. Faraday and Sir I. Newton he entertained a confident belief in Providence, founded not on any tenuous inference, but on personal feeling. His hope of a future life also was vivid to the last.

It is impossible to omit a reference to his witty sayings, some specimens of which are preserved in Dr Sadler’s most interesting Diary of Henry Crabb Robinson (1869), which also contains a humorous account of H. C. R. by De Morgan. It may be added that De Morgan was a great reader and admirer of Dickens; he was also fond of music, and a fair performer on the flute.

His son, (b. 1839), first became known in artistic circles as a potter, the “De Morgan” tiles being remarkable for his rediscovery of the secret of some beautiful colours and glazes. But later in life he became even better known to the literary world by his novels, Joseph Vance (1906), Alice for Short (1907), Somehow Good (1908) and It Never Can Happen Again (1909), in which the influence of Dickens and of his own earlier family life were conspicuous.

 DEMOSTHENES, the great Attic orator and statesman, was born in 384 (or 383) His father, who bore the same name, was an Athenian citizen belonging to the deme of Paeania. His mother, Cleobule, was the daughter of Gylon, a citizen who had been active in procuring the protection of the kings of Bosporus for the Athenian colony of Nymphaeon in the Crimea, and whose wife was a native of that region. On these grounds the adversaries of Demosthenes, in after-days, used absurdly to taunt him with a traitorous or barbarian ancestry. The boy had a bitter foretaste of life. He was seven years old when his father died, leaving property (in a manufactory of swords, and another of upholstery) worth about £3500, which, invested as it seems to have been (20% was not thought exorbitant), would have yielded rather more than £600 a year. £300 a year was a very comfortable income at Athens, and it was possible to live decently on a tenth of it. Nicias, a very rich man, had property equivalent, probably, to not more than £4000 a year. Demosthenes was born then, to a handsome, though not a great fortune. But his guardians—two nephews of his father, Aphobus and Demophon, and one Therippides—abused their trust, and handed over to Demosthenes, when he came of age, rather less than one-seventh of his patrimony, perhaps between £50 and £60 a year. Demosthenes, after studying with (q.v.)—then the great master of forensic eloquence and of Attic law, especially in will cases —brought an action against Aphobus, and gained a verdict for about £2400. But it does not appear that he got the money; and, after some more fruitless proceedings against Onetor, the brother-in-law of Aphobus, the matter was dropped,—not, however, before his relatives had managed to throw a public burden (the equipment of a ship of war) on their late ward, whereby his resources were yet further straitened. He now became a professional writer of speeches or pleas ( ) for the law courts, sometimes speaking himself. Biographers have delighted to relate how painfully Demosthenes made himself a tolerable speaker,—how, with pebbles in his mouth, he tried his lungs against the waves, how he declaimed as he ran up hill, how he shut himself up in a cell, having first guarded himself against a longing for the haunts of men by shaving one side of his head, how he wrote out Thucydides eight times, how he was derided by the Assembly and encouraged by a judicious actor who met him moping about the Peiraeus. He certainly seems to have been the reverse of athletic (the stalwart Aeschines upbraids him with never having been a sportsman), and he probably had some sort of defect or impediment in his speech as a boy. Perhaps the most interesting fact about his work for the law courts is that he seems to have continued it, in some measure, through the most exciting parts of his great political career. The speech for Phormio belongs to the same year as the plea for Megalopolis. The speech against Boeotus “Concerning the Name” comes between the First Philippic and the First Olynthiac. The speech against Pantaenetus comes between the speech “On the Peace” and the Second Philippic.

The political career of Demosthenes, from his first direct contact with public affairs in 355 to his death in 322, has an essential unity. It is the assertion, in successive forms adapted to successive moments, of unchanging principles. Externally, it is divided into the chapter which precedes and the chapter which follows Chaeronea. But its inner meaning, the secret of its indomitable vigour, the law which harmonizes its apparent contrasts, cannot be understood unless it is regarded as a whole. Still less can it be appreciated in all its large wisdom and sustained self-mastery if it is viewed merely as a duel between the ablest champion and the craftiest enemy of Greek freedom. The time indeed came when Demosthenes and Philip stood face to face as representative antagonists in a mortal conflict. But, for Demosthenes, the special peril represented by Philip, the peril of subjugation to Macedon, was merely a disastrous accident. Philip happened to become the most prominent and most formidable type of a danger which was already threatening Greece before his baleful star arose. As Demosthenes said to the Athenians, if the Macedonian had not existed, they would have made another Philip for themselves. Until Athens recovered something of its old spirit, there must ever be a great standing danger, not for Athens only, but for Greece,—the danger that sooner or later, in some shape, from some quarter—no man could foretell the hour, the manner or the source—barbarian violence would break up the gracious and undefiled tradition of separate Hellenic life.

