text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/8

 of jurisprudence, that a correlative term is that of an idea which is necessarily connected, and is consistent, with another idea.

With this addition, we find no objection to ‘right’—‘duty’ and ‘power’—‘liability’ as correlatives. These combinations of correlatives are fairly well established. But again, so far, so good; for when these terms are inspected in detail, it will be found, unfortunately, that occasionally the meaning is obscured by inconsistent or double usage in the Hohfeld School.

A quotation taken from the more recent of Professor Hohfeld’s essays on this topic and which may be accepted as representing his maturest views, is as follows:

“Suppose that A is fee-simple owner of Blackacre. His ‘legal interest’ or property relating to the tangible object that we call land consists of a complex aggregate of rights (or claims), privileges, powers, and immunities. First, A has multital legal rights [rights in rem], or claims that others, respectively, shall not enter on the land, that they shall not cause physical harm to the land, etc., such others being under respective correlative legal duties.

“Second, A has an indefinite number of legal of entering on the land,, that is, within the limits fixed by law on grounds of social and economic policy, he has ; and  to all such legal privileges are respective  of other persons.

“Third, A has the to another, i.e., to extinguish his complex aggregate of jural relations and create a new and similar aggregate in the other person; also the legal power to create a life estate in another and concurrently to ; and so on indefinitely. Correlative to all such legal powers are the legal liabilities in other persons—this meaning that the latter are subject nolens volens to the changes of jural relations involved in the exercise of A’s powers.

“Fourth, A has an indefinite number of legal. ; the immunity that no ordinary person can extinguish A’s own privileges of using the land; the immunity that no ordinary person can extinguish A’s right that another person, X, shall not enter on the land, or, in


text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/9

 other words, create in X a privilege of entering in the land. .”

The correlatives, ‘right’—‘duty’ and ‘power’—‘liability,’ are well-seasoned and they are not questioned. We have already pointed out that Professor Hohfeld has given the term ‘liability’ a wider meaning than that which prevailed, and this extension we regard as original and useful, at least for juristic facts as distinguished from jural relations. Before passing to a discussion of the other two correlatives, some variations of usage may be pointed out.

Professor Hohfeld speaks of “the householder’s privilege of ejecting the trespasser.” This seems a confusion of liberty and power. When one acts for himself without legal consequences, as by walking on his land, he exercises a liberty, but when the owner puts a trespasser off the land, it would seem that he exercises a power., i.e., he does something which is a disadvantage to another.

A license is regarded as a “particular” kind of ‘privilege’ (liberty). Surely there is a juristic difference between what one may do on his own land and what one may do, outside of an agency transaction, on the land of another. A license, therefore, is either a kind of power, or it has not been provided for, since as against the owner of the land it cannot be a liberty (‘privilege’) without doing violence to the ordinary meaning of the term ‘liberty,’ and, likewise, confusing the non-jural concept of ‘liberty’ with the jural concept of ‘power.’

A constable is said to have a “privilege” of killing dogs without collars. This also is a power and not a mere liberty. Professor Cook says of privileged defamation that “the person publishing the same has a privilege to do so.” The present writer agrees that ‘privilege’ is the right word, both in lawyers’ parlance and in jurisprudence, but submits it is the wrong word in the Hohfeld System,

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


text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/10

 where ‘privilege’ means ‘liberty,’ unless ‘power’ and ‘privilege’ overlap, in which case it will become necessary to register another quite obvious objection.

Professor Cook also speaks of the ‘privilege’ against selfcrimination, and he seems also to say that this ‘privilege’ is a ‘right’ stricto sensu and also an ‘immunity.’ The same observation above made may be here repeated so far as the capacity against self-crimination is regarded as a ‘privilege.’ It may be further objected, if Professor Cook has not been misunderstood, that it is a curious situation that the same jural situation can be at once a ‘privilege,’ a ‘right,’ and an ‘immunity.’ If so much diversity of jural aspect is possible in the Hohfeld System, it is patent that the System needs reduction to Professor Hohfeld’s ideal, the “lowest common denominators.”

These few illustrations may suffice to show either inconsistency in the use of the terms ‘privilege’ and ‘power,’ or, in the alternative, an apparent overlapping which needs explanation. We now pass to a brief consideration of the validity of the two groups of correlatives denominated ‘privilege’—‘no-right’ and ‘immunity’—‘disability.’

‘Privilege,’ in the sense of liberty, does not seem to be a relative term at all, but, on the contrary, an absolute term. There is no more of ‘relation’ in ‘privilege’ than may be found in a windmill or a table. True enough, the term ‘correlative’ is indefinite at best, but it is clear that the correlation, if any, of liberty in one person and the non-existence of rights as to the content of it, in another, is juristically quite a different sort than that of ‘right’ and ‘duty.’

(a) Without attempting here a refinement of distinction which more properly falls to the expert logician, it is enough to point out that ‘no-right’ is not any more entitled to be considered the correlative of ‘privilege’ than is ‘no-power.’ (b) Again, the correlatives ‘immunity’—‘disability,’ for the same reason and for an additional reason, are objectionable. The additional reason is that the correlation is not complete. The person under disability may lack legal power (which is the sense in which the term disability is used in the Hohfeld System, ) but may there not be a disability, also, because of the existence of duty?


text:
Page:Gummere (1909) The Oldest English Epic.djvu/68

52 Have now and hold this house unpeered; remember thy glory; thy might declare; watch for the foe! No wish shall fail thee if thou bidest the battle with bold-won life.”

Then Hrothgar went with his hero-train, defence-of-Scyldings, forth from hall; fain would the war-lord Wealhtheow seek, couch of his queen. The King-of-Glory against this Grendel a guard had set, so heroes heard, a hall-defender, who warded the monarch and watched for the monster. In truth, the Geats’ prince gladly trusted his mettle, his might, the mercy of God! Cast off then his corselet of iron, helmet from head; to his henchman gave, — choicest of weapons, — the well-chased sword, bidding him guard the gear of battle. Spake then his Vaunt the valiant man, Beowulf Geat, ere the bed he sought:— “Of force in fight no feebler I count me, in grim war-deeds, than Grendel deems him. Not with the sword, then, to sleep of death his life will I give, though it lie in my power. No skill is his to strike against me,


text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/11

 3. Like the table of ‘opposites,’ the category of ‘correlatives,’ ‘immunity’—‘disability,’ is a novelty. While it is logically incomplete, as it seems to us, in not including under disability the presence of duty as well as the absence of power, it may be objected to for the more important reason that, as limited, it is juristically of no consequence.

