text:
Page:Triangles of life, and other stories.djvu/24

 give a man. And to Bob it seemed his wife, as he last saw her—under cross-examination. And who was the man? He seemed to have had both arms round the woman—or girl—in the first part of the vision, now he had only one, the left, and the right was risen as though to hide his face, shut out of sight, or ward off a blow. The attitude chilled Bob with a strange fear. Who was the man? What was Bob to do? What would Bob do? He seemed to be lying against the outside of a ditch with eyes just above the grass. Should he attack the man as "all the world" would expect him to do, or slip down and along the bottom of the ditch quietly? There was no "world" to see, so he was just sinking down, with that strange, calm, easy "will power," or whatever it is, which makes all the difference between hypnotic influence and "nightmare" when, with a sudden upheaval, as of a wave, he was beside the girl. He was the man with one arm round her and the other up to ward off. He was struggling and grappling with Billy, the little scrub cutter's lunatic cook, while watching whom he had fallen asleep, and—with the sudden, violent, half dislocating jerk of all the limbs and body that often accompanies an awakening from hypnotic trance, he was awake, and standing up, in his proper senses, cool and collected. It was as though nightmare, with its violent awakening, had come to the rescue from hypnotism. And Billy lay as he had fallen asleep, still sleeping peacefully. The awful hot, ghostly daylight was over the scrub, looking the same as drought nightfall.


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Crag

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

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Crag


text:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1941

Adopted by the Security Council at its 6392nd meeting, on 29 September 2010

The Security Council,

Recalling its previous resolutions and the statements of its President concerning the situation in Sierra Leone, in particular resolution 1886 (2009),

Welcoming the Secretary-General’s visit to Sierra Leone and commending the valuable contribution that the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone (UNIPSIL) has made to peacebuilding efforts and to the country’s peace, security and development,

Welcoming also, the report of the Secretary-General dated 17 September 2010 (S/2010/471) and his recommendation that the mandate of UNIPSIL be extended for a period of one year, with a view to providing continued peacebuilding assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone, including preparations for the elections in 2012,

Mindful of the United Nations efforts in assisting the Government to address the capacity challenges of the national electoral institutions, noting the potential for an increase in tensions during the preparation for and the period leading up to the 2012 elections in Sierra Leone, due to political, security, socio-economic and humanitarian challenges,

Calling upon the Government and the international community to focus on fostering an environment that is conducive to the holding of free and fair elections by strengthening institutions that administer and oversee the electoral process and in so doing, contribute to the institutional development and continued stability of the country,

Emphasizing the importance of the continued integrated support of the United Nations system and the international community for the long-term peace, security and development of Sierra Leone, particularly through strengthening the capacity of the Government of Sierra Leone,

Welcoming the steady progress the Government has made in implementing the Agenda for Change, as indicated in the Joint Progress Report undertaken by the Government in close collaboration with its international partners and civil society, noting the challenges that remain to be addressed in the Government’s national peacebuilding strategy and the efforts being made to address them, and calling upon all international partners to align their assistance with the priorities outlined in the Joint Progress Report,

Acknowledging the role that the Peacebuilding Commission plays in support of the peacebuilding efforts in Sierra Leone, welcoming the Review of the Outcome of the High-level Special Session of the Peacebuilding Commission on Sierra Leone of 28 September 2010 (PBC/4/SLE/3), and noting the contribution that the Peacebuilding Fund has made to peacebuilding in Sierra Leone,

Welcoming the ongoing implementation of the 2 April 2009 Joint Communiqué by the political parties and their contributions towards a sustained cessation of the political violence in Sierra Leone, and calling upon all political parties to continue to adhere to its provisions and ensure its full implementation,

Commending UNIPSIL and the United Nations country team’s continuing efforts to work together to achieve the integration of the political, development and humanitarian mandates of the mission set forth in the United Nations Joint Vision, and encouraging all United Nations entities in Sierra Leone to continue the implementation of the Joint Vision, and calling on Sierra Leone’s bilateral and multilateral partners to provide the necessary resources to implement the Joint Vision,

Reiterating its appreciation for the work of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, stressing the importance of the trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor by the Court, welcoming the completion of all the other cases, as well as effective outreach on the trials at the local level, reiterating its expectation that the Court will finish its work as soon as possible, and calling upon Member States to contribute generously to the Court and the proposed Residual Special Court,

Reaffirming resolution 1940 (2010) lifting all remaining sanctions in relation to Sierra Leone and recalling that the responsibility for controlling the circulation of small arms within the territory of Sierra Leone and between Sierra Leone and neighbouring States rests with the relevant governmental authorities in accordance with the Economic Community Of West African States Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons of 2006,

Welcoming the role played by ECOWAS and encouraging the Member States of the Mano River Union and other regional organizations to continue their dialogue aimed at consolidating regional peace and security,

1. Decides to extend the mandate of UNIPSIL, as set out in resolutions 1829 (2008) and 1886 (2009), until 15 September 2011;

2. Emphasizes the importance of UNIPSIL achieving jointly with the UN Country Team, the objectives outlined in the Joint Vision within their respective mandates, including focusing on:

 * (i) providing support to the Government for the preparation of the 2012 elections as requested;

 * (ii) providing assistance to conflict prevention and mitigation efforts, and promoting dialogue among political parties, the Government and all relevant stakeholders;

 * (iii) assisting the Government and national institutions in tackling youth unemployment, including through supporting training, education and skills provision;

 * (iv) providing assistance to the Government in promoting good governance, the rule of law and human rights, including institutional reform; combating illicit drug trafficking and organized crime; combating corruption; providing support to the Human Rights Commission; and assisting in strengthening national capacity building in the areas of law enforcement, forensics, border management, money laundering and the strengthening of criminal justice institutions;

3. Calls upon the Government of Sierra Leone, with the support of UNIPSIL and all other stakeholders in the country to increase their efforts to take measures to combat corruption, improve accountability, and promote the development of the private sector in order to generate wealth and employment opportunities;

4. Calls upon the Government of Sierra Leone, with the support of UNIPSIL, development partners and other stakeholders to continue good governance reform by supporting the Anti-Corruption Commission to increase the transparency and management of Sierra Leone’s natural and mineral resources for the benefit of all Sierra Leoneans and mitigating the risk of resource based conflict; to intensify efforts against illicit drug trafficking through strengthening the Transnational Organised Crime Unit; and to promote human rights, including through implementation of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission;

5. Encourages the Executive Representative of the Secretary-General to continue with the progress already made to enhance the integration and effectiveness of United Nations efforts on the ground, in support of the implementation of the Joint Vision in Sierra Leone and the recovery and development priorities of the Government and people of Sierra Leone;

6. Calls upon the Secretary-General to continue to report on progress achieved towards meeting the benchmarks, including in supporting the capacity of key national institutions to be able to adequately address the causes of conflict and manage political disputes by themselves, for the transition of UNIPSIL into a UN country team as agreed upon by the Government and the United Nations in the Joint Vision for Sierra Leone, and the particular challenges involved in preparing for the 2012 elections;

7. Emphasizes that the Government of Sierra Leone bears the primary responsibility for peacebuilding, security and long-term development in the country, and encourages the Government of Sierra Leone to continue its implementation of the Agenda for Change, and international partners to continue to provide support to the Government;

8. Encourages the Peacebuilding Commission to provide support to the Government of Sierra Leone in preparation for the 2012 elections as requested, including the potential to mobilize support from international partners, that is required for the implementation of the Government’s Agenda for Change and the UN’s Joint Vision strategy and in that regard to advise and keep the Council updated, including on progress made in meeting core peacebuilding objectives, as necessary;

9. Urges the Government to accelerate the promotion of national unity and reconciliation;

10. Commends the Government for recognizing the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peacebuilding, as referred to in resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) by establishing national strategies, underscores the importance that the Government continue its effort in addressing sexual and gender-based violence, and encourages UNIPSIL to work with the Government of Sierra Leone in this area;

11. Requests that the Secretary-General keep the Council informed every six months of progress made in the implementation of the mandate of UNIPSIL and this resolution;

12. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Resolución 1941 del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas


text:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1942

Adopted by the Security Council at its 6393rd meeting, on 29 September 2010

The Security Council,

Recalling its previous resolution 1933 concerning Côte d’Ivoire and, in accordance with its paragraph 20, recalling its intention to consider raising for a limited period of time, prior to and after the elections, the level of authorized military and police personnel up to a total of no more than 500 additional personnel,

Recalling the letter of the Secretary-General dated 14 September 2010 (S/2010/485) which recommended a temporary increase of the authorized military and police personnel of the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) from 8,650 to 9,150,

Recalling the letter of its President dated 17 September 2010 (S/2010/486) which approved the course of action outlined in the above letter of the Secretary-General,

Taking note of the establishment of the final voters list which was agreed upon by the Ivorian parties on 6 September 2010 and taking note of the certification of this voters list by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on 24 September 2010 in Abidjan as mentioned by the letter of the Secretary-General dated 23 September 2010 (S/2010/493),

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides to authorize, as recommended by the Secretary-General in his letter dated 14 September 2010 (S/2010/485), a temporary increase of UNOCI’s authorized military and police personnel from 8,650 to 9,150;

2. Authorizes the immediate deployment of those additional capacities for a period of up to six months;

3. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Resolución 1942 del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas


text:
User talk:88.5.209.77

Zyephyrus (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:88.5.209.77


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/639

 Nosologicae Medicae (1785), which contained his classification of diseases into four great classes—(1) Pyrexiae, or febrile diseases, as typhus fever; (2) Neuroses, or nervous diseases, as epilepsy; (3) Cachexiae, or diseases resulting from bad habit of body, as scurvy; and (4) Locales, or local diseases, as cancer.