What was the true relation of Athens to Greece? The answer which he gave to this question is the key to the life of Demosthenes. Athens, so Demosthenes held, was the natural head of Greece. Not, however, as an empress holding subject or subordinate cities in a dependence more or less compulsory. Rather as that city which most nobly expressed the noblest attributes of Greek political existence, and which, by her pre-eminent gifts both of intellect and of moral insight, was primarily responsible, everywhere and always, for the maintenance of those attributes in their integrity. Wherever the cry of the oppressed goes up from Greek against Greek, it was the voice of Athens which should first remind the oppressor that Hellene differed from barbarian in postponing the use of force to the persuasions of equal law. Wherever a barbarian hand offered wrong to any city of the Hellenic sisterhood, it was the arm of Athens which should first be stretched forth in the holy strength of Apollo the Averter. Wherever among her own children the ancient loyalty was yielding to love of pleasure or of base gain, there, above all, it was the duty of Athens to see that the central hearth of Hellas was kept pure. Athens must never again seek “empire” in the sense which became odious under the influence of Cleon and Hyperbolus,—when, to use the image of Aristophanes, the allies were as Babylonian slaves grinding in the Athenian mill. Athens must never permit, if she could help it, the re-establishment of such a domination as Sparta exercised in Greece from the battle of Aegospotami to the battle of Leuctra. Athens must aim at leading a free confederacy, of which the members should be bound to her by their own truest interests. Athens must seek to deserve the confidence of all Greeks alike.

Such, in the belief of Demosthenes, was the part which Athens must perform if Greece was to be safe. But reforms must be effected before Athens could be capable of such a part. The evils to be cured were different phases of one malady. Athens had long been suffering from the profound decay of public spirit. Since the early years of the Peloponnesian War, the separation of Athenian society from the state had been growing more and more marked. The old type of the eminent citizen, who was at once statesman and general, had become almost extinct. Politics were now managed by a small circle of politicians. Wars were conducted by professional soldiers whose troops were chiefly mercenaries, and who were usually regarded by the politicians either as instruments or as enemies. The mass of the citizens took no active interest in public affairs. But, though indifferent to principles, they had quickly sensitive partialities for men, and it was necessary to keep them in good humour. Pericles had introduced the practice of giving a

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/24


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/De Morgan, Augustus


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/11

 Constitution, carry the initial onus of establishing this proposition.

The Contentions of the Parties

The principal arguments advanced by counsel for the accused in support of their contention that the imposition of the death penalty for murder is a "cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment," were that the death sentence is an affront to human dignity, is inconsistent with the unqualified right to life entrenched in the Constitution, cannot be corrected in case of error or enforced in a manner that is not arbitrary, and that it negates the essential content of the right to life and the other rights that flow from it. The Attorney General argued that the death penalty is recognised as a legitimate form of punishment in many parts of the world, it is a deterrent to violent crime, it meets society's need for adequate retribution for heinous offences, and it is regarded by South African society as an acceptable form of punishment. He asserted that it is, therefore, not cruel, inhuman or degrading within the meaning of section 11(2) of the Constitution. These arguments for and against the death sentence are well known and have been considered in many of the foreign authorities and cases to which we were referred. We must deal with them now in the light of the provisions of our own Constitution.

The Effect of the Disparity in the Laws Governing Capital Punishment

One of the anomalies of the transition initiated by the Constitution is that the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply throughout South Africa. This is a consequence of section 229 of the Constitution which provides:

Subject to this Constitution, all laws which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution were in force in any area which forms part of the national territory, shall continue in force in such area, subject to any repeal or

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/11


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Demosthenes


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/25

 small bounty from the treasury to the poorer citizens, for the purpose of enabling them to attend the theatre at the great festivals,—in other words, for the purpose of bringing them under the concentrated influence of the best Attic culture. A provision eminently wise for the age of Pericles easily became a mischief when the once honourable name of “demagogue” began to mean a flatterer of the mob. Before the end of the Peloponnesian War the festival-money (theoricon) was abolished. A few years after the restoration of the democracy it was again introduced. But until 354 it had never been more than a gratuity, of which the payment depended on the treasury having a surplus. In 354 Eubulus became steward of the treasury. He was an able man, with a special talent for finance, free from all taint of personal corruption, and sincerely solicitous for the honour of Athens, but enslaved to popularity, and without principles of policy. His first measure was to make the festival-money a permanent item in the budget. Thenceforth this bounty was in reality very much what Demades afterwards called it,—the cement ( ) of the democracy.

Years before the danger from Macedon was urgent, Demosthenes had begun the work of his life,—the effort to lift the spirit of Athens, to revive the old civic loyalty, to rouse the city into taking that place and performing that part which her own welfare as well as the safety of Greece prescribed. His formally political speeches must never be considered apart from his forensic speeches in public causes. The Athenian procedure against the proposer of an unconstitutional law—i.e. of a law incompatible with existing laws—had a direct tendency to make the law court, in such cases, a political arena. The same tendency was indirectly exerted by the tolerance of Athenian juries (in the absence of a presiding expert like a judge) for irrelevant matter, since it was usually easy for a speaker to make capital out of the adversary’s political antecedents. But the forensic speeches of Demosthenes for public causes are not only political in this general sense. They are documents, as indispensable as the Olynthiacs or Philippics, for his own political career. Only by taking them along with the formally political speeches, and regarding the whole as one unbroken series, can we see clearly the full scope of the task which he set before him,—a task in which his long resistance to Philip was only the most dramatic incident, and in which his real achievement is not to be measured by the event of Chaeronea.