‘Immunity,’ if it means anything at all of importance, is immunity from something; but, in Professor Hohfeld’s System, an immunity is an immunity from nothing. One would hardly be considered immune in any practical sense from a disease which has never existed and which will never come into existence. Likewise, in the law, what has never existed and never will exist is not worth consideration either by lawyers or jurists.

The category ‘immunity’—‘disability’ is an empty one—it has absolutely no content. It may be conceded that in the administration of justice the question often may be, and is, litigated whether A has the power to divest the title of B. A either has such a power or he has not. If A has the power, we are not dealing with an immunity but with a liability—something real—a positive concept; but if A does not have the power, even though A asserts it, there are blanks on both sides. What, therefore, Professor Hohfeld means to say is that where there is a ‘no-power’ on one side, there is a correlation of ‘no-liability’ on the other. This way of stating the matter must, we think, disclose that one nothing opposed to another nothing cannot be regarded either as juristic correlatives, or as having any juristic connection or utility.

The term ‘immunity’ is well known to the law and we believe it can be usefully employed in a juristic sense, which is reasonably consistent with prevailing professional usage, and it seems to us unfortunate that an effort was not made to incorporate it in a juristic table where its actual fundamental operation would be disclosed. Nor do we deny that it may rarely be convenient to use a negative category of terms to facilitate communication of ideas, as. for example, when we speak of “immunity from prosecution.” What we deny is that the terms ‘immunity’—‘disability’ are of fundamental juristic importance in the limited use made of ‘immunity’ in Professor Hohfeld’s System.

4. If the category of supposed juristic correlatives, ‘immunity’—‘disability,’ is a case of blanks on both sides, so it will be found also with the supposed juristic category of correlatives, ‘privilege’—


text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/12

 ‘no-right.’ This category is another case of negatives with which the law is not concerned in any practical sense except to determine within the scope of litigation that it is not concerned, by merely adjudicating a negative. Professor Hohfeld in a personal letter (Nov. 19, 1917, citing Pollock, Del Vecchio, and Gareis) snowed his understanding of the objection without, however, changing his position: (see Yale L. Jour., XXIII, 16, 42 n. 59; XXVII, 66, 71 n. 12). Likewise, Professor Cook has also clearly apprehended the objection. In the case of ''Ind. News Service Co. v. Associated Press'', 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 68, Mr. Justice Brandeis, in a dissenting opinion thought that relief ought to be denied to the complainant upon considerations which should lead the court “to decline to establish a new rule of law.” Professor Cook says of this statement:

“Mr. Justice Brandeis, in holding that the defendant was ‘privileged’ to pirate the plaintiff’s news, was laying down ‘a new rule of law’ just as clearly as was the majority when they held the defendant was not ‘privileged’“ (Yale L. Jour., XXVIII, 387 (391).

To say that a rule of law does not exist applicable to a given case of first impression, according to this logic, is the same thing in jurisprudence as saying that a rule of law does exist. The question, however, is not merely one of words. The real difficulty lies in the failure to understand the nature of a jural relation. A jural relation involves the idea of constraint; so, also, does a legal rule. The reductio ad impossibile of the position of Professors Hohfeld and Cook may be shown by the Hohfeld category of ‘opposites,’ ‘right’—‘no-right.’ A sues B, claiming money due under an alleged contract. The court finds there was no contract, no money due, and consequently ‘no-right’ in A against B. Will it be argued that A had a ‘right’ against B before the suit was commenced? Will it be argued that a jural relation was established when the court pronounced a judgment (apart from costs) for the defendant?

Prof. Borchard who has made familiar to us the functions of the declaratory judgment procedure has also asserted the jural character of ‘privilege’ (liberty). In a recent discussion of London-American, etc., Co. v. Rio de Janeiro, etc., Co. [1917], 2 K. B. 611, he remarks:

“It will be observed that the plaintiffs here had no ‘cause of action’ against the defendants. They merely asserted the defendants’ ‘no-right’ and their own freedom from a duty to share with the defendants the admiralty award (i.e., a privilege)”: Yale L. Jour., XXIX, 545.

Prof. Borchard had already made the same point in his discussion of Guaranty Trust Co. v. Hannay [1915], 2 K. B. 536, [1918] 2 K. B. 623: Yale L. Jour., XXVIII, 9.

It may be observed that Prof. Hohfeld used the term ‘privilege’ to include a variety of meanings, as follows:

(1) The ‘privilege’ of X, the owner of land, to enter on his land: “Fund. Concepts,” p. 39. This variation doubtless properly includes also the ‘privilege’ of not entering.

(2) The ‘privilege’ of a householder to eject a trespasser: “Fund. Concepts,” p. 41, n. 39.

(3) The ‘privilege’ of uttering a libel (e.g., ‘privileged communication’): “Fund. Concepts,” p. 46.

(4) The ‘privilege’ against self-crimination: “Fund. Concept,” p. 46.

(5) The ‘privilege’ of entering on the land of another by ‘license’: “Fund. Concepts,” p. 49.

“It has been assumed,” Prof. Hohfeld said, “that the term ‘privilege’ is the most appropriate and satisfactory to designate the mere negation of duty” [our italics]: “Fund. Concepts,” p. 44.

The views of the present writer may be shortly stated:

(a) The term ‘privilege’ in the sense of “no-duty” is not synonymous with the term ‘privilege’ in the sense of ‘liberty,’ i.e., abscence of jural relations.

(b) The term ‘privilege’ as used by Prof. Hohfeld is a blending and confusion of jural and non-jural concepts. In the variations above set out there are three separable ideas—liberty, privilege, and power. A term of such extension is unworkable and will result in confusion in cases where refinement of discrimination is called for in legal operations.

(c) As to Prof. Borchard’s contention that a ‘no-duty’ situation has a jural character, we need only enter a simple denial. The thing itself speaks. We do not deny, of course, the procedural necessity of establishing negatives of claimed jural relations. The declaratory judgment where a plaintiff establishes that he owes no duty to the defendant is not different from the case where the defendant in an action succeeds in getting the judgment of the court that the plaintiff has no cause of action.

A similar confusion of jural and non-jural relations is found in a recent book (“Les transformations générales du droit privé”) by Professor Duguit of the University of Bordeaux (translated in part as one of the chapters of “Progress of Continental Law in the Nineteenth Century” (Cont. L. Hist. Ser., XI, cap. iii). Professor Duguit, who may be said to be one of the most extreme representatives of the newer ‘functional’ jurisprudence, interprets the modern trend of law as being toward ‘objectivism,’ which according to him means a progressive cutting down of ‘subjective’ (legal) rights. We have attempted to show elsewhere that what has been reduced is not ‘rights’ but ‘liberties’: Jour. Cr. L. and Criminol., IX, 464 (469-470).