Cullen’s eldest son Robert became a Scottish judge in 1796 under the title of Lord Cullen, and was known for his powers of mimicry.

The first volume of an account of Cullen’s Life, Lectures and Writings was published by Dr John Thomson in 1832, and was reissued with the second volume (completing the work) by Drs W. Thomson and D. Craigie in 1859.

 CULLEN, a royal, municipal and police burgh of Banffshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 1936. It is situated on Cullen Bay, 11½ m. W. by N. of Banff and 66½ m. N.W. of Aberdeen by the Great North of Scotland railway. Deskford Burn, after a course of 7½ m., enters the sea at Cullen, which it divides into two parts, Seatown, the older, and Newtown, dating only from 1822. St Mary’s, the parish church, a cruciform structure, was founded by Robert Bruce, whose second wife died at Cullen. The industries include rope and sail making, boat-building, brewing and fishing. The harbour, constructed between 1817 and 1834, though artificial, is one of the best on this coast. About 1 m. to the S. is Cullen House, a seat of the earl of Seafield, which contains some fine works of art. A mile and a half to the W. is the picturesque fishing village of Port Knockie with a deep-sea harbour, built in 1891. On the cliffs, 2 m. to the E., stand the ruins of Findlater Castle, fortified in 1455. From 1638 to 1811, when the title expired, it gave the title of earl to the Ogilvies, whose name was adopted in addition to his own by Sir Lewis Alexander Grant, when he succeeded, as 5th earl of Seafield, to the surviving dignities. Five miles to the E. of Cullen is the thriving fishing town of Portsoy, with a small, safe harbour and a station on the Great North of Scotland railway. Besides the fisheries there is fish-curing and a distillery; and the quarrying of a pink-coloured variety of granite and of Portsoy marble is carried on. Good limestone is also found in the district. Pop. (1901) 2061.  CULLERA, a seaport of eastern Spain, in the province of Valencia; on the Mediterranean Sea, at the mouth of the river Jucar, and at the southern terminus of the Valencia-Silla-Cullera railway. Pop. (1900) 11,947. Cullera is a walled town, containing a ruined Moorish citadel, large barracks, several churches and convents and a hospital. It occupies the Jucar valley, south of the Sierra de Zorras, a low range of hills which terminates eastward in Cape Cullera, a conspicuous headland surmounted by a lighthouse. To the south and west extends a rich agricultural district, noted for its rice. Besides farming and fishing, the inhabitants carry on a coasting trade with various Mediterranean ports. In 1903 the harbour was entered by 66 vessels of about 25,000 tons, engaged in the exportation of grain, rice and fruit, and the importation of guano. The town of (q.v.) is 4 m. W.N.W. by rail.  CULLINAN, a town of the Transvaal, 36 m. by rail E. by N. of Pretoria. It grew up round the Premier diamond mine and dates from 1903, being named after T. Cullinan, the purchaser of the ground on which the mine is situated. Here was discovered in January 1905 a diamond—the largest on record—weighing 3025¾ carats. This diamond was in 1907 presented by the Transvaal government to Edward VII. and was subsequently cut into two stones, one of 516½ carats, the other of 309 carats, intended to ornament the sceptre and crown of England. The “chippings” yielded several smaller diamonds (see ).  CULLODEN, a desolate tract of moorland, Inverness-shire, Scotland. It forms part of the north-east of Drummossie Muir, and is situated about 6 m. by road E. of Inverness, and ½ m. from Culloden Muir station on the Highland railway from Aviemore to Inverness via Daviot. It is celebrated as the scene of the battle of the 16th of April 1746 (see, and ), by which the fate of the house of Stuart was decided. By Highlanders the battle is more generally described as the battle of Drummossie. Memorial stones bearing the names of the clans engaged in the conflict were erected in 1881 at the head of each trench where the clansmen—about 1000 in number—were buried. A monumental cairn, 20 ft. high, marks the chief scene of the fight, and the Cumberland Stone, a huge boulder, indicates the spot where the English commander took up his position. A mile to the north is Culloden House, which belonged to Duncan Forbes, the president of the Court of Session. The Culloden Papers, a number of historical documents ranging from 1625 to 1748, were discovered in this mansion in 1812 and published in 1815 by Duncan George Forbes. On the death of the 10th laird, the collection of Jacobite relics and works of art was sold by auction in 1897. About 1 m. to the south of the field, on the right bank of the Nairn, is the plain of Clava, containing several stone circles, monoliths, cairns and other prehistoric remains. The circles, some apparently never completed, vary in circumference from 12 yds. to 140 yds.  CULM, in geology, the name applied to a peculiar local phase of the Carboniferous system. In 1837 A. Sedgwick and R. I. Murchison classified into two divisions the dark shales, grits and impure limestones which occupy a large area in Devonshire and extend into the neighbouring counties of Somerset and Cornwall. These two divisions were the Upper and Lower Culm Measures, so named from certain impure coals, locally called “culm,” contained within the shales near Bideford. Subsequently, these two geologists, when prosecuting their researches in Germany and Austria, applied the same name to similar rocks which contained, amongst others, Posidonomya Becheri, common to the phase of sedimentation in both areas.

The Culm measures of the Devonshire district are folded into a broad syncline with its axis running east and west; but within this major fold the rocks have been subjected to much compression accompanied by minor folding. This circumstance, together with the apparent barrenness of the strata, has always made a correct interpretation of their position and relationships a matter of difficulty; and for long they were regarded as an abnormal expression of the Lower Carboniferous, with the uppermost beds as doubtful equivalents of the Millstone Grit of other parts of Britain. The labours of W. A. E. Ussher and of G. J. Hinde and H. Fox have resulted in the differentiation of the following subdivisions in the Devonshire Culm:—(1) Upper Culm Measures or Eggesford grits; (2) Middle Culm Measures, comprising the Morchard, Tiverton and Ugbrooke lithological types overlying the Exeter type; (3) Lower Culm, the Posidonomya limestone and shale overlying the Coddon Hill beds with radiolaria. Ussher’s subdivisions were introduced to satisfy the exigencies of geological mapping, but, as he pointed out, while they are necessary in some parts of the district and convenient in others, the lithological characters upon which they are founded are variable and inconstant. More recently E. A. N. Arber (1904–1907) clearly demonstrated that no palaeontological subdivision of the Upper Culm (Middle and Upper) is possible, and that these strata, on the evidence of the fossil plants, represent the Middle Coal Measures of other parts of the country. Wheelton Hind has called attention to the probability that the Posidonomya limestone and shale may represent the Pendleside group of Lancashire, Derbyshire, &c. The Coddon Hill beds may belong to this or to a lower horizon. Thus the English Culm measures comprise an Upper Carboniferous and a Lower Carboniferous group, while in Germany, Austria and elsewhere, as it is important to bear in mind, the Culm, or “Kulm,” stage is shown by its contained fossils to belong to the lower division alone.