A forensic speech, composed for a public cause, opens the political career of Demosthenes with a protest against a signal abuse. In 355, at the age of twenty-nine, he wrote the speech “Against Androtion.” This combats on legal grounds a proposal that the out-going senate should receive the honour of a golden crown. In its larger aspect, it is a denunciation of the corrupt system which that senate represented, and especially of the manner in which the treasury had been administered by Aristophon. In 354 Demosthenes composed and spoke the oration “Against Leptines,” who had effected a slender saving for the state by the expedient of revoking those hereditary exemptions from taxation which had at various times been conferred in recognition of distinguished merit. The descendants of Harmodius and Aristogeiton alone had been excepted from the operation of the law. This was the first time that the voice of Demosthenes himself had been heard on the public concerns of Athens, and the utterance was a worthy prelude to the career of a statesman. He answers the advocates of the retrenchment by pointing out that the public interest will not ultimately be served by a wholesale violation of the public faith. In the same year he delivered his first strictly political speech, “On the Navy Boards” (Symmories). The Athenians, irritated by the support which Artaxerxes had lately given to the revolt of their allies, and excited by rumours of his hostile preparations, were feverishly eager for a war with Persia. Demosthenes urges that such an enterprise would at present be useless; that it would fail to unite Greece; that the energies of the city should be reserved for a real emergency; but that, before the city can successfully cope with any war, there must be a better organization of resources, and, first of all, a reform of the navy, which he outlines with characteristic lucidity and precision.

Two years later (352 ) he is found dealing with a more definite question of foreign policy. Sparta, favoured by the depression of Thebes in the Phocian War, was threatening Megalopolis. Both Sparta and Megalopolis sent embassies to Athens. Demosthenes supported Megalopolis. The ruin of Megalopolis would mean, he argued, the return of Spartan domination in the Peloponnesus. Athenians must not favour the tyranny of any one city. They must respect the rights of all the cities, and thus promote unity based on mutual confidence. In the same year Demosthenes wrote the speech “Against Timocrates,” to be spoken by the same Diodorus who had before prosecuted Androtion, and who now combated an attempt to screen Androtion and others from the penalties of embezzlement. The speech “Against Aristocrates,” also of 352, reproves that foreign policy of feeble makeshifts which was now popular at Athens. The Athenian tenure of the Thracian Chersonese partly depended for its security on the good-will of the Thracian prince Cersobleptes. Charidemus, a soldier of fortune who had already played Athens false, was now the brother-in-law and the favourite of Cersobleptes. Aristocrates proposed that the person of Charidemus should be invested with a special sanctity, by the enactment that whoever attempted his life should be an outlaw from all dominions of Athens. Demosthenes points out that such adulation is as futile as it is fulsome. Athens can secure the permanence of her foreign possessions only in one way—by being strong enough to hold them.

Thus, between 355 and 352, Demosthenes had laid down the main lines of his policy. Domestic administration must be purified. Statesmen must be made to feel that they are responsible to the state. They must not be allowed to anticipate judgment on their deserts by voting each other golden crowns. They must not think to screen misappropriation of public money by getting partisans to pass new laws about state-debtors. Foreign policy must be guided by a larger and more provident conception of Athenian interests. When public excitement demands a foreign war, Athens must not rush into it without asking whether it is necessary, whether it will have Greek support, and whether she herself is ready for it. When a strong Greek city threatens a weak one, and seeks to purchase Athenian connivance with the bribe of a border-town, Athens must remember that duty and prudence alike command her to respect the independence of all Greeks. When it is proposed, by way of insurance on Athenian possessions abroad, to flatter the favourite of a doubtful ally, Athens must remember that such devices will not avail a power which has no army except on paper, and no ships fit to leave their moorings.

But the time had gone by when Athenians could have tranquil leisure for domestic reform. A danger, calling for prompt action, had at last come very near. For six years Athens had been at war with Philip on account of his seizure of Amphipolis. Meanwhile he had destroyed Potidaea and founded Philippi. On the Thracian coasts he had become master of Abdera and Maronea. On the Thessalian coast he had acquired Methone. In a second invasion of Thessaly, he had overthrown the Phocians under Onomarchus, and had advanced to Thermopylae, to find the gates of Greece closed against him by an Athenian force. He had then marched to Heraeon on the Propontis, and had dictated a peace to Cersobleptes. He had formed an alliance with Cardia, Perinthus and Byzantium. Lastly, he had begun to show designs on the great Confederacy of Olynthus, the more warlike Miletus of the North. The First Philippic of Demosthenes was spoken in 351 The Third Philippic—the latest of the extant political speeches—was spoken in 341  Between these he delivered eight political orations, of which seven are directly concerned with Philip. The whole series falls into two great divisions. The first division comprises those speeches which were spoken against Philip while he was still a foreign power threatening Greece from without. Such are the First Philippic and the three orations for Olynthus. The second division comprises the speeches

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/25


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/12

amendment of such laws by a competent authority.