Failure of discrimination of these ideas is not always unimportant, as may be seen in Kemp v. Division, 255 Ill. 213, 99 N. E. 389: cf. , VII, 320, 323; VIII, 126.


text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/13

 If A, the owner of a cigar, smokes it in his study, he exercises a liberty, or, in the language of the Hohfeld System, a ‘privilege.’ No one has a claim against A that he shall not smoke the cigar. What is the possible juristic significance of the act? Does the law in any way undertake for the advantage of others to say that A shall, or shall not, smoke the cigar? Not at all. Then where is the juristic significance? Clearly there is no positive juristic content in the exercise of a liberty, and it is equally apparent that if the law attempted to supervise every possible act of liberty, in criminal law or otherwise, it would break down with its own weight. It should be emphasized that nothing less than every act of liberty is in question, and that no acts are involved which are a breach either of public or private duty.

This category reduces to this: Where one has no right to, or claim upon, the act of another, the other may do as he pleases. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. The two categories last discussed are simply two kinds of negatives—the absence of power and the absence of right (claim), respectively. In neither case is there a correlative. Non-existence is the most absolute thing in the world, and incidentally it is perhaps one of the few logical absolutes.

But while ‘no-right’ and ‘no-power’ must be regarded as juristic negatives and as logical absolutes, yet in fairness to Professor Hohfeld’s System it is necessary to consider these terms in the


text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/14

 exact form in which they have been presented; since it may be possible, contrary to expectation, that an absolute term may be, if not relative (which involves a contradiction), at least correlative, in jurisprudence. The question, therefore, may be formulated as follows: Is ‘no-right’ the correlative of a liberty (‘privilege’), and is a ‘no-power’ (disability) the correlative of ‘immunity’? In other words, are liberty (‘privilege’) and ‘immunity’ relative terms or are they absolute terms?

The term liberty (‘privilege’) is clearly an absolute term, in any practical sense. The term ‘no-right’ has no greater connection with liberty by way of correlation than have ‘no-power’ (disability), or ‘no-duty’ or ‘no-liability,’ or ‘power,’ or ‘duty,’ or ‘liability.’ Professor Corbin’s explanation of ‘privilege’ as another name for ‘no-duty’ makes this still more evident. Here it is clear that ‘no-duty’ and ‘no-right’ are both mere negations and that as such they can not be in relation in any logical sense.

Likewise, the term ‘immunity,’ as used by Professor Hohfeld, is also absolute. It can not claim for its correlative ‘no-power’ (disability) to the exclusion of ‘no-liability’ or ‘no right.’ If A is the owner of land without outstanding rights or powers in others, he is not in his situation as owner, which gives him certain claims and powers against others, under any duty or liability to such others. There is no right against him (e.g., to make a conveyance as holder of the legal estate in trust); nor has any person the power to divest his title. Clearly A’s situation is, as respects others, an absolute legal situation. As to his title, no act can be claimed from him nor any act projected against him. If B, a stranger to the title, should go through the form of making a conveyance of a fee simple right in A’s land, the act would be a legal nullity. Moreover, B is under no legal duty not to make such a paper conveyance. Any act of B attempting to convey A’s title would be wholly lacking in legal consequences. Accordingly, A’s situation, as owner, as to such an act on the part of B, is absolute; it has no connections or correlatives, and is lacking in juristic importance.


text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/15

The subject matter of Professor Hohfeld’s tables is full of intrinsic difficulties, and the present writer cannot safely assume with too much confidence, in pointing out what seem to him to be valid objections, that he has always succeeded in his understanding of the Hohfeld System, and that he has been able, on the other hand, to avoid falling into errors of his own. One of the most competent authorities in this field has already spoken of Professor Hohfeld’s tables as showing ingenuity, to which sentiment we subscribe without reservation. The same authority has also advanced objections on other grounds to some of the terminology used by Professor Hohfeld as lacking juristic significance.

Professor Hohfeld’s table arouses curiosity as to how he proceeded to work it out. No explanation is given. Can we be sure that there are only four fundamental juristic terms? Could there not be more than four? No answer is given by Professor Hohfeld or by his associates, or, so far as is within our knowledge, by anyone who has adopted Professor Hohfeld’s System. Superficially, the tables seem to be an enumeration, but a closer inspection shows a regular alternation of the secondary terms when the two tables are compared; thus ‘no-right’ and ‘duty’ change places, as do also ‘disability’ and ‘liability.’ This may perhaps explain the rigid symmetry of the scheme, and this rigidity may account for some of the objections which have been offered. But why did Professor Hohfeld select, or how did he discover, four fundamental jural terms—the “lowest common denominators”? No satisfactory answer can be given, and surmise is all that is left.

Hohfeld was not ex professo a teacher of jurisprudence, but there can be no question that he was an assiduous student of it and that he had a natural bent for that kind of thinking. His literary apparatus shows an intimate acquaintance with everything on the subject printed in English, but it shows no acquaintance at any point with an important literature, especially in German, which has explored juristic ideas in various directions which have not yet been made familiar to us in our own language. This isolation must be regarded as a great hindrance to any investigator in jurisprudence, but in spite of it, or rather because of it, Hohfeld succeeded in building up a structure which has the unquestioned merit of originality and ingenuity. The terms themselves used by Professor


text:
Page:Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts.djvu/16

 Hohfeld are not new and two of the combinations ‘right-duty’ and ‘power-liability’ are not new, but the tables as a whole are original. It seems probable that the terms were derived from, or to some extent based upon, the notable manual of Salmond, but the exact method of construction must be at best conjectural unless among Professor Hohfeld’s papers his work-sheets happen to be preserved. We shall not attempt to pursue the inquiry.

What we regard as the basic defect of his method is his failure to search for and to proceed from the fundamental concept of jural relation. Without a clear understanding of this primary juristic idea, it was nearly inevitable that no table of jural relations could be constructed which would not disclose objections, however symmetrical it might turn out. Professor Hohfeld’s use of terms shows an entire lack of recognition of the important distinction between jural relations and juristic facts, and this confusion of ideas may account for the circumstance that half of his table deals with situations which do not involve any jural relation whatsoever.

Our conclusion, not arrived at without much reflection, is that the System, in so far as it shows originality, is without juristic value; that at one point where the term ‘privilege’ is used to mean ‘liberty,’ the table is objectionable on the double ground that ‘liberty’ is a non-jural concept and that its double usage, which includes ‘power,’ is a misapplication likely to lead to much confusion in the solution of delicate legal problems; and that at another point the term ‘immunity’ is unduly narrowed to exclude the important function of jural relation.