The typical Carboniferous limestone of the Franco-Belgian area changes as it is traced towards the east and south into the sandy, shaly Culm phase, with the characteristic “Posidonia” (Posidonomya) schists. This aspect of the Culm is found in Saxony, where there are workable coals, in Bohemia, Thuringia, the Fichtelgebirge, the Harz, where the beds are traversed by mineral veins, and in Moravia and Silesia. In the last-mentioned region the thickness of the Culm formation has been estimated

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/639


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Cullen

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Cullen


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Cullera

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Cullera


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Cullinan

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Cullinan


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Culloden

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Culloden


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/723

 Africa, Glenelg adopted the view that the Kaffirs had been the victims of systematic injustice. In a momentous despatch dated the 26th of December 1835 he set forth his views and instructed Sir Benjamin D’Urban to give up the newly annexed territory. At the same time Sir Andries Stockenstrom, Bart. (1792–1864), was appointed lieutenant-governor for the eastern provinces of the colony to carry out the policy of the home government, in which the Kaffir chiefs were treated as being on terms of full equality with Europeans. D’Urban in vain warned Glenelg of the disastrous consequences of his decision, the beginning of the long course of vacillation which wrought great harm to South Africa. One result of the new policy was to recreate a state of insecurity, bordering on anarchy, in the eastern province, and this condition was one of the causes of the Great Trek of the Dutch farmers which began in 1836. In various despatches D’Urban justified his position, characterizing the Trek as due to “insecurity of life and property occasioned by the recent measures, inadequate compensation for the loss of the slaves, and despair of obtaining recompense for the ruinous losses by the Kaffir invasion.” (See further, and .) But Glenelg was not to be convinced by any argument, however cogent, and in a despatch dated the 1st of May 1837 he informed Sir Benjamin that he had been relieved of office. D’Urban, however, remained governor until the arrival of his successor, Sir George Napier, in January 1838.

During his governorship Sir Benjamin endeavoured to help the British settlers at Port Natal, who in 1835 named their town D’Urban (now written Durban) in his honour, but his suggestion that the district should be occupied as a British possession was vetoed by Lord Glenelg. Though no longer in office D’Urban remained in South Africa until April 1846. In 1840 he was made a G.C.B., and in 1842 declined a high military appointment in India offered him by Sir Robert Peel. In January 1847 he took up the command of the troops in Canada, and was still in command at the time of his death at Montreal on the 25th of May 1849.  DURBAN, the principal seaport and largest city of Natal, South Africa, the harbour being known as Port Natal, in 29° 52′ 48″ S. 31° 42′ 49″ E. It is 6810 m. from London via Madeira and 7785 via Suez, 823 m. by water E.N.E. from Cape Town and 483 m. by rail S.S.E. of Johannesburg. Pop. (1904) 67,842, of whom 31,302 were whites, 15,631 Asiatics (chiefly British Indians), 18,929 natives and 1980 of mixed race. From its situation and the character of its buildings Durban is one of the finest cities in South Africa. The climate is generally hot and humid, but not unhealthy. Although nearly half the citizens are British, the large number of Indians engaged in every kind of work gives to Durban an oriental aspect possessed by no other town in South Africa. The town is built on the E. side of a bay (Durban Bay or Bay of Natal), the entrance to which is marked on the west by a bold cliff, the Bluff, whose summit is 195 ft. above the sea, and on the east by a low sandy spit called the Point. The city extends from the Point along the side of the bay and also for some distance along the coast of the Indian Ocean, and stretches inland to a range of low hills called the Berea.

The chief streets, Smith, West and Pine, are in the lower town, parallel to one another and to the bay. They contain the principal public buildings, warehouses and shops, the Berea being a residential quarter. Of the three streets mentioned, West Street, the central thoroughfare, is the busiest. In its centre are the public gardens, in which is a handsome block of buildings in the Renaissance style, built in 1906–1908 at a cost of over £300,000, containing the town hall, municipal offices, public library, museum and art gallery. The art gallery holds many pictures of the modern British school. Opposite the municipal buildings are the post and telegraph offices, a fine edifice (built 1881–1885) with a clock tower 164 ft. high. The post office formerly served as town hall. In Pine Street is the Central railway station and the spacious Market House. Among the churches St Cyprian’s (Anglican), in Smith Street, has a handsome chancel. The Roman Catholic cathedral is a fine building in the Gothic style. The town possesses several parks, one, the Victoria Park, facing the Indian Ocean. This part of the town is laid out with pleasure grounds and esplanades. The botanic gardens, in the upper town, contain a very fine collection of flowering shrubs and semi-tropical trees. Above the gardens is the observatory. There is a fine statue of Queen Victoria by Hamo Thornycroft, R.A., in the public gardens, and a memorial to Vasco da Gama at the Point. There is an extensive system of electric trams. Another favourite means of conveyance is by rickshaw, the runners being Zulus. The town is governed by a municipality which owns the water and electric lighting supplies and the tramway system. The sanitary services are excellent. The main water-supply is the Umlaas river, which enters the ocean 10 m. S. of the port. The municipal valuation, which is based on capital value, was £9,494,400 in 1909, the rate, including water, being 2d. in the £.

The entrance to the harbour was obstructed by a formidable sand bar, but as the result of dredging operations there is now a minimum depth of water at the opening of the channel into the bay of over 30 ft., with a maximum depth of over 33 ft. The width of the passage between the Bluff and the Point is 450 ft. From the foot of the Bluff a breakwater extends over 2000 ft. into the sea, and parallel to it, starting from the Point, is a pier. The harbour is landlocked, and covers 7 sq. m. Much of this area is shoal water, but the accommodation available was largely increased by the removal during 1904–1908 of 24,000,000 tons of sand. The port has over 3 m. of wharfage. It possesses a floating dock capable of lifting a vessel of 8500 tons, a floating workshop, a patent slip for small craft, hydraulic cranes, &c. The minimum depth alongside the quays at low water is 23 ft., increased at places to over 30 ft. The principal wharves, where passengers, mails and general merchandise are landed, are along the Point. On the opposite side at the foot of the Bluff land has been reclaimed and extensive accommodation provided for ships coaling. At Congella at the N.E. end of the harbour some 65 acres of land were reclaimed during 1905–1906, and wharves built for the handling of heavy and bulky goods such as timber and corrugated iron. Here also are situated warehouses and railway works. The port is defended by batteries armed with modern heavy guns. The trade of the port is almost coextensive with the foreign trade of Natal.

History.—The early history of Durban is closely identified with that of the colony of Natal. The first permanent settlement by white men in the bay was made by Englishmen in 1824, when Lieutenant F. G. Farewell, R.N., and about ten companions went thither from Cape Town in the brig “Salisbury,” from which circumstance the island in the bay gets its name. In 1835 a township was laid out and the colonists gave it the name of D’Urban, in honour of Sir Benjamin D’Urban, then governor of Cape Colony. At this time a mission church was built on the heights overlooking the bay by Captain Allen Gardner, R.N., who named the hill Berea in gratitude for support received from the settlers, whom he found “more noble than those of” Zululand—Dingaan having refused to allow the captain to start a mission among his people. From December 1838 to December 1839 a small British military force was stationed at the port. On its recall the little settlement was taken possession of by Dutch emigrants from the Cape, who had defeated the Zulu king Dingaan, and who the year before at the upper end of the bay had formed an encampment, Kangela (look-out), the present Congella. The Dutch claimed independence, and on the block-house at Durban hoisted the flag of the “Republic of Natalia.” In 1842, however, a British military force reoccupied Durban, and on the 15th of July of that year a treaty was signed in which the Dutch recognized British sovereignty (see further ). From that date Durban, though not the seat of government, became the principal town in Natal. In 1850 there were 500 white inhabitants, and in 1853 the town was granted municipal government. The first mayor was Mr George Cato (c. 1810–1893), one of the earliest settlers in Natal. In 1860 a railway from the Point to the town, the first railway in South Africa, was opened. The

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/723


text: Portal:Poetry/box-header

title: Portal:Poetry/box-header


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/724

 discovery of the gold-mines on the Rand greatly increased the importance of the port, and renewed efforts were made to remove the bar which obstructed the entrance to the bay. The Harbour Board, which was formed in 1881 and ceased to exist in 1893, effected, under the guidance of Mr Harry Escombe, enormous improvements in the port—on which the prosperity of Durban is dependent. But it was not until 1904 that the fairway was deepened sufficiently to allow mail steamers of the largest class to enter the harbour. The growth of the port as illustrated by customs receipts is shown in the increase from £250,000 in 1880 to £981,000 in 1904. In 1846 the customs revenue was returned at £3510.

 DURBAR, a term in India for a court or levee, from the Persian darbar. A durbar may be either a council for administering affairs of state, or a purely ceremonial gathering. In the former sense the native rulers of India in the past, like the amir of Afghanistan to-day, received visitors and conducted business in durbar. A durbar is the executive council of a native state. In the latter sense the word has come to be applied to great ceremonial gatherings like Lord Lytton’s durbar for the proclamation of the queen empress in India in 1877, or the Delhi durbar of 1903.

 DÜREN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on the right bank of the Roer, 19 m. E. from Aix-la-Chapelle on the main line of railway to Cologne. Pop. (1905) 29,270. It has two Protestant and six Roman Catholic churches, among the latter the Gothic St Annakirche, said to contain a portion of the head of the saint, to the shrine of which frequent pilgrimages are made. There are several high-grade schools, monuments to the emperor William I., Bismarck and Moltke, and, in the town-hall, a collection of antiquities. It is the seat of considerable manufactures, notably cloth, paper, flax-spinning, carpet, artificial wool, sugar, iron wares and needles.