Prior to the commencement of the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Act was in force only in the old Republic of South Africa. Its operation did not extend to the former Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda or Ciskei, which were then treated by South African law as independent states and had their own legislation. Although their respective Criminal Procedure statutes were based on the South African legislation, there were differences, including differences in regard to the death penalty. The most striking difference in this regard was in Ciskei, where the death sentence was abolished on June 8, 1990 by the military regime, the de facto government of the territory, and it ceased from that date to be a competent sentence. These differences still exist, which means that the law governing the imposition of the death sentence in South Africa is not uniform. The greatest disparity is in the Eastern Cape Province. A person who commits murder and is brought to trial in that part of the province which was formerly Ciskei, cannot be sentenced to death, whilst a person who commits murder and is brought to trial in another part of the same province, can be sentenced to death. There is no rational reason for this distinction, which is the result of history, and we asked for argument to be addressed to us on the question whether this difference has a bearing on the constitutionality of section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Counsel for the accused argued that it did. They contended that in the circumstances section 277 was not a law of general application (which is a requirement under section 33(1) for the validity of any law which limits a Chapter Three right), and that the disparate application of the death sentence within South Africa discriminates unfairly between those prosecuted in the former Ciskei and those prosecuted elsewhere in South Africa, and offends against the right to "equality before the law and to equal protection of the law."

If the disparity had been the result of legislation enacted after the Constitution had come into force the challenge to the validity of section 277 on these grounds may well have been tenable. Criminal law and procedure is a national competence and the national government could

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/12


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/26

 spoken against Philip when, by admission to the Amphictyonic Council, he had now won his way within the circle of the Greek states, and when the issue was no longer between Greece and Macedonia, but between the Greek and Macedonian parties in Greece. Such are the speech “On the Peace,” the speech “On the Embassy,” the speech “On the Chersonese,” the Second and Third Philippics.

The First Philippic, spoken early in 351, was no sudden note of alarm drawing attention to an unnoticed peril. On the contrary, the Assembly was weary of the subject. For six years the war with Philip had been a theme of barren talk. Demosthenes urges that it is time to do something, and to do it with a plan. Athens fighting Philip has fared, he says, like an amateur boxer opposed to a skilled pugilist. The helpless hands have only followed blows which a trained eye should have taught them to parry. An Athenian force must be stationed in the north, at Lemnos or Thasos. Of 2000 infantry and 200 cavalry at least one quarter must be Athenian citizens capable of directing the mercenaries.

Later in the same year Demosthenes did another service to the cause of national freedom. Rhodes, severed by its own act from the Athenian Confederacy, had since 355 been virtually subject to Mausolus, prince ( ) of Caria, himself a tributary of Persia. Mausolus died in 351, and was succeeded by his widow Artemisia. The democratic party in Rhodes now appealed to Athens for help in throwing off the Carian yoke. Demosthenes supported their application in his speech “For the Rhodians.” No act of his life was a truer proof of statesmanship. He failed. But at least he had once more warned Athens that the cause of political freedom was everywhere her own, and that, wherever that cause was forsaken, there a new danger was created both for Athens and for Greece.

Next year (350) an Athenian force under Phocion was sent to Euboea, in support of Plutarchus, tyrant of Eretria, against the faction of Cleitarchus. Demosthenes protested against spending strength, needed for greater objects, on the local quarrels of a despot. Phocion won a victory at Tamynae. But the “inglorious and costly war” entailed an outlay of more than £12,000 on the ransom of captives alone, and ended in the total destruction of Athenian influence throughout Euboea. That island was now left an open field for the intrigues of Philip. Worst of all, the party of Eubulus not only defeated a proposal, arising from this campaign, for applying the festival-money to the war-fund, but actually carried a law making it high treason to renew the proposal. The degree to which political enmity was exasperated by the Euboean War may be judged from the incident of Midias, an adherent of Eubulus, and a type of opulent rowdyism. Demosthenes was choragus of his tribe, and was wearing the robe of that sacred office at the great festival in the theatre of Dionysus, when Midias struck him on the face. The affair was eventually compromised. The speech “Against Midias” written by Demosthenes for the trial (in 349) was neither spoken nor completed, and remains, as few will regret, a sketch.

It was now three years since, in 352, the Olynthians had sent an embassy to Athens, and had made peace with their only sure ally. In 350 a second Olynthian embassy had sought and obtained Athenian help. The hour of Olynthus had indeed come. In 349 Philip opened war against the Chalcidic towns of the Olynthian League. The First and Second Olynthiacs of Demosthenes were spoken in that year in support of sending one force to defend Olynthus and another to attack Philip. “Better now than later,” is the thought of the First Olynthiac. The Second argues that Philip’s strength is overrated. The Third—spoken in 348—carries us into the midst of action. It deals with practical details. The festival-fund must be used for the war. The citizens must serve in person. A few months later, Olynthus and the thirty-two towns of the confederacy were swept from the earth. Men could walk over their sites, Demosthenes said seven years afterwards, without knowing that such cities had existed. It was now certain that Philip could not be stopped outside of Greece. The question was, What point within Greece shall he be allowed to reach?