A reconstruction of the Hohfeld tables in the light of the objections advanced is as follows:


text: The Oldest English Epic/Chapter 1/Beowulf 09


text:
Page:FFC90.djvu/188

186 Insects win battle with quadrupeds, 222.

Insults make princess talk, *860.

Intelligence and luck, 945.

Intestines, Lizard in wolf's i, 121.

Intruder steals man's clothes, 1360 A.

Invaders, Cocks crow to warn one another of i, *205.

Invisible beings' conversation reveals how to obtain girl, 516; Cap renders wearer i, 302 *A; suit of king, 1620.

Invitations to dine of fox and crane, 60.

Invited dead friend, 470; skull, 470, *835; statue of Christ, 750 B.

Invulnerable horse, 756 B.

Iron Henry, 440; house, 124; is more precious than gold, 677; man and ogre, 1162; Oath on i, 44; Strong John made of i, 650.

Iron, See shoes.

Island, Abandonment on i, 1118*.

Jack the giant killer, 328.

Jackdaw teaches fox to fly, 225.

Jar dragged, *1703.

Jay borrows cuckoo's skin, 235.

Jealous, Mother j of daughter's beauty, *449, 706; Priest j of flageolet player, *1844; Queen j of nieces' beauty, *455; Stepmother j of stepdaughter's beauty, 709.

Jesus creates swallow, *243.

Jesus, See Christ.

Jew among thorns, 592; Wandering J, 754***.

Jews drawn from Heaven, 2403.

Jeweler, Ungrateful j, 160.

Jewels drop from girl's mouth, 403; from magic nut, 511; removed and girl revives, 709; stolen from corpse, *1654.

Jewess, Man curses day he married J, *980 C.

Job, 947 *A.

John the Bear, 301; Strong J, 650.

Joke, 1200—1999.

Jorinde and Joringel, 405.

Joseph answers the twelve words to Devil for pauper, *2045; finds rich husband for devoted girl, *769 A; shows justice of his action, 759.

Journey to Fortune, 460 B; to God, 460 A; to Hell, 466**, to other world, 465 C, 470; Wedding j of prince, 516—518.

Jovinian, 757.

Juan, Don J, *835.

Judge carried off by Devil, 821, 1186; Outriddling j, 927; Outwitting j, 1525; protects poor man, 1535 *A; Wife as j frees husband, 890.

Judge's oxen stolen and wife seduced, 1525.

title: Page:FFC90.djvu/188


text:
Page:FFC90.djvu/189

FFC 90 Jumping into breeches, 1286; into ground, 1086.

Juniper tree, 720.

Justice of God vindicated, 759; Truth and Avarice, *848.

Kaiser and abbot, 922.

Kaiser's new clothes, 1620.

Keen hearing of frog and sight of dove, 238.

Kettle, Hell's k, 475.

Key becomes bloody as sign of guilt, 311; Keep old k rather than new, 313, 425, 506.

Kicked, Stop eating when k, 1363 *A.

Kicking, Disenchantment by k, 440.

Kids eaten by wolf, 123.

Killed, Brides k, *895; Cock k for giving bad advice, *207; Lion or bear k by brave man, 157.

Killer forces friar to absolve him (Cumulative), *2026.

Kills, Fool swats fly and k man, 1586; Fool swats louse and k baby, 1685; Hero k thieves one by one, 956 B.

Kind and unkind, 403 A, 480.

Kindness, Devil's k, 362*; repaid, 431; rewarded, 473, 480.

King and abbot, 922; and peasant's son, 921; and soldier, 952; and thief, 951 A; as ferryman, 461; discovers his unknown son, 873; Girl would marry a k, 707; is betrayed, 505; Log, 277*; of fishes, 303; of frogs, 277*; Thrushbeard, 900.

King's children, 892; garden guarded by hero, 328*; haughtiness punished, 757; invisible suit, 1620; tasks, 577.

Kiss, Disenchantment by k, 408 *A, 410, 425, 433 A, 440, 451; Pretending k hedgehog seizes fox's neck and escapes forest fire, *69.

Kissing horse or mule under tail, 570.

Knapsack forces persons into it, 330; produces food, 569.

Knife handed to guilty man, 950; Life token: k becomes rusty, 303; Magic k, 576**; of love, 706 *B; or scissors, 1365 B; Whetting the k, 1015.

Knight helped in tournament by Devil, 508 *A.

Knight's repentance and hospitality bring him salvation, 750 *C.

Knots from breath, 1176; from drops of brandy, 1173.

Knowledge, Supernatural k, 650—699.

Kobold, 300—359.

Laborer, Devil as l, 820.

Lace, Poisoned l, 709.

Ladder, Hair as l to tower, 310.

Lady, See woman.

title: Page:FFC90.djvu/189


text:
Page:FFC90.djvu/190

188 Lake, Pulling together the l, 1045.

Lamb promised as reward, 154; stolen, 15.

Lamb's, Who ate l heart?, 785.

Land and water ship, 513 B; higher than Heaven, 922; of Cockaygne, 1930.

Language of birds, 517, 781; Questions in foreign l, 1697* A.

Languages, Animal l, 670—673.

Large-headed and large-eyed bird reared, 230.

Large, See big.

Lark, Crop division of fox and lark, *278 B; protected by grayhound, *278 B; reveals true bride, 403.

Last leaf, 1184.

Latinized, Sermon in L words, 1825 *D.

Laugh, Making the princess l, 559, 571—574, 853 *A.

Laughing contest, 42*, 1080*.

Lawrence burned, *766.

Lawyer's alms to soldier, *819; dog steals meat, 1589; mad client, 1585.

Laziest, 1950.

Laziness put to shame by industry, 249.

Lazy animals punished, 55; boy, 675; boy and industrious girl, 822; boy eats all meals together, 1561; bride, 1453; girl must spin, 501 *A; spinning woman, 1405; Three l ones, 1950; weaving woman, 843*; wife, 901, 1370*; woman punished, 368*.

Leaf, Will pay Devil when last l falls from oak, 1184.

Learning to fear men, 157.

Leg, Bird with broken l (Cumulative), 2031.

Legs, Stag ashamed of l, 77.

Legal decision, 1585—1594.

Leonore, 365.

Let someone buy you who does not know you, 1170; *1852.

Letter intercepted, 706, 707, 930; Love l from magic nut, 511; to kill bearer, 428, 930.

Level bushel, 1182.

Liar, Best l, 852 *A.

Liberty, Lean dog prefers l to food and chain, 201.

(Lice) Many and fat and 100 every year, 1696.

Lies, Sack of l, 570, *572.