Düren derives its name, not, as was at one time believed, from the Marcodurum of the Ubii, mentioned in Tacitus, but from the Dura or Duria, assemblies held by the Carolingians in the 8th century. It received civic rights early in the 13th century. Hypothecated by the emperor Frederick II. to Count William of Jülich, it became incorporated with the duchy of that name, and with it passed to Prussia in 1816.  DURENE (1·2·4·5 tetramethyl benzene) C6H2(CH3)4, a hydrocarbon which has been recognized as a constituent of coal-tar. It may be prepared by the action of methyl iodide on brompseudocumene or 4·6 dibrom metaxylene, in the presence of sodium; or by the action of methyl chloride on toluene, in the presence of anhydrous aluminium chloride. It crystallizes in plates, having a camphor-like smell, melting at 79-80° C. and boiling at 189-191° C. It is easily soluble in alcohol, ether and benzene, and sublimes slowly at ordinary temperature. On oxidation with chromic acid mixture, it is completely decomposed into carbon dioxide and acetic acid; nitric acid oxidizes it to durylic and cumidic acids [C6H2·(CH3)2·(COOH)2].  DÜRER, ALBRECHT (1471–1528), German painter, draughtsman and engraver, was born at Nuremberg on the 21st of May 1471. His family was not of Nuremberg descent, but came from the village of Eytas in Hungary. The name, however, is German, and the family device—an open door—points to an original form Thürer, meaning a maker of doors or carpenter. Albrecht Dürer the elder was a goldsmith by trade, and settled soon after the middle of the 15th century in Nuremberg. He served as assistant under a master-goldsmith of the city, Hieronymus Holper, and in 1468 married his master’s daughter Barbara, the bridegroom being forty and the bride fifteen years of age. They had eighteen children, of whom Albrecht was the second. The elder Dürer was an esteemed craftsman and pious citizen, sometimes, as was natural, straitened in means by the pressure of his numerous progeny. His famous son writes with reverence and affection of both parents, and has left a touching narrative of their death-bed hours. He painted the portrait of his father twice, first in 1490, next in 1497. The former of these is in the Uffizi at Florence; of the latter, four versions exist, that in the National Gallery (formerly in the Ashburton-Northampton collections) having the best claim to originality.

The young Albrecht was his father’s favourite son. “My father,” he writes, “took special delight in me. Seeing that I was industrious in working and learning, he put me to school; and when I had learned to read and write, he took me home from school and taught me the goldsmith’s trade.” By and by the boy found himself drawn by preference from goldsmith’s work to painting; his father, after some hesitation on the score of the time already spent in learning the former trade, gave way and apprenticed him for three years, at the age of fifteen and a half, to the principal painter of the town, Michael Wolgemut. Wolgemut furnishes a complete type of the German painter of that age. At the head of a large shop with many assistants, his business was to turn out, generally for a small price, devotional pieces commissioned by mercantile corporations or private persons to decorate their chapels in the churches—the preference being usually for scenes of the Passion, or for tortures and martyrdoms of the saints. In such work the painters of Upper Germany at this time, working in the spirit of the late Gothic style just before the dawn of the Renaissance, show considerable technical attainments, with a love of quaint costumes and rich draperies crumpled in complicated angular folds, some feeling for romance in landscape backgrounds, none at all for clearness or balance in composition, and in the attitudes and expressions of their overcrowded figures a degree of grotesqueness and exaggeration amounting often to undesigned caricature. There were also produced in the workshop of Wolgemut, as in that of other artist-craftsmen of his town, a great number of woodcuts for book illustration. We cannot with certainty identify any of these as being by the ’prentice hand of the young Dürer. Authentic drawings done by him in boyhood, however, exist, including one in silver-point of his own likeness at the age of thirteen in the Albertina at Vienna, and others of two or three years later in the print room at Berlin, at the British Museum and at Bremen.

In the school of Wolgemut Dürer learned much, by his own account, but suffered not a little from the roughness of his companions. At the end of his apprenticeship in 1490 he entered upon the usual course of travels—the Wanderjahre—of a German youth. Their direction we cannot retrace with certainty. There had been no one at Nuremberg skilled enough in the art of metal-engraving to teach it him to much purpose, and it had at one time been his father’s intention to apprentice him to Martin Schongauer of Colmar, the most refined and accomplished German painter-engraver of his time. But after travelling two years in various parts of Germany, where we are unable to follow him, the young Dürer arrived at Colmar in 1492, only to find that Schongauer had died the previous year. He was received kindly by three brothers of the deceased master established there, and afterwards, still in 1492, by a fourth brother at Basel. Under them he evidently had some practice both in metal-engraving and in furnishing designs for the woodcutter. There is in the museum at Basel a wood-block of St Jerome executed by him and elaborately signed on the back with his name. This was used in an edition of Jerome’s letters printed in the same city in the same year, 1492. Some critics also maintain that his hand is to be recognized in several series of small blocks done about the same date or somewhat later for Bergmann and other printers of Basel, some of them being illustrations to Terence (which were never printed), some to the romance of the Ritter vom Turm, and some to the Narrenschiff of Sebastian Brandt. But the prevailing opinion is against this conjecture, and sees in these designs the work not of a strenuous student and searcher such as Dürer was, but of a riper and more facile hand working in a spirit of settled routine. Whether the young Dürer’s stay at Basel was long or short, or whether, as has been supposed, he travelled from there into the Low Countries, it is certain that in the early part of 1494 he was working at Strassburg, and returned to his home at Nuremberg immediately after Whitsuntide in that year. Of works certainly executed by him during his years of travel there are extant, besides the Basel wood-block, only a much-injured

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/724


text: Portal:Poetry/box-footer

title: Portal:Poetry/box-footer


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Durban

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Durban


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Durbar

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Durbar


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Düren

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Düren


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Durene

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Durene


text:
Portal:Poetry/Intro

Poetry is traditionally a written art form (although there is also an ancient and modern poetry which relies mainly upon oral or pictorial representations) in which human language is used for its aesthetic qualities in addition to, or instead of, its notional and semantic content. The increased emphasis on the aesthetics of language and the deliberate use of features such as repetition, meter and rhyme, are what are commonly used to distinguish poetry from prose.

Poetry may use condensed form to convey an emotion or idea to the reader or listener, or it may use devices such as assonance, alliteration and repetition to achieve musical or incantatory effects. Furthermore, poems often make heavy use of imagery, word association, and musical qualities. Because of its reliance on "accidental" features of language and connotational meaning, poetry is notoriously difficult to translate. Similarly, poetry's use of nuance and symbolism can make it difficult to interpret a poem or can leave a poem open to multiple interpretations. Thus, there can rarely be a single definitive interpretation of a given poem. In fact perhaps a better definition is Carl Sandburg's: "Poetry is the synthesis of hyacinths and biscuits."

title: Portal:Poetry/Intro


text:
Portal:Poetry/Featured text

Sonnet 18
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate: Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer's lease hath all too short a date: Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimm'd, And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance, or nature's changing course untrimm'd: But thy eternal summer shall not fade, Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st, Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade, When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st, So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. William Shakespeare

title: Portal:Poetry/Featured text


text:
Portal:Poetry/Featured author

Edgar Allan Poe (January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short story writer, editor and critic and one of the leaders of the American Romantics. He is best known for his tales of the macabre and his poems, as well as being one of the early practitioners of the short story and a progenitor of detective fiction, as well as crime fiction in the United States. Poe died at the age of 40, the cause of his death a final mystery. His exact burial location is also a source of controversy. Notable poems include:
 * A Dream (1827)
 * A Dream Within a Dream (1849)
 * Dreams (1827)
 * Tamerlane (1827)
 * Al Aaraaf (1829)
 * Alone (1829)
 * To Helen (1831)
 * Israfel (1831)
 * The City in the Sea (1831)
 * To One in Paradise (1833)
 * The Conqueror Worm (1843)
 * Lenore (1843)
 * Dream-Land (1844)
 * The Raven (1845)
 * Ulalume (1847)
 * Eureka: A Prose Poem (1848)
 * Annabel Lee (1849)
 * The Bells (1848)
 * Eldorado (1849)

title: Portal:Poetry/Featured author


text:
Portal:Poetry/Did you know

... did you know To a Mouse written by Robert Burns in 1785, deals with the narrator's destruction, unawares, of a mouse's nest as he pursued his winter plowing and was the inspiration behind the title of John Steinbeck's 1937 novel Of Mice and Men?