Eubulus and his party, with that versatility which is the privilege of political vagueness, now began to call for a congress of the allies to consider the common danger. They found a brilliant interpreter in Aeschines, who, after having been a tragic actor and a clerk to the assembly, had entered political life with the advantages of a splendid gift for eloquence, a fine presence, a happy address, a ready wit and a facile conscience. While his opponents had thus suddenly become warlike, Demosthenes had become pacific. He saw that Athens must have time to collect strength. Nothing could be gained, meanwhile, by going on with the war. Macedonian sympathizers at Athens, of whom Philocrates was the chief, also favoured peace. Eleven envoys, including Philocrates, Aeschines, and Demosthenes, were sent to Philip in February 346 After a debate at Athens, peace was concluded with Philip in April. Philip on the one hand, Athens and her allies on the other, were to keep what they respectively held at the time when the peace was ratified. But here the Athenians made a fatal error. Philip was bent on keeping the door of Greece open. Demosthenes was bent on shutting it against him. Philip was now at war with the people of Halus in Thessaly. Thebes had for ten years been at war with Phocis. Here were two distinct chances for Philip’s armed intervention in Greece. But if the Halians and the Phocians were included in the peace, Philip could not bear arms against them without violating the peace. Accordingly Philip insisted that they should not be included. Demosthenes insisted they should be included. They were not included. The result followed speedily. The same envoys were sent a second time to Philip at the end of April 346 for the purpose of receiving his oaths in ratification of the peace. It was late in June before he returned from Thrace to Pella—thus gaining, under the terms, all the towns that he had taken meanwhile. He next took the envoys with him through Thessaly to Thermopylae. There—at the invitation of Thessalians and Thebans—he intervened in the Phocian War. Phalaecus surrendered. Phocis was crushed. Philip took its place in the Amphictyonic Council, and was thus established as a Greek power in the very centre, at the sacred hearth, of Greece. The right of precedence in consultation of the oracle ( ) was transferred from Athens to Philip. While indignant Athenians were clamouring for the revocation of the peace, Demosthenes upheld it in his speech “On the Peace” in September. It ought never to have been made on such terms, he said. But, having been made, it had better be kept. “If we went to war now, where should we find allies? And after losing Oropus, Amphipolis, Cardia, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, Byzantium, shall we fight about the shadow of Delphi?”

During the eight years between the peace of Philocrates and the battle of Chaeronea, the authority of Demosthenes steadily grew, until it became first predominant and then paramount. He had, indeed, a melancholy advantage. Each year his argument was more and more cogently enforced by the logic of facts. In 344 he visited the Peloponnesus for the purpose of counteracting Macedonian intrigue. Mistrust, he told the Peloponnesian cities, is the safeguard of free communities against tyrants. Philip lodged a formal complaint at Athens. Here, as elsewhere, the future master of Greece reminds us of Napoleon on the eve of the first empire. He has the same imperturbable and persuasive effrontery in protesting that he is doing one thing at the moment when his energies are concentrated on doing the opposite. Demosthenes replied in the Second Philippic. “If,” he said, “Philip is the friend of Greece, we are doing wrong. If he is the enemy of Greece, we are doing right. Which is he? I hold him to be our enemy, because everything that he has hitherto done has benefited himself and hurt us.” The prosecution of Aeschines for malversation on the

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/26


text:
Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Htonl

2011-01 admin
Htonl came to Wikisource in May 2009, and has been a frequent contributor in the area of legal documents. As far as I can tell, he is the main/sole contributor of ten twenty-five(!) versions of the constitution of South Africa. Now that's dedication. Htonl is also active at Wikipedia and Commons, and has a good understanding of wikicode and HTML. --Eliyak T · C 15:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Support. Portal:Constitutional documents of South Africa is lovely. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Admired contributor – George Orwell III (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Committed, problem-free and from a cricketing nation. 3 for 3. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just so it's clear, since there was a question on my talk page: I have accepted the nomination. - Htonl (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, on review it looks like this is long overdue. Jeepday (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously a committed and hard-working contributor. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; everything I've seen looks great. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support sweet twenty-five versions of the constitution of South Africa! --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support efficient and hard work, creates very clear informations. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support- no knowledge of the editor but based on nomination and comments above and the principle that adminship is no big deal I concur.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Appointed.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2012-01 confirmation

 * Support without hesitation Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support 'tis easy — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — George Orwell III (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support— Ineuw talk 00:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support— ResScholar (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — Inductiveload— talk/contribs  01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. — Hesperian 00:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

2013-02 confirmation

 * Support - —Maury (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * keep valued member of the community — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support--Mpaa (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support--Jusjih (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support — George Orwell III (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—ResScholar (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

2013-09 checkuser
Per this conversation following Pathoschild's recent resignation of the checkuser bit, we need another person to look after this. Over the past few months most of this work has fallen to Billinghurst among his many other tasks across the WikiMedia family.