Life candle, 311 *A; 708 *A; light, 332; story in days of week, 2012 *A; story in ten hours, 2012 *B; story reveals identity, 304, 506; token, 303.

Light, Spirit in blue l, 562; Sun brings all to l, 960; to see sleeping mate, 302.

Lighting the road, 1008.

Lightning, Fated to be killed by l, *449.

Like wind in hot sun, 923 A.

Limb cut off by numskull sitting on it, 1240.

Lion and mouse, 75; bullied by ass, 103 *A; finally

title: Page:FFC90.djvu/190


text:
Page:FFC90.djvu/191

FFC 90 meets man brave enough to shoot him, 157; frightened by horse, 118; helper, *535; Helpful l kills witch, 303; sick, 50; slaps animals for unfavorable judgment, *52; will abandon wife, *52.

Lioness accused of having bad smell, *52.

Lion's faith, 74*; Fox kicked into l bed, 50; milk cures, 301, 560 *A, 590; milk kills, *455; share, 51; Splinter removed from l paw, 156.

Lip of hare, 47 A, 70.

Lisping maiden, 1457.

Listener as helper 513 A, 621.

Little brother and sister, 450; fish slips through net, 253; Gifts of l people, 503; goosegirl, 870 A.

Live, Killing live stock, 1007.

Liver of hanged man stolen, 366.

Lizard frightens wolves, 121.

Load carried by ant, 280.

Loading wood, 1242.

Locket, Prince recognizes lost bride by l, *932.

Long, For the l winter, 1541.

Look, Must not l at bedmate, 400, 425; Must not l back, 400.

Looking for a wife, 1450—1464.

Lord's Prayer, 1199.

Lost, Search for l husband, 425, or wife, 400.

Louse, Fool swats l and kills baby, 1685; Marriage of l and flea (Cumulative), *2020; Riddle of l skin, 425 B, 621.

Loused, Dragonslayer l by princess, 300.

Lousy, Husband insulted as l head, 1365 C.

Love, Knife of l, 706 *B; like salt, 923.

Lover behind statue punishes husband, 1364 *A; Husband carries wife to l, *1424; murdered, 1536 C; outwitted by servant, 1725; unknowingly confides in husband, 1364 *A.

Lovers as pursuer and fugitive, 1419 D.

Loving wife, 1350.

Luck and intelligence, 945; and wealth, 736; Man followed by bad l, 947; Shirt brings l, 844.

Luck, See fortune.

Lucky accident, 1640—1674; brothers, 1650; Hans, 1415.

Lunch with Christ, *1855.

Lying, 1875—1999; contest, 1920; goat, 212; to princess, 852.

Lyre, Prince as ass plays l, 430.

Magic bird heart, 567; flight, 313, 314; horse as helper, 314; horses, 301; knife, 576**; mill, 565; mirror, 653, *1621; objects, *435, 518, 551, 560—649, 653; purse, 564; remedy, 425 *D, 610—619; ring, 560;

title: Page:FFC90.djvu/191


text:
Page:FFC90.djvu/192

190 staff, 304*; tales, 300—749.

Magician and his pupil, 325.

Magician, See Devil.

Magpie advised by bittern, 57 *A; persuades dove to exchange eggs, 240; Toad asks m for chestnut (Cumulative), 2032 *A.

Magpies, Fox steals young m, 56.

Maid, Old m, 1475—1480; Old m prays for a husband, 1476 *A.

Maiden, Banished m, 705—709; Clever m kills thieves, 956 B; in tower, 310; Lisping m, 1457; Serpent m, 507 C; who seeks her brothers, 451; without hands, 706.

Maiden, See girl.

Maidens pulled up by companions, 301.

Maidservant unrewarded, 870 *B.

Make-believe eating, make-believe work, 1560.

Making ogre strong, 1133, 1134; princess laugh, 559.

Man, 1525—1874; and domestic animal, 176—199; and wife build air castles, 1430; and wild animal, 150—175; Animals fear m, 157; batrachian, insect, reptile, 290—299; boasts of his wife, 880; Clever m, 1525—1639; Contest between m and ogre, 1060—1114; does his wife's work, 1408; from the gallows, 366; Grateful animals and ungrateful m, 160; hidden in roof, 1360; in Heaven, 800—809; on quest for lost wife, 400; Partnership of m and ogre, 1030—1059; persecuted because of his beautiful wife, 465; promised to Devil, 810—814; seeks a midwife, 1680; sells soul to Devil, 1170—1199; sleeps whole winter in cave, 674*; Stupid m, 1675—1709; suffers sparrow's revenge, 248; thinks he has been in Heaven, 1531; thinks himself dead, 1313; who flew like a bird and swam like a fish, 665; Wild m, 502; Wolf disguises as m, *166.

Manikin, Sack with m that beats, 563, 564.

Manure, Clearing out m, 1035*.

Many and fat and 100 every year (lice), 1696.

Marble, Turned into m columns, 707.

March may be wintry, *2415.

Mare, Confessor steals rope with m on it, *1800 A.

Mares become vultures, 1004 *d; Fat m in barren field, 471 *B.

Marienkind, 710.

Marking guilty one who sleeps with princess, 950.

Marksman, Extraordinary m, 513, 653.

Marquis will marry poor girl, *878.

title: Page:FFC90.djvu/192


text:
Page:FFC90.djvu/193

FFC 90 Marriage, 1440—1449; a punishment, 1516—1520; forbidden outside parish, 1475; is wolf's greatest punisiiment, *165; of ant and mouse (Cumulative), *2023; of Devil, *340; of louse and flea (Cumulative), *2020; of poor boy and merchant's daughter, 930; of prince and shepherdess, 930 *A; to animals, 552.

Married couple, 1350—1439; Heaven admits men m once but not twice, *1410; Joseph m devoted girl to rich man, *769 A.

Mass, Priest in m sings intructions to cook, 1831 *A, *B; Priest singing m reveals thief, 1831 *C; said by ass, 1696 *A; said frees soul, 760 *C.

Mast climbing contest, 1611; Riding up m, 530.

Master Pfriem, 801; thief, 1525.

Matron of Ephesus, 1510.

May, Foolish wife gives ham to "Long M", 1541; it all come out! (Oil), 1696; none come out; (Men in bathing), 1696; one dry up and another not be born! (Garlic), 1696; the other one come out! (Eye), 1696.

Mayor, Fool swats bee and kills m, 1586; Ox or ass as m, 1675.

Meal of beans, 1478.

Measure of miller, *1800 B.

Measuring money, 545 *C.

Meat as food for cabbage, 1386; mouth and soup mouth, *1803; shot out of giant's hand, 304; substituted for newborn child, 707.