... did you know Dulce et Decorum est was orginally written as a personal letter to Jessie Pope known for her pro-war poems widely published during World War I?

title: Portal:Poetry/Did you know


text:
Portal:Poetry/Things you can do

 * Cleanup: Bursch Groggenburg
 * Split: Flame and Shadow - Hebrew Melodies (Byron)
 * Proofread: Who's for the Game?
 * Source: It is a Beauteous Evening, Calm and Free
 * Sort: Boil it down, Hero, Dover Beach, Sir Patrick Spens, Rune poems, Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám (Le Gallienne), Little Tommy Tucker

title: Portal:Poetry/Things you can do


text:
Portal:Poetry/Wikiprojects

Have a great idea for a Wikiproject?

title: Portal:Poetry/Wikiprojects


text:
User:Calthrina450

User on Wikipedia and WikiSource.

title: User:Calthrina450


text:
Portal:Poetry/Newest Poems

 * Who's for the Game?
 * Give Me Women, Wine and Snuff
 * A Code of Morals
 * Bursch Groggenburg
 * With Husky-Haughty Lips, O Sea!
 * Poems & poèmes

title: Portal:Poetry/Newest Poems


text:
Portal:Poetry/Categories

Subcategories of Poems

title: Portal:Poetry/Categories


text:
Author:George Foot Moore

Works

 * A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 1910 (first edition 1895)

title: Author:George Foot Moore


text:
Page:Weird Tales volume 36 number 01.djvu/61

Rh He finished, and Scrope's face showed a sudden thankful relief—which went out like a light. Scrope's thin body suddenly gyrated, reeled. His mouth opened, shouting:

"Let go! Let go!"

staggered backward to the door, turned halfway and braced himself against the jamb. He seemed to struggle with something beyond. Pursuivant sprang toward him, and at that instant Scrope was walking shakily back toward the center of the room. His eyes were glassy, his lips slack, his face pale.

"Thought it had me," he panted.

"What?" demanded Pursuivant, quickly pouring whiskey.

"Didn't you see? That big thing with a naked arm—and no eyes—"

"Drink this. I saw nothing."

Scrope drank obediently. Color returned a little. He spoke rapidly, as one who convinces himself of a hopeful fact: "My imagination ran away with me, didn't it?"

"Did it?"

Pursuivant filled Scrope's glass again. Plainly Scrope was trying to save his nerves by chatter. "Oh, it's quite clear, Judge. I've keyed up my imagination to what seems like reality. I was sure some sort of boogey—but if you didn't see it—"

"If I didn't see it," Pursuivant took up Scrope's words, "there is still no proof that it doesn't exist."

Scrope looked blank, and Pursuivant continued, "I take nothing for granted. This looks like the beginning of one of my adventures."

"But look here!" Scrope suddenly went a little wild in his speech. "You were reciting a spell against just that sort of thing. Why should—it—dare to tackle—"

"Desperation. To stave off defeat. Wait here."

He went to the inner door and peered. There was a dim hallway to a kitchen, an open doorway for a bathroom at the left, and two closed doors to the right. He asked about them.

"Bedroom," replied Scrope, steadying his voice. "Want a light?"

"No, thanks." Pursuivant entered the hall.

like stepping into a fog—into the vapor, for instance, of many damp, filthy coats in a sealed closet. Pursuivant snorted, and walked quickly through to the kitchen, turning on a light. Breathing was comfortable there. The sweat dried on his brow and his tawny mustache.

"All clear?" Scrope was asking.

"So far." The judge gazed around the clean white kitchen, with automatic refrigerator and electric range. It was the most reassuring room so far. He walked back into the hall, then into the rear bedroom.

"That's my room," Scrope informed him, from the parlor door.

Pursuivant waited only a moment in the chamber, which filled the rear quarter opposite the kitchen. Then into the hall yet again, to glance into the bathroom. It was a fight to throw off the smothering spiritual weight hanging in the dim atmosphere. Finally to the closed door of the front bedroom. "Who sleeps here?" he asked, hand on knob.

"You will, if you stay tonight," Scrope replied, and the judge entered.

In the first instant he thought he had been struck—his knees wavered, his brain swam and darkened. The walls—weren't they ruinous, flaking away?—whirled around him in the gloom. But he kept his feet and his head, groped for the light switch, turned it.

He had been wrong. The room was quite modern, cream-papered, and should be bright; but the light was as murky as though it shone through smoke. A neat single bed, a bureau, an armchair—how


text:
Page:A lover's tale (Tennyson, 1879).djvu/55

Rh


text:
Page:A lover's tale (Tennyson, 1879).djvu/56

52


text:
Page:A lover's tale (Tennyson, 1879).djvu/57

Rh


text:
Page:A lover's tale (Tennyson, 1879).djvu/58

54


text: The Lover's Tale/Part 1

title: The Lover's Tale/Part 1


text:
Page:Weird Tales volume 36 number 01.djvu/62

88 could that arrangement cause such a deep shadow in the far corner? Or was it a shadow?

The weight he had felt in the hall was doubled here, crushing him as a diver is crushed by sea-bottom pressures. The switch clicked, though Pursuivant had not touched it. The light went out abruptly.

Something pawed at him through the darkness. A hand—he saw it dimly, but not its arm. Was there an arm? Pursuivant jerked away, but refused to retreat. Now a face hung in the thick dusk—a head, anyway, for he made out the contour only, not the features. But it must have a mouth. For he felt a fanning of tepid breath, heard a mumble that became a word of sorts:

"Raus"

German. Get out!

Pursuivant stared at the hanging oval, trying to find eyes to fix with his own. Now another touch, at his shoulder. Light this time. Fluffy. Another voice, so soft as to be felt rather than heard:

"No stay  you came to save"

The featureless head became more solid, and a suggestion of body was visible beneath—thick, as big as Pursuivant's own body. Wide-planted columns that might be mist-moulded legs. Again: "Raus!"

Pursuivant backed from the room, leaving the door open. He was in the parlor again, wiping his face. He felt better.

Scrope, mixing more drinks, looked at him questioningly. "You felt it too, huh?"

"I felt something. For a moment I saw." The judge paused to marshal his findings. "Who has ever slept in that front bedroom?"

"Nobody. The house-boy—before he left—had a lean-to off the kitchen. You're inaugurating my guest room tonight, judge. Here, have a drink."

They touched glasses and drank. Then they crossed the heavy-aired hall to the kitchen. Scrope quickly cooked a meal, simple but hearty—ham, eggs, home-fried potatoes, strong coffee. They ate at a white-topped table. Pursuivant acted as though fear had not come to him that night.

"I suggested that the Hessians weren't good fighters," he observed, holding out his cup, "but they were Germanic—and Germany has been the home of witches and devils. Read Faust, read Phantasmagoria, read the Brothers Grimm. And in a file of Old New York—out of print now—I found a story of how two Hessian soldiers bewitched a Manhattan farmer."

"True story?"

"It's in the reminiscences of George Rapaelje. That's a respected name in old New York history. Rapaelje claims to have seen it happen. Yes, and other Hessians—settling in Pennsylvania and New Jersey—worked magic."

"Of course. Look at that Headless Horseman yarn of Irving's," contributed Scrope. "Judge, you've got something. If that spell you recited—I wish you hadn't, for it didn't work."

Pursuivant looked earnestly at Scrope. "I didn't finish. It must be said three times, an hour apart." He drew out a thick gold watch. "And an hour has passed, or nearly."

Quite steadily, if not casually, he walked into the hall. Scrope came just behind. Again Pursuivant felt the baleful weight and closeness. Undaunted, he began to recite for the second time:

"All ye evil spirits, I forbid you this man's bed, his couch; I forbid you, in heaven's name, his house and home; I forbid—"

It had come heavily, noiselessly, out of the front bedroom. A hunchbacked hulk of it, that straightened and showed itself as tall and powerful as Pursuivant.

The judge knew amazement, complete but rational. Even in the half-light, he made out only a silhouette, roughly human,


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Baker, Geoffrey


text: Category:Government of the United States


text: Category:Federal Government of the United States


text: Category:State Governments of the United States


text:
The Lady Pike

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The Germania Insurance Company had insured a cargo of wheat, laden on a barge at Shockopee, on the Minnesota River, and about to be towed by the steamer Lady Pike down that river to its junction with the Mississippi, thence down the Mississippi to Savannah, Illinois; 'unavoidable dangers of the river. . . only excepted.'