I would like to nominate Htonl, who has already stated that they are prepared to fulfil the disclosure requirements of WikiMedia. Htonl joined enWS in May 2009, and was elected to be an admin in January 2011. I am confident that they will approach the various CheckUser tasks with caution, but also be proactive about dealing with issues as they arise. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to see the nomination accepted, acknowledgement of the application of privacy policy and the global policy around checkusers at meta, and our local implementation. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I accept the nomination. I've read Privacy policy (re-read it in that case), CheckUser policy, Meta:Help:CheckUser and Restricted access policy. - Htonl (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For a successful candidacy the global policy requires there to be a minimum of 25 support votes with a minimum of 70% approval rate.
 * 1)  — Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  —Maury (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4)  Having seen Htonl's attention to detail in editing, good standing within the community, and with a little knowledge of the background of the person, I believe that they have exhibited the behaviours expected to hold a position of trust to within the community. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6)  Charles Matthews (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --Mpaa (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , but a little improved use of edit summaries would be even much better.--Jusjih (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  — Ineuw talk 18:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Hesperian 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Eliyak T · C 18:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Thumbs up from me. EVula // talk //  ☯  // 22:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) for Htonl, as good candidate, agree with comments by, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) --Rschen7754 04:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) *I support all present Administrators —Maury (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) * You have unintentionally voted twice, Maury. You already supported Htonl on 5 September. Hesperian 02:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ¿If I were to undertake to unconditionally withdraw the vote I did not make, would that make everything all right again? Viewer2 (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That depends; was the vote you did not make a support? Hesperian 07:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well as I am assuming from your username you live in WesternCactus: I thought you guys were cool about lost ballots, so why would anybody ever need to know? Viewer2 (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Rofl Hesperian 09:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems on the level. Also, I didn't realize checkuser votes required a quorum; if y'all want to get this thing wrapped up sooner maybe another announcement or sitenotice would be apropos--I'm sure there are others who don't really involve themselves in this behind the scenes stuff but still have an interest in keeping the gears turning. Prosody (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  (thought I had already voted, but apparently not) --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , Moondyne (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  Yann (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  Solomon7968 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  -- xensyria T 18:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  — That should make 25 :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6)  Better late than never... Angr 08:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Candidacy successful, steward request initiated.[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&diff=7230015&oldid=7228999] Hesperian 01:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be 26 if we count the nomination. This is awaiting Htonl's identifying themself to WMF, at which point levers will be thrown. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rights granted, together with the other stuff (cu-l, cu wiki and IRC). Trijnstel (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

2014-03 confirmation

 * — Ineuw talk 02:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * —Maury (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * — George Orwell III (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 08:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * — Zyephyrus (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * — Prosody (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * --Mpaa (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . Using edit summaries more frequently will be better.--Jusjih (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

2015-04 confirmation and resignation

 * Note: Last edit here 22 February 2014; recently active on en.wp.

 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [no edits in more than a year] --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * —Clockery_Fairfeld 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 06:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * per our policy on inactive admins Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * — per policy. Easy reinstatement upon 'welcome back' — George Orwell III (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * per inactivity—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I formally resign as an admin since am no longer active here on Wikisource, and only sporadically active on other Wikimedia projects. Please don't take my resignation as a complaint about or criticism of the Wikisource or Wikimedia community; I simply have far less time to devote to the projects since taking up a new job. - Htonl (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the post - may you have the best of luck with your endeavors, and hopefully at some point in the future you will have time to return to this great project. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Htonl being more active here soon.. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&type=revision&diff=12077088&oldid=12073550 Rights removal requested.] Hesperian 00:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&type=revision&diff=12078514&oldid=12077088#Htonl.40en.wikisource removed.] Hesperian 07:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/27

 embassy (commonly known as De falsa legatione), which was brought to an issue in the following year, marks the moral strength of the position now held by Demosthenes. When the gravity of the charge and the complexity of the evidence are considered, the acquittal of Aeschines by a narrow majority must be deemed his condemnation. The speech “On the Affairs of the Chersonese” and the Third Philippic were the crowning efforts of Demosthenes. Spoken in the same year, 341, and within a short space of each other, they must be taken together. The speech “On the Affairs of the Chersonese” regards the situation chiefly from an Athenian point of view. “If the peace means,” argues Demosthenes, “that Philip can seize with impunity one Athenian possession after another, but that Athenians shall not on their peril touch aught that belongs to Philip, where is the line to be drawn? We shall go to war, I am told, when it is necessary. If the necessity has not come yet, when will it come?” The Third Philippic surveys a wider horizon. It ascends from the Athenian to the Hellenic view. Philip has annihilated Olynthus and the Chalcidic towns. He has ruined Phocis. He has frightened Thebes. He has divided Thessaly. Euboea and the Peloponnesus are his. His power stretches from the Adriatic to the Hellespont. Where shall be the end? Athens is the last hope of Greece. And, in this final crisis, Demosthenes was the embodied energy of Athens. It was Demosthenes who went to Byzantium, brought the estranged city back to the Athenian alliance, and snatched it from the hands of Philip. It was Demosthenes who, when Philip had already seized Elatea, hurried to Thebes, who by his passionate appeal gained one last chance, the only possible chance, for Greek freedom, who broke down the barrier of an inveterate jealousy, who brought Thebans to fight beside Athenians, and who thus won at the eleventh hour a victory for the spirit of loyal union which took away at least one bitterness from the unspeakable calamity of Chaeronea.