Members, Doctor's substitute m, 660; Fox thanks her m for help in escaping, *135 C, 154.

(Men in bathing), May none come out!, 1696.

Merchant rescues children, 707.

Merchant's, Poor boy marries m daughter, 930.

Mermaid, Man rescues wife from m, 316.

Merry wives wager, 1406.

Messenger rabbit, 1535.

Messengers of death, 335.

Mice buy bell for cat, 110.

Michael as knight defeats Devil, 508 *A.

Middle, Each wants to sleep in the m, 1289.

Midwife sought by man, 1680.

Milk of lion cures, 301, 560 *A, 590; or kills, *455; of panther cures, *455; River of m suckles babies, 471 *A.

Mill, Dogs punish woman cheating at m, 831 *C; Girls find baby at m, 831 *D; Nix of m pond, 316 will not stop grinding, 565.

Miller, 1720—1724; Holy m *1720; rescues children 707; unhappy with money 754 *B.

title: Page:FFC90.djvu/193


text:
Page:The Corsair (Byron).djvu/58

44 Gulnare and all her Haram handmaids freed,

Safe in the dome of one who held their creed,

By Conrad's mandate safely were bestow'd,

And dried those tears for life and fame that flow'd:

And when that dark-eyed lady, young Gulnare,

Recall'd those thoughts late wandering in despair,

Much did she marvel o'er the courtesy

That smooth'd his accents—soften'd in his eye.

'Twas strange—that robber thus with gore bedew'd,

Seem'd gentler then than Seyd in fondest mood.

The Pacha wooed as if he deem'd the slave

Must seem delighted with the heart he gave;

The Corsair vowed protection, sooth'd affright,

As if his homage were a woman's right.

"The wish is wrong—nay worse for female—vain:

"Yet much I long to view that chief again;

"If but to thank for, what my fear forgot,

"The life—my loving lord remembered not!"

VIII.

And him she saw, where thickest carnage spread,

But gathered breathing from the happier dead;

title: Page:The Corsair (Byron).djvu/58


text:
Page:The American review - a Whig journal of politics, literature, art, and science (1845).djvu/132

118 {|
 * rowspan="2" | States.
 * rowspan="2" | Clay.
 * rowspan="2" | Polk.
 * rowspan="2" | Birney.
 * rowspan="2" | Aggregate.
 * colspan="2" | Plurality
 * colspan="2" | Whig
 * colspan="2" | Dem.
 * colspan="2"    | El. Vo.
 * | Clay.
 * | Polk.
 * | Maj.
 * | Def.
 * | Maj.
 * | Def.
 * | C.
 * | P.
 * | Maine
 * | 34,379
 * | 45,719
 * | 4,836
 * | 81,933
 * | 11,341
 * | 8,039
 * | 3,252
 * | 9
 * | New Hampshire
 * | 17,866
 * | 27,160
 * | 4,161
 * | 49,187
 * | 9,294
 * | 6,728
 * | 2,566
 * | 6
 * | Vermont
 * | 26,770
 * | 18,041
 * | 3,954
 * | 48,765
 * | 8,729
 * | 2,387
 * | 6,342
 * | 6
 * | Massachusetts
 * | 67,418
 * | 32,846
 * | 10,360
 * | 131,124
 * | 14,572
 * | 1,856
 * | 12,716
 * | 12
 * | Rhode Island
 * | 7,322
 * | 4,867
 * | 12,139
 * | 2,455
 * | 1,227
 * | 1,227
 * | 4
 * | Connecticut
 * | 32,832
 * | 29,841
 * | 1,943
 * | 64,616
 * | 2,991
 * | 524
 * | 2,467
 * | 6
 * | New York
 * | 232,482
 * | 237,588
 * | 15,812
 * | 485,882
 * | 5,106
 * | 10,459
 * | 5,353
 * | 36
 * | New Jersey
 * | 38,318
 * | 37,495
 * | 131
 * | 75,944
 * | 823
 * | 346
 * | 477
 * | 7
 * | Pennsylvania
 * | 161,203
 * | 167,535
 * | 3,138
 * | 331,876
 * | 6,332
 * | 4,735
 * | 1,597
 * | 26
 * | Delaware
 * | 6,258
 * | 5,971
 * | 12,229
 * | 287
 * | 144
 * | 144
 * | 3
 * | Maryland
 * | 35,984
 * | 32,676
 * | 68,660
 * | 3,308
 * | 1,654
 * | 1,654
 * | 8
 * | Virginia
 * | 43,677
 * | 49,570
 * | 93,247
 * | 5,893
 * | 2,946
 * | 2,946
 * | 17
 * | North Carolina
 * | 43,232
 * | 39,287
 * | 82,519
 * | 3,945
 * | 1,972
 * | 1,972
 * | 11
 * | Georgia
 * | 42,100
 * | 44,147
 * | 86,247
 * | 2,047
 * | 1,023
 * | 1,023
 * | 10
 * | Alabama
 * | 26,084
 * | 37,740
 * | 63,824
 * | ll,656
 * | 5,828
 * | 5,828
 * | 9
 * | Mississippi
 * | 19,208
 * | 25,126
 * | 44,332
 * | 5,920
 * | 2,960
 * | 2,960
 * | 6
 * | Louisiana
 * | 13,083
 * | 13,782
 * | 26,865
 * | 699
 * | 349
 * | 349
 * | 6
 * | Arkansas
 * | 5,504
 * | 9,546
 * | 15,050
 * | 4,041
 * | 2,021
 * | 2,021
 * | 3
 * | Tennessee
 * | 60,030
 * | 59,917
 * | 119,947
 * | 113
 * | 56
 * | 56
 * | 13
 * | Kentucky
 * | 61,255
 * | 51,988
 * | 113,243
 * | 9,267
 * | 4,633
 * | 4,633
 * | 12
 * | Missouri
 * | 31,251
 * | 41,369
 * | 72,620
 * | 10,118
 * | 5,059
 * | 5,059
 * | 7
 * | Illinois
 * | 45,528
 * | 57,920
 * | 103,448
 * | 12,392
 * | 6,196
 * | 6,196
 * | 9
 * | Indiana
 * | 67,867
 * | 70,131
 * | 2,106
 * | 140,154
 * | 2,314
 * | 2,210
 * | 104
 * | 12
 * | Ohio
 * | 155,057
 * | 149,117
 * | 8,050
 * | 312,224
 * | 5,940
 * | 1,055
 * | 6,995
 * | 23
 * | Michigan
 * | 24,237
 * | 27,703
 * | 3,632
 * | 55,572
 * | 3,466
 * | 3,549
 * | 83
 * | 5
 * | 161
 * | Mississippi
 * | 19,208
 * | 25,126
 * | 44,332
 * | 5,920
 * | 2,960
 * | 2,960
 * | 6
 * | Louisiana
 * | 13,083
 * | 13,782
 * | 26,865
 * | 699
 * | 349
 * | 349
 * | 6
 * | Arkansas
 * | 5,504
 * | 9,546
 * | 15,050
 * | 4,041
 * | 2,021
 * | 2,021
 * | 3
 * | Tennessee
 * | 60,030
 * | 59,917
 * | 119,947
 * | 113
 * | 56
 * | 56
 * | 13
 * | Kentucky
 * | 61,255
 * | 51,988
 * | 113,243
 * | 9,267
 * | 4,633
 * | 4,633
 * | 12
 * | Missouri
 * | 31,251
 * | 41,369
 * | 72,620
 * | 10,118
 * | 5,059
 * | 5,059
 * | 7
 * | Illinois
 * | 45,528
 * | 57,920
 * | 103,448
 * | 12,392
 * | 6,196
 * | 6,196
 * | 9
 * | Indiana
 * | 67,867
 * | 70,131
 * | 2,106
 * | 140,154
 * | 2,314
 * | 2,210
 * | 104
 * | 12
 * | Ohio
 * | 155,057
 * | 149,117
 * | 8,050
 * | 312,224
 * | 5,940
 * | 1,055
 * | 6,995
 * | 23
 * | Michigan
 * | 24,237
 * | 27,703
 * | 3,632
 * | 55,572
 * | 3,466
 * | 3,549
 * | 83
 * | 5
 * | 161
 * | Illinois
 * | 45,528
 * | 57,920
 * | 103,448
 * | 12,392
 * | 6,196
 * | 6,196
 * | 9
 * | Indiana
 * | 67,867
 * | 70,131
 * | 2,106
 * | 140,154
 * | 2,314
 * | 2,210
 * | 104
 * | 12
 * | Ohio
 * | 155,057
 * | 149,117
 * | 8,050
 * | 312,224
 * | 5,940
 * | 1,055
 * | 6,995
 * | 23
 * | Michigan
 * | 24,237
 * | 27,703
 * | 3,632
 * | 55,572
 * | 3,466
 * | 3,549
 * | 83
 * | 5
 * | 161
 * | 1,055
 * | 6,995
 * | 23
 * | Michigan
 * | 24,237
 * | 27,703
 * | 3,632
 * | 55,572
 * | 3,466
 * | 3,549
 * | 83
 * | 5
 * | 161
 * | 3,466
 * | 3,549
 * | 83
 * | 5
 * | 161
 * | 5
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161
 * | 161