The cargo was laden on the barge, and the transportation of it begun. In the course of the voyage, however, the barge was wrecked. The insurance company paid the loss, and alleging that the barge had been wrecked owing to the negligent manner in which the steamer had towed her, filed a libel against the steamer to recover what had been paid for the loss. The owners of the steamer set up that the wrecking had been caused by an 'unavoidable danger of the river,' and was, therefore, within the dangers from which they had excepted themselves. And whether the catastrophe was caused by an 'unavoidable danger of the river,' or by the steamer's negligence, was the question.

The case was thus:

In April, 1866, there stood in the Mississippi River, just above St. Paul's, certain piers of a bridge then in process of construction, beginning on the west side of the river and numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; pier No. 3 (a turn-table pier) being so far unfinished as that when the river was high, barges like that on which this wheat was laden could pass in safety over it; though when the water was low they could not. In low water the pier was exposed. Owing to a gravel point on the west side of the river which projected itself a little way into the stream, and against which the water struck, the current, in high water especially, rebounded and ran diagonally across the piers towards the east shore, so that 'a boat in going between piers No. 3 and No. 4 would drift from four to six feet towards pier No. 4.' Hills bounded each side of the river for many miles along its course, with occasional openings, or 'coolies' as the navigators call them, through which winds blow, that at other places on the river are arrested by the hills. One of the openings or coolies existed on the west side of the river opposite to these piers. The space between piers No. 3 and No. 4 when No. 3 was above the water, was about 116 feet; that between No. 2 and No. 4 (when No. 3 was below the water) was 264 feet; that between No. 4 and No. 5 was 151 feet. The main part of the channel was between No. 3 and No. 4; there was the draw of the bridge, and it was between those piers that boats and tows going down the river, and sufficiently narrow to pass through in safety, usually went. The passage between No. 4 and No. 5 was at one time obstructed by a sunken barge, but this was after the time of the transit now under consideration. That passage-the passage between No. 4 and No. 5-at this time was clear and of sufficient depth for the Lady Pike and her tow to have passed in safety.

In this state of things, it was-the rivers Minnesota and Mississippi being at the time full with the spring waters-that the Lady Pike, a stern-wheel steamer, ' a high boat, which would catch a good deal of wind on her sides,' set off from her moorings with three barges in tow, laden with six hundred tons of wheat; a tow which was to be styled a heavy two. One barge, larger than the other two, was lashed on one side, and the remaining two upon the other.

The width of all the vessels, steamer and barges when close alongside each other, was 105 feet. They were all stanch, and the steamer abundantly provided with men, including two master mariners and two pilots. Scudding clouds prevented the day from being absolutely clear, and 'puffs, gusts, or squalls of wind,' came up from time to time. These had 'bothered' the pilot nowhere, however, in a way worth mentioning, and the vessels had had no trouble except a little in going between the piers of another bridge higher up the stream, between which, however, they had got safely.

On approaching the piers just above St. Paul, of which we are now principally speaking-the vessels being under a headway of about seven miles an hour-no squall then blowing, and no 'slow-bell' having been sounded, the pilot of the steamer, judging by his eye, and thus judging, being under the impression that he could do so safely, attempted to run his steamer and its tow between piers No. 3 and No. 4. He was apparently ignorant of the exact width of his steamer and its tow, ignorant also of the exact distance between the two piers, and ignorant besides of the fact that in the then height of the water he could have run over pier No. 3; and ignorant in addition or not appreciative of the diagonal effect of the current as it set in high water between the piers. The result was that one of the barges struck pier No. 4, and was wrecked.

The captain and other officers of the steamer swore that just as they were going through the piers, a squall arose and drove the barge against the pier; that the accident arose through no negligence, and was an unavoidable danger of the river.

The District Court held that this was the true view of the case, and dismissed the libel. The Circuit Court affirmed the decree, and the case was now brought here by the insurance company for review.

Messrs. J. M. Carlisle and J. D. McPherson, for the appellants:

1. If the catastrophe did arise from a squall just as the craft was passing between the piers No. 3 and No. 4, still the decrees below were clearly wrong. The master had no business to be between piers No. 3 and No. 4 at all; and he was there only because he was ignorant of certain capital matters which he was bound to know, and a knowledge of which, had he possessed such knowledge, would have certainly taken him elsewhere than between those piers, and have prevented his being there, and so have prevented the catastrophe which occurred. We mean to say that he did not know the width of his craft, the width of the strait through which he was about to carry it; the fact that he need not, in the then high state of the river, have attempted to run between pier No. 3 and pier No. 4 at all, but might have sailed right over pier No. 3, and so, for his craft of 105 feet wide, have had a passage 264 feet wide; a width absolutely safe. He was ignorant also of the fact that a current would affect him, and in his effort to run his craft of 105 feet wide through a space of 116 feet would of itself alone carry him six feet out of his course. Moreover, the captain was bound to know that wind might meet him (if any did meet him) at the 'cooly' opposite the piers, and to be prepared for it. If there was a squall it doubtless came through the 'cooly.'

2. Had it been necessary to run between piers No. 3 and No. 4 the speed was too great. The captain should have gone under a very slow bell. The space between the piers being just wide enough to get through, the craft could, of course, pass in some way. Had he been going very slowly, the barge might have grazed, rubbed, been strained, but she might not have been wrecked. In case of touching the pier her chances would have been infinitely better when going slowly, than when dashing ahead at the rate of seven miles an hour. We simply put this point, asserting however, broadly, generally, and as our principal point, that the vessels should not have been in such a Dardanelles at all, where a puff of wind could wreck them, and would not have been there but for the ignorance of the captain of matters which it was his high duty to be acquainted with.

3. The accident was not caused by wind. Admitting that the wind might have risen at the very and exact instant of time that the craft was going through the piers-a singular coincidence, it may be safely said, and one requiring the fullest proof-yet no one pretends that it was a great wind, a hurricane. Yet the laws of physics show that nothing short of a great wind, a hurricane, and this too rising in an instant, could have produced this catastrophe.

[The learned counsel then went into a calculation in physics, taking what they assumed that the evidence showed as to the weight of the cargo, the weight of the boats, the surface which they exposed to the wind, the depth to which they were in the water, the fact that the steamer had not careened, and the place in the barge which was opened, and the part of the pier at which she struck, to show that it was impossible that anything short of a hurricane could have driven the steamer and her tows sufficiently far, during the time that she was between the piers before the catastrophe occurred, to have made the collision. This part of the argument they pressed with great apparent confidence.]

Mr. T. D. Lincoln, contra:

This being a case presenting a question of fact merely, and there having been two full hearings-one in the District Court and one in the Circuit Court on appeal-and upon both hearings the case having been decided against the libellants upon the merits, this court will not reverse the decree below, except upon a very clear case made. This is the well-settled practice of the courts of the United States and of this court.

1. The loss was caused by the act of God; a sudden gust of wind, and there was no want of care and skill. This point is made out in the proof.

The passage taken was the main channel. It was under the draw; presumptively, therefore, the very and exact right place through which to pass.

The case of Amies v. Stevens, given to us by the old but good reporter Sir John Strange, is in point. Strange thus reports it:

'The plaintiff puts goods on board the defendant's hoy, who was a common carrier. Coming through bridge, by a sudden gust of wind, the hoy sunk, and the goods were spoiled. The plaintiff insisted that the defendant should be liable, it being his carelessness in going through at such a time; and offered some evidence, that if the hoy had been in good order, it would not have sunk with the stroke it received, and from thence inferred the defendant answerable for all accidents, which would not have happened to the goods in case they had been put into a better hoy. But the C.J. held the defendant not answerable, the damage being occasioned by the act of God. For though the defendant ought not to have ventured to shoot the bridge, if the general bent of the weather had been tempestuous; yet this being only a sudden gust of wind, had entirely differed the case, and no carrier is obliged to have a new carriage for every journey; it is sufficient if he provides one which, without any extraordinary accident (such as this was), will probably perform the journey.'

Other cases are to the same effect.

If a navigator was to desist proceeding on his voyage because there was a possibility of an injury, he would never do anything. There is the possibility, perhaps even more, of the loss of a ship every time she crosses the ocean, yet, if fair nautical judgment is used, and a loss happens by an act of God, or a peril of the sea, it is held to be inevitable, and the carrier is excused. He must use his judgment. He is not bound to have the highest nautical skill in the world or a better judgment than all other people, any more than he is bound to have the best vessel in existence.

The day was fair, and there was no appearance of wind at the time they approached the piers, and the barges having no means by which they could have been floated down between the piers, and being towed in the usual manner through a place that must be passed, clearly there was no want of that care or foresight in not anticipating and guarding against this gust of wind.

2. Want of care in the speed of the Lady Pike as she approached the piers is alleged. Clear proof would be required that all the officers on watch had neglected anything in relation to passing these piers. They knew their boat and how the tow handled, and how best to pass the piers. Probably with a stern-propeller where a course is rightly taken, the highest speed that which shoots right through-is the safest; manoeuvring in such places with stern-wheeled vessels is difficult.