But the work of Demosthenes was not closed by the ruin of his cause. During the last sixteen years of his life (338–322) he rendered services to Athens not less important, and perhaps more difficult, than those which he had rendered before. He was now, as a matter of course, foremost in the public affairs of Athens. In January 337, at the annual winter Festival of the Dead in the Outer Ceramicus, he spoke the funeral oration over those who had fallen at Chaeronea. He was member of a commission for strengthening the fortifications of the city ( ). He administered the festival-fund. During a dearth which visited Athens between 330 and 326 he was charged with the organization of public relief. In 324 he was chief of the sacred embassy to Olympia. Already, in 336, Ctesiphon had proposed that Demosthenes should receive a golden crown from the state, and that his extraordinary merits should be proclaimed in the theatre at the Great Dionysia. The proposal was adopted by the senate as a bill ( ); but it must be passed by the Assembly before it could become an act ( ). To prevent this, Aeschines gave notice, in 336, that he intended to proceed against Ctesiphon for having proposed an unconstitutional measure. For six years Aeschines avoided action on this notice. At last, in 330, the patriotic party felt strong enough to force him to an issue. Aeschines spoke the speech “Against Ctesiphon,” an attack on the whole public life of Demosthenes. Demosthenes gained an overwhelming victory for himself and for the honour of Athens in the most finished, the most splendid and the most pathetic work of ancient eloquence—the immortal oration “On the Crown.”

In the winter of 325–324 Harpalus, the receiver-general of Alexander in Asia, fled to Greece, taking with him 8000 mercenaries, and treasure equivalent to about a million and a quarter sterling. On the motion of Demosthenes he was warned from the harbours of Attica. Having left his troops and part of his treasure at Taenarum, he again presented himself at the Peiraeus, and was now admitted. He spoke fervently of the opportunity which offered itself to those who loved the freedom of Greece. All Asia would rise with Athens to throw off the hated yoke. Fiery patriots like Hypereides were in raptures. For zeal which could be bought Harpalus had other persuasions. But Demosthenes stood firm. War with Alexander would, he saw, be madness. It could have but one result,—some indefinitely worse doom for Athens. Antipater and Olympias presently demanded the surrender of Harpalus. Demosthenes opposed this. But he reconciled the dignity with the loyalty of Athens by carrying a decree that Harpalus should be arrested, and that his treasure should be deposited in the Parthenon, to be held in trust for Alexander. Harpalus escaped from prison. The amount of the treasure, which Harpalus had stated as 700 talents, proved to be no more than 350. Demosthenes proposed that the Areopagus should inquire what had become of the other 350. Six months, spent in party intrigues, passed before the Areopagus gave in their report ( ). The report inculpated nine persons. Demosthenes headed the list of the accused. Hypereides was among the ten public prosecutors. Demosthenes was condemned, fined fifty talents, and, in default of payment, imprisoned. After a few days he escaped from prison to Aegina, and thence to Troezen. Two things in this obscure affair are beyond reasonable doubt. First, that Demosthenes was not bribed by Harpalus. The hatred of the Macedonian party towards Demosthenes, and the fury of those vehement patriots who cried out that he had betrayed their best opportunity, combined to procure his condemnation, with the help, probably, of some appearances which were against him. Secondly, it can hardly be questioned that, by withstanding the hot-headed patriots at this juncture, Demosthenes did heroic service to Athens.

Next year (323 ) Alexander died. Then the voice of Demosthenes, calling Greece to arms, rang out like a trumpet. Early in August 322 the battle of Crannon decided the Lamian War against Greece. Antipater demanded, as the condition on which he would refrain from besieging Athens, the surrender of the leading patriots. Demades moved the decree of the Assembly by which Demosthenes, Hypereides, and some others were condemned to death as traitors. On the 20th of Boedromion (September 16) 322, a Macedonian garrison occupied Munychia. It was a day of solemn and happy memories, a day devoted, in the celebration of the Great Mysteries, to sacred joy,—the day on which the glad procession of the Initiated returned from Eleusis to Athens. It happened, however, to have another association, more significant than any ironical contrast for the present purpose of Antipater. It was the day on which, thirteen years before, Alexander had punished the rebellion of Thebes with annihilation.

The condemned men had fled to Aegina. Parting there from Hypereides and the rest, Demosthenes went on to Calauria, a small island off the coast of Argolis. In Calauria there was an ancient temple of Poseidon, once a centre of Minyan and Ionian worship, and surrounded with a peculiar sanctity as having been, from time immemorial, an inviolable refuge for the pursued. Here Demosthenes sought asylum. Archias of Thurii, a man who, like Aeschines, had begun life as a tragic actor, and who was now in the pay of Antipater, soon traced the fugitive, landed in Calauria, and appeared before the temple of Poseidon with a body of Thracian spearmen. Plutarch’s picturesque narrative bears the marks of artistic elaboration. Demosthenes had dreamed the night before that he and Archias were competing for a prize as tragic actors; the house applauded Demosthenes; but his chorus was shabbily equipped, and Archias gained the prize. Archias was not the man to stick at sacrilege. In Aegina, Hypereides and the others had been taken from the shrine of Aeacus. But he hesitated to violate an asylum so peculiarly sacred as the Calaurian temple. Standing before its open door, with his Thracian soldiers around him, he endeavoured to prevail on Demosthenes to quit the holy precinct. Antipater would be certain to pardon him. Demosthenes sat silent, with his eyes fixed on the ground. At last, as the emissary persisted in his bland persuasions, he looked up and said,—“Archias, you never moved me by your acting, and you