 * | South Carolina
 * | 9
 * | 1,298,942
 * | 1,337,132
 * | 59,623
 * | 2,694,697
 * | 52,430
 * | 90,578
 * | 14,799
 * | 63,207
 * | 33,901
 * | 44,119
 * | 105
 * | 170
 * colspan="13" |
 * }
 * | 1,337,132
 * | 59,623
 * | 2,694,697
 * | 52,430
 * | 90,578
 * | 14,799
 * | 63,207
 * | 33,901
 * | 44,119
 * | 105
 * | 170
 * colspan="13" |
 * }
 * }

It will be perceived by a reference to the above table, that in three of the states of the Union, New York, Ohio and Michigan, casting together sixty-four electoral votes, neither Mr. Clay nor Mr. Polk received an actual majority. Of the remaining twenty-two states in which electors were chosen directly by the people, ten gave majorities for Mr. Clay, and twelve for Mr. Polk. Of the whole aggregate popular vote of 2,694,697, the Whig candidate fell short of an actual majority by 48,407 votes; and the President elect by 10,217 votes; the plurality of the latter over the former being 38,190. The largest numerical majority cast in any state was 6,196, in Illinois for Mr. Polk—the largest numerical plurality in any state was 14,572 in Massachusetts for Mr. Clay.

The first important deduction to be drawn from the above tlata is, that Mr. Polk, on no basis of calculation, received the suffrages of a majority of the actual voters at the election. In the aggregate vote we have already seen how far he fell short of this. But if a majority of ballots had been necessary to the choice of electors in the several states, he would also have been defeated; the twelve states in which his party polled majorities, furnished but one hundred and twenty electors, eighteen less than the requisite number.

Another notable fact, apparent upon the figures, is the smallness of the majorities thrown for either candidate in all the states which can fairly be said to have been contested. Leaving out Missouri, Alabama, Illinois and Kentucky, (where no third party intervened, and where the state of opinions was so unequal as to offer no motive for a close contest,) the largest majority in any state was but 3,252, in Maine.

Again, it is worthy of remark, that in three instances at least, a very small change of votes throughout a most extensive territory and among a vast population, would have reversed the result. Thus in the State of New York, a change of 2,554 votes—but little over one-half per cent. of the aggregate of that State, and less than one-thousandth of the entire vote of the Union,—would have elected our candidate; in Pennsylvania and Georgia together a change of one per cent. of


text:
Page:The Corsair (Byron).djvu/59

Rh Far from his band, and battling with a host

That deem right dearly won the field he lost,

Fell'd—bleeding—baffled of the death he sought,

And snatch'd to expiate all the ills he wrought;

Preserved to linger and to live in vain,

While Vengeance ponder'd o'er new plans of pain,

And staunch'd the blood she saves to shed again—

But drop by drop, for Seyd's unglutted eye

Would doom him ever dying—ne'er to die!

Can this be he? triumphant late she saw,

When his red hand's wild gesture waved, a law!

'Tis he indeed—disarmed but undeprest,

His sole regret the life he still possest;

His wounds too slight, though taken with that will,

Which would have kissed the hand that then could kill.

Oh were there none, of all the many given,

To send his soul—he scarcely asked to heaven?

Must he alone of all retain his breath,

Who more than all had striv'n and struck for death?

He deeply felt—what mortal hearts must feel,

When thus revers'd on faithless fortune's wheel,

title: Page:The Corsair (Byron).djvu/59


text:
Page:FFC90.djvu/194

192 Miller's measure, *1800 B; tale, 1361.

Millstone, Head stuck into hole of m, 1247.

Millstones, 1146.

Mind your own business, 910 B.

Minstrel's song sung by shoemaker, 1695 *A.

Miracle, God's first m, 922; of bones becoming cow, 804; of crossing river on cape, *771; of pretended saint's statue, *1787 B.

Mirror broken by ball falling from Heaven, *806; broken by bewildered dragon, 300; Farseeing m, 653; Fool swats fly and breaks m, 1586; from orange, 408; Magic m, *1621; stolen, 434.