3. The opposing counsel endeavor to bring certain mathematical problems to bear upon this question. The trouble with all such calculations is that they have no certain bases to rest upon. The calculation and rule are not admitted to be correct, but if the rule applied were so, of what use would it be without certain data? There is nothing in the case so definite and well defined that will enable us to apply the rules of mathematics to it. All is speculation upon uncertainties and is only made plausible by assuming things not proved and not true.

Reply: We fully admit the position of the other side-one which we long ago contended for in this court -that this court will not reverse on questions of fact where the District and Circuit Courts have concurred, except in a clear case. And it is because this case is clear, and only because it is so, that we ask a reversal.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: The Lady Pike


text: Talk:The Lady Pike

title: Talk:The Lady Pike


text:
The Lady Pike/Opinion of the Court

Appeals in admiralty, it may be admitted, are not favored where it appears that the subordinate courts have both concurred in the same view of the merits of the controversy; but it is not accurate to say that the Supreme Court will not reverse such a decree in a clear case.

Such a proposition cannot be adopted, as a rule of decision, consistently with the provisions in the act of Congress allowing appeals from final decrees rendered in the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court, in all cases of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars.

Decrees of the kind were formerly required to be removed here for re-examination by a writ of error, but the Congress subsequently repealed those regulations, and provided that appeals should be allowed in all such cases, and that upon such appeal a transcript of the libel, bill, answer, depositions, and all other proceedings of what kind soever in the case, shall be transmitted to the said Supreme Court. Provision is also made by that act that new evidence may be received here on the hearing of such appeals in admiralty and prize cases, which affords very strong support to the proposition that the facts, as well as the law of the case, are open to revision by this court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Considerable weight undoubtedly in such a case should be given to the decree of the subordinate court, and hence the rule, which is well settled, that the burden is on the appellant to show that the decree of the subordinate court is erroneous, but it is a mistake to suppose that this court will not re-examine the facts as well as the law of the case, as the express command of the act of Congress is that the Supreme Court shall 'hear and determine such appeals,' which makes it as much the plain duty of this court to re-examine the evidence in the case as the questions of law presented for decision.

Wheat of the quantity and quality specified in the libel was delivered by the shipper to the master of the steamer at the place mentioned in the libel, to be transported from the port of shipment to the port of Savannah, in the State of Illinois. Such a shipment it was not expected would be laden on board the steamer, as she was not constructed nor fitted for the stowage of grain in bulk, nor was it in the contemplation of either party that the wheat would be shipped and transported to the port of destination in that way, as the shipper as well as the carriers knew that such freight was accustomed to be stowed in bulk in barges belonging to the carriers, and that the respondent steamer was employed in towing barges so laden with such cargoes.

Pursuant to that usage the wheat in question was stowed in bulk on board the barge described in the libel, and the barge, with two others of like character, similarly laden, was taken in tow by the steamer, which furnished the motive power for the whole craft, and the proofs show that the several barges, as well as the steamer, were commanded by the same master and manned by the same crew. They, the steamer and barges, were all arranged abreast, the larger barge being lashed to the starboard side of the steamer, and the smaller of the other two being lashed to the port side of the steamer, between the steamer and the starboard side of the barge containing the wheat which is the subject of litigation.

Different estimates are made by the witnesses as to the width of the whole craft as arranged, but the evidence taken as a whole convinces the court that the steamer and the three barges combined, including the guards of the steamer and the planking of the barges, could not have been less than one hundred and five feet, even if they were all closely lashed together, which is highly improbable. Lashed as they were, broadside to broadside, of course the stem of the steamer was much in advance of some or all of the respective stems of the barges, as she exceeded in length, even the largest barge, more than fifty feet. Barges for transporting such products were furnished by the carriers, but the wheat was put on board the barge by the shipper, it being the duty of the carrier to have agents present to oversee and regulate the stowage.

Sufficient appears in the pleadings and proofs to support the proposition that the wheat, when stowed in the barge and delivered to the master, was in good order and condition, and that the master, when he received the wheat, contracted with the shipper to transport and deliver the same, in like good order and condition, to the consignees at the port of destination, as when received at the port of loading, 'the unavoidable dangers of the river and fire only excepted,' and the libellants allege that the master did not so transport and deliver the wheat to the said consignees, although no dangers of the river or fire prevented him from so doing. Instead of that, the libellants charge that he, the master, and his mariners and servants, so negligently and carelessly conducted themselves in the navigation of the steamer and barges that the barge containing the wheat was sunk in the river, and that the wheat became and was a total loss.

Process was served and the claimants appeared and filed an answer, in which they admit the shipment of the wheat and the contract of the master to transport and deliver the same, as alleged in the libel, but they allege that the sinking of the barge and the consequent loss of the wheat were occasioned by the unavoidable dangers of the river, and they deny that the sinking of the barge was caused by any negligence or carelessness on their part or on the part of those navigating the steamer or barge which contained the wheat; and they also allege that when passing in the usual channel between the piers in the river, near St. Paul, in the usual way, the steamer and barge were by a sudden gust of wind blown to the larboard, so that the barge containing the wheat struck the pier on that side of the barge, which caused the barge to sink, as alleged in the libel. Proofs were taken and the District Court, after hearing the parties, entered a decree dismissing the libel. Hearing was again had in the Circuit Court on appeal, and the Circuit Court entered a decree affirming the decree of the District Court. Whereupon the libellants appealed to this court.

Errors assigned here are in substance and effect as follows:

1. That the steamer and barge were not properly manned, nor were they fit for the voyage, as neither the master nor pilots had either the requisite knowledge of the vessels under their command or of the dangers and difficulties of the navigation which they had to meet in the course of the trip down the river.

2. That the pilot improperly endeavored to steer the craft midway between piers Nos. 3 and 4 when he ought to have known that the latter pier was so far under water that the craft might have safely passed over it, as was usually done in times of high water, by which improper and unnecessary act the barge containing the wheat was brought within five and a half or six feet of the pier which she struck, whereas if the pilot had steered the craft farther to the westward and passed over that pier, as he should have done at that stage of the water, the distance to the piers on either side of the craft would have been so great as to have avoided all danger of collision.

3. That the craft might have been navigated in safety between piers Nos. 4 and 5, which are one hundred and fifty-one feet apart, showing that the craft might have been navigated through that pass, leaving a space on either side of twenty-three feet, which is manifestly too great to have been overcome by the alleged gust of wind.

4. That the speed of the steamer with the barges in tow, in passing between the piers, was improper and unwarrantable, and was the efficient cause of the disaster and loss.

5. That it was the course of the current, which was unknown to the pilot, that drove the craft to the leeward, and not the wind, as alleged in the answer, and the libellants allege that the pilot, if he had had proper knowledge of the navigation, might have prevented that movement of the craft by the exercise of due skill in steering.

1. Applied exclusively to the number of the steamer's company, the complaint contained in the first assignment of errors would not be well founded, as the crew was sufficient in number, and the proofs show that the steamer had on board two pilots and two master mariners, but the gravamen of the complaint is that neither the master in charge of the deck nor the pilot had any sufficient knowledge of the craft under their command, nor of the dangers of the navigation in passing down the river in such a steamer with three such barges in tow arranged in the manner before described.

Proof of the most satisfactory character is exhibited that they did not even know the width of the craft, as the same was arranged, nor the actual distance between the piers where the disaster occurred. On the contrary it appears that they both over-estimated the width of the space between the piers, and under-estimated the width of the tow, including the steamer, as they were arranged abreast, the distance between the two first-named piers not exceeding one hundred and sixteen feet and the width of the whole craft being at least one hundred and five feet. Nor does the fact that the pier on the starboard side was so far under water that the craft might have passed over it palliate the rashness of the act, as the evidence shows that both the master and the pilot were ignorant of that fact, and that as they approached the place of danger they put the steamer upon a course to cause the whole craft to pass midway between those two piers, which brought the port side of the barge containing the wheat within five and a half or six feet of the pier on that side which was not submerged in the water.

2. Attempt is made to excuse the master and pilot for endeavoring to pass midway between those piers, upon the ground that they did not know that it would be safe to pass over the pier on the starboard side, but the sufficiency of that excuse cannot be admitted, for two reasons: (1.) Because they ought to have known both the dangers and the facilities of navigation before undertaking the responsible duties in which they were engaged. (2.) Because it was their duty, if they believed that the pass in question was restricted to the distance between the two piers, to have taken the other pass, which the evidence shows has the width of one hundred and fifty-one feet.