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/27


text:
Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/13

 not without very convincing reasons have established a "safe haven" in part of one of the provinces in which the death penalty would not be enforced. The disparity is not, however, the result of the legislative policy of the new Parliament, but a consequence of the Constitution which brings together again in one country the parts that had been separated under apartheid. The purpose of section 229 was to ensure an orderly transition, and an inevitable consequence of its provisions is that there will be disparities in the law reflecting pre-existing regional variations, and that this will continue until a uniform system of law has been established by the national and provincial legislatures within their fields of competence as contemplated by Chapter Fifteen of the Constitution.

The requirement of section 229 that existing laws shall continue to be in force subject to the Constitution, makes the Constitution applicable to existing laws within each of the geographic areas. These laws have to meet all the standards prescribed by Chapter Three, and this no doubt calls for consistency and parity of laws within the boundaries of each of the different geographic areas. It does not, however, mean that there has to be consistency and parity between the laws of the different geographic areas themselves. Such a construction would defeat the apparent purpose of section 229, which is to allow different legal orders to exist side by side until a process of rationalisation has been carried out, and would inappropriately expose a substantial part if not the entire body of our statutory law to challenges under section 8 of the Constitution. It follows that disparities between the legal orders in different parts of the country, consequent upon the provisions of section 229 of the Constitution, cannot for that reason alone be said to constitute a breach of the equal protection provisions of section 8, or render the laws such that they are not of general application.

International and Foreign Comparative Law

The death sentence is a form of punishment which has been used throughout history by different societies. It has long been the subject of controversy. As societies became

title: Page:S v Makwanyane and Another.djvu/13


text:
Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/JamAKiska

2011-01 admin
JamAKiska joined WS in March, coming from enWP. Since then, he has amassed 10,000 edits, including edits to the DNB WikiProject. He is a frequent contributor to the DNB pages and PotM. He also contributes cross-wiki at WP pursuant to his work on DNB. From what I have seen, he is a good-natured individual and would not abuse the admin privileges. --Eliyak T · C 19:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent contributions through DNB, knows the Page: and Author: namespace; participated in multiple PotMs. Participation in the broader Wikisource: namespace/community beyond DNB would be an advantage. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. No qualms. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; 10k edits since March? I'm a slacker! —Spangineer (háblame) 22:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question There is not an easy way to broach this given recent events but a review of your SUL shows an editor history starting on another wiki where early edits seem to put the Wiki-Virginity of your ID as questionable. You are completely at liberty to ignore any questions along this line, but I would like to hear about your start on Wikipedia and what has caused you to focus on activities at WS. Jeepday (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: That thread is found on my WS pg…I was researching several WP articles during which time I discovered this resource. As one project came to a close on WP, this opportunity seemed wide open. Historical research has always been an area of personal interest. While proofreading pages, was also able to familiarize myself with WS resources, as a gateway to antiquities. It did not take long to recognize that there was plenty of help that was needed. I have learned quite a bit on the fringe by reading the discussions and developing my skill-sets so as to be able to expand the areas in which I am able to contribute and help others. I have enjoyed the experience as most encounters would be best described as warm and encouraging. If you look at the timeline of my edits you’ll see that while editing and proofreading here, I was also helping with the WP DNB project as there is a great deal of overlap, most notably in the area of disambiguation. My recent WP edits have been along the lines of improving awareness and access to this resource to WPers learning the ropes. Most recently I have been gently expanding WP biographies requesting help. So while the number of WP edits may be fewer in number, many of those edits take advantage of what I have learned while researching in WS. JamAKiska (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above and per a bit of nosing about of my own. But a bit of coding advice; diff is wrong; use  ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support JeepdaySock (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support John Vandenberg (chat) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, an industrious contributor who I feel certain could benefit us by wielding the admin tools. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Appointed--Birgitte SB  08:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

2012-01 confirmation (declined)

 * Remove tools Appears to be inactive throughout all sites since June. Was doing good work here up until then, particularly in DNB. When returns will be welcome to re-apply. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove for no new activity.--Jusjih (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove tools. seems to have moved on. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * remove bit as it looks like succumbed by real life. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove (inactive) — George Orwell III (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove — Inactive, welcome to return when ready. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  01:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not confirmed.
 * Removal of rights requested.[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=3358770#JamAKiska.40en.wikisource] Hesperian 00:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rights removed.[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&action=historysubmit&diff=3358800&oldid=3358770] Hesperian 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


text:
Page:Government Gazette 32130.djvu/2

2 32130

title: Page:Government Gazette 32130.djvu/2