Opposed to that is the suggestion that the wider passage was obstructed by a sunken barge, but the evidence satisfies the court that the alleged obstruction did not exist at that time, and that the disaster that caused that barge to sink occurred at a later period.

3. Unobstructed as the wider passage was, it was plainly a rash act to attempt to pass down the narrower passage on a course which brought the port side of the barge containing the wheat within five and a half or six feet of the pier on that side, which act can only be accounted for upon the ground of negligence and inexcusable ignorance of the dangers and facilities of the navigation, as it was evidently a hazardous experiment to attempt to pass between those piers if the craft could not pass over the pier on the starboard side, and it is equally clear that it would have been safe to have steered between the piers forming the wider passage, which it seems never occurred to the master or pilot.

4. Even if such an attempt could be justified at all on a windy day when the water was high, it is quite clear that neither skill nor good judgment was exercised in setting the course of the craft before passing between the piers. Beyond all doubt some allowance, though the margin was small, should have been made for the leeway of the craft, as the evidence is convincing that the course of the current at high water tends somewhat to force the craft towards the pier on the port side. Besides they had met with some difficulty previously during the trip that day, at the bridge higher up the river, and, therefore, were forewarned that a like difficulty might again occur.

Ignorance of the danger before them is no sufficient excuse, as the owner appoints the master and is bound to select one of competent skill and knowledge, to transport goods and merchandise shipped on board in safety, which necessarily imposes the obligation to employ a master mariner who knows enough about the route to avoid the known obstructions and to choose the most feasible track for his route. Knowledge of the kind, in river navigation, is peculiarly essential, as the current frequently shifts from one side towards the other, and the track of navigation is often obstructed by snags, sand-bars, and shoals, which no degree of skill would enable the mariner or pilot to avoid without a prior knowledge of their existence.

Cross-currents between the piers of bridges which span the river somewhat diagonally are not infrequent, and as they are not always fully appreciable to the casual observer, it is important that master mariners should know of their existence and something of their force, in order that they may be able to steer their steamer or other vessel properly through such a passage. Neither the master nor pilot, in this case, knew that there was any such cross-current between these piers, and consequently took no precaution to guard against its influence.

Carriers of merchandise by water, seeking general employment, are to be regarded as common carriers, and like common carriers by land, in the absence of any legislative provision prescribing a different rule, are in general to be held responsible as insurers, and consequently are liable in all events and for every loss or damage to the merchandise, unless it happened by the act of God, the public enemy, or by the act of the shipper, or by some other cause or accident, without any fault or negligence on their part, as expressly excepted in the bill of lading or contract of shipment.

Standard authorities show that the first duty of the carrier, and one that is implied by law, is to provide a seaworthy vessel, well furnished with proper motive power, and furniture necessary for the voyage. Necessary equipment is as requisite as that the hull of the vessel should be stanch and strong, and she must also be provided with a crew adequate in number and competent for their duty with reference to all the exigencies of the intended route, and with a competent and skilful master, of sound judgment and discretion, and with sufficient knowledge of the route and experience in navigation to be able to perform in a proper manner all the ordinary duties required of him as master of the vessel.

Owners of vessels, employed as such carriers, must see to it that the master is qualifies for his situation, as they are responsible for his want of skill and knowledge in that behalf and for his negligence and bad seamanship. In the absence of any special agreement to the contrary or exception in the bill of lading or contract of shipment, his duty extends to all that relates to the loading as well as the safekeeping, due transportation, and right delivery of the goods, and for the faithful performance of all those duties the ship is liable as well as the master and owners.

5. Differences of opinion may arise as to the merits of the fourth assignment of errors, and inasmuch as enough is alleged in those which precede and follow it to show that the decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed, the court here does not find it necessary to determine the question whether the speed of the steamer, in view of the conflicting testimony upon the subject, was or was not greater than the exigencies of the impending peril would justify.

6. Nor is it necessary to express any decided opinion whether the fifty assignment of error is or is not supported by the evidence exhibited in the case, but it is deemed proper to say that there is much reason to conclude that it was the course of the current that forced the craft to the leeward, and not the gust of wind, as was supposed by those in charge of the deck of the steamer at the time the barge was sunk.

Enough appears to show that the bridge there does not span the river directly across the current, and that the tendency of the current is to force the vessel passing down the river to the leeward, and the evidence is full to the point that neither the master nor the pilot had any knowledge that they would have to encounter any such difficulty in attempting to effect the passage between those piers. Support to that proposition is found in the fact that they did not think it necessary to adopt any precaution to prevent such a disaster, except to see that the craft headed midway between the piers of the narrow passage and to give the steamer a full head of steam, so as to make the passage as quick as possible, which shows beyond all doubt that little or no use could be made of the helm during the passage, except to steady the craft on the course adopted just before they entered the passage between the piers where the disaster occurred.

Reliable means to ascertain with certainty what force it was which caused the craft to make leeway during the passage is not exhibited in the record, nor is it necessary to decide that point, as it was plainly a rash act to undertake to steer the craft through that passage on a windy day when the banks of the river were full, in the face of the dangers which the evidence satisfies the court would necessarily be encountered in such an attempt. Neither the state of the water nor of the wind was such as to furnish any just excuse for the master or pilot, as they might have chosen the other passage or have taken proper and seasonable measures to leave back one of the barges for the next trip.

Shipowners are responsible for such a disaster if it results from the ignorance, unskilfulness, or negligence of the master or those in charge of the vessel. Where the master, being ignorant of the coast, sailed past the port to which he was destined and ran into another port in the possession of the enemy and was captured, the Court of King's Bench unanimously decided that the implied warranty to provide a master of competent skill was broken by sending out one who was unable to distinguish between the two ports.

Ignorance and unskilfulness being proved, the attempt to set up inevitable accident is vain, as such a defence can never be sustained even in a collision case, unless it appears that neither party is in fault. Loss or damage occasioned by such a disaster, where it appears that those in charge of the deck were incompetent to perform the required duty, either from inexperience or want of knowledge of the route, or from negligence or inattention, cannot be regarded as being the result of natural causes, nor as falling within the exception contained in the bill of lading or contract of shipment.

Different definitions are given of what is called inevitable accident, on account of the different circumstances attending the disaster, but there is no decided case which will support such a defence where it appears that the disaster was occasioned by the incompetency, unskilfulness, or negligence of the master or pilot in charge of the deck.

Service was not made in this case upon the barge, and of course the decree must be founded upon the fault of the steamer and those who were responsible for the unskilfulness and bad judgment exercised in her navigation.

DECREE REVERSED with costs, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree for the libellants and for further proceedings in conformity

TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

title: The Lady Pike/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:The Lady Pike/Opinion of the Court

title: Talk:The Lady Pike/Opinion of the Court


text:
Jerome v. McCarter (88 U.S. 17)

ON motion of Mr. G. F. Edmunds, to increase the amount of a bond given on appeal and for additional security. The case was thus:

McCarter, the holder of a third mortgage, given by the Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railroad, and Iron Company, on about 400,000 acres of lands-pine lands, hard-wood lands, iron lands, copper lands, and farming lands-in Michigan, filed a bill in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to foreclose his mortgage. Subsequently to this the company was decreed bankrupt, and one Jerome and another having been appointed its assignees, they were brought in by supplemental bill. On the 15th of June, 1874, the complainant got a decree of foreclosure.

The decree directed the sale of the canal, corporate franchises, and two land grants, to pay $1,057,686, and also what might be due to one hundred and twenty bondholders whose debts were not included in the above amount.

The sale was to be made subject to prior liens of $1,500,000 and upwards (apparently about $2,000,000), so that with the decree of $1,057,686, the property, if sold, would, in order to pay all charges against it, have to produce $3,057,686, or at least $2,500,000. The prior incumbrances were carrying interest at the rate of 10 per cent. a year.

An appeal was soon afterwards applied for to Swayne, J., to operate as a supersedeas. A body of affidavits was produced on the side of the defendant, from men of business, men of science, and men of wealth, to show an immense value in the mortgaged property, that its value far exceeded the amount of the decree and all prior liens, taking these at their principal sums and adding all the interest that had already accrued or would accrue during the litigation, and moreover that the property, from the anticipation of finding new mines on it, was rising in value. A body of affidavits, nearly or quite as large and from a similar class of persons, was produced to show the contrary; the highest value given to the lands by any of these being $2,500,000. After hearing and considering these affidavits, an appeal was allowed by Swayne, J., to operate as a supersedeas, and the security fixed at $10,000, with two persons, named Wells and Crosby, as sureties. An appeal bond was given accordingly.

title: Jerome v. McCarter (88 U.S. 17)


text: Talk:Jerome v. McCarter (88 U.S. 17)

title: Talk:Jerome v. McCarter (88 U.S. 17)