Miscarriage of ferryman's wife, 1535 *A.

Miser, 1407.

Misers punished, 471 *A.

Mistake bear for dog, 1312*; breath in cold for tobacco smoke, 1320; buttercask for dead man, 1314; figtree for snake, 1315; of wolf for colt, 1311; pumpkin for ass's egg, 1319.

Mistress kept in secret, *895.

Mole trades toad eyes for tail, *287.

Money and Fortune test their powers, 945 *A; as reward for following advice, 910 B; eaten by pig, *891; falls from invited statue, 750 B; Fool sells oxen and gives money away, 1003 *A; found by fool, 1696 *A; makes man unhappy, 754; measured, 545 *C; Piper regains lost m, *1617.

Monkey bride, *557; Grateful m, 160.

Monks burned by fool, 1536 B.

Monster born to princess, 708; dies on prongs of prey's house, 124; eats people and animals, 333; fettered, 803; Fox disguises as m, 154; in bridal chamber, 507 B.

Monster's bride; 425, 507 A.

Months of year used to advise treatment of children, 2012 *C.

Moon reflection eaten by cow, 1335, or taken for cheese, 34, *64; Visit to m, 302 *A, 400, 451, 551.

Moonbeam, Descent on m, 852 *A.

Moonlight, Spanking in m, 940.

More cowardly than hare, 70.

Mother of Catalina or Peter, 804; slew me and father ate me, 720; Treacherous m, 590; wants to kill her children, 765.

Mother-in-law intercepts letter, 707; of Devil, *340.

Mound, Princess confined in m, 870.

Mountain, See glass.

Mourning of swallow for Jesus, *243.

title: Page:FFC90.djvu/194


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/254

230 of ic), to us two, us two, 540, 545, 2137, etc.

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/254


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/253

Rh

unc, ''pers. pron. (dat. and acc. dual''

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/253


text:
Benton v. Maryland (395 U.S. 784)/Dissent Harlan

Mr. Justice HARLAN, whom Mr. Justice STEWART joins, dissenting.

One of the bedrock rules that has governed, and should continue to govern, the adjudicative processes of this Court is that the decision of constitutional questions in the disposition of cases should be avoided whenever fairly possible. Today the Court turns its back on that sound principle by refusing, for the flimsiest of reasons, to apply the 'concurrent sentence doctrine' so as not to be required to decide the far-reaching question whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is 'incorporated' into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, thereby making the former applicable lock, stock, and barrel to the States. Indeed, it is quite manifest that the Court has actually been at pains to 'reach out' to decide that very important constitutional issue.

I consider that the concurrent sentence doctrine is applicable here, and that dismissal of the writ is accordingly called for. Despite that I feel constrained also to express my views on the merits because of what I conceive to be the importance of the constitutional approach at stake.

I.

The Court decides, and I agree, that petitioner's larceny conviction is not moot, and that the concurrent sentence doctrine is not a jurisdictional bar to entertainment of challenges to multiple convictions, so long as the convictions sought to be reviewed are not moot. However, I would also emphasize, in agreement with the position of the Government as amicus curiae, that the concurrent sentence rule does have continuing vitality as an element of judicial discretion, and that appellate courts may decline to review a conviction carrying a concurrent sentence when another 'concurrent' conviction has been reviewed and found valid and the unreviewed conviction foreseeably will have no significant adverse consequences for the appellant. As the Solicitor General has pointed out, the concurrent sentence doctrine plays a significant role in conserving the time and energy of appellate courts. To require that these already overworked courts invariably review in full detail each of several convictions carrying concurrent sentences seems to me senselessly doctrinaire.

A.

As has been noted, the concurrent sentence doctrine is applicable only if there exists a valid concurrent conviction. In thi instance, petitioner's double jeopardy argument is directed to his larceny conviction, but he claims that the concurrent sentence doctrine is no impediment to reaching that question because his concurrent, and otherwise valid, burglary conviction was tainted by having been tried together with the larceny count. It is therefore necessary to consider whether this claim of taint has merit.

The Court finds that resolution of the taint issue is likely to involve such difficult points of Maryland law as to make a remand to the Maryland courts the soundest course. See ante, at 797-798. However, my examination of the question convinces me that the pertinent Maryland law is quite elementary. And, unlike the Court, I am not deterred by the prospect of having to 'examine * * * in detail,' ante, at 798, the 42-page record of petitioner's second trial.

I conclude that there was no real possibility of taint. Burglary in Maryland consists of breaking and entering any dwelling house in the nighttime with intent to steal, take, or carry away the personal goods of another. See Md.Code Ann., Art. 27, § 30(a) (1967). Larceny in Maryland is a common-law crime, consisting of the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently. See e.g., Fletcher v. State, 231 Md. 190, 189 A.2d 641 (1963). Evidence was introduced at petitioner's second trial to show that he not only entered a locked house at night but also made off with several household appliances. The latter evidence was, of course, pertinent to the larceny count. However, it was also plainly relevant to the burglary count, since it tended to show intent to steal.

Petitioner bases his taint argument primarily on the proposition that he was entitled to have the evidence concerning the missing appliances excluded from his second trial under the doctrine of 'collateral estoppel,' he having been acquitted of larceny at the first trial. However, even if it is assumed that the conviction on the larceny count was bad on double jeopardy or due process grounds and that the principle of collateral estoppel has some application to state criminal trials through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, I think that the doctrine would not prevent admission of the evidence on the issue of burglary. The principle of collateral estoppel makes conclusive, in collateral proceedings, only those matters which were 'actually litigated and determined in the original action * * *.' Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 353, 24 L.Ed. 195 (1877). The Maryland Constitution provides:

'In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.' Md.Const., Art. 15, § 5.

Hence, petitioner's acquittal of larceny at his first trial may have rested solely upon that jury's unique view of the law concerning that offense, and cannot be taken as having necessarily 'determined' any particular question of fact.

It follows from what has been said in this section that there can be no estoppel effect in a collateral proceeding, such as petitioner's second trial for burglary, and that petitioner's taint argument must fail.

B.

Since petitioner's second burglary conviction was not tainted by his simultaneous trial for larceny, it is necessary to consider whether the concurrent sentence doctrine is inapplicable for the other possible reason: that petitioner foreseeably will suffer significant adverse consequences on account of his larceny conviction.

No such consequences can reasonably be predicted. The Court itself notes that only a 'few States' would allow petitioner's larceny conviction to be used against him for purposes of sentencing as a habitual offender, and concedes that 'this possibility may well be a remote one.' Ante, at 790-791. When it is recalled that petitioner had been convicted of three felonies even prior to his present burglary conviction, this possibility is reduced to the vanishing point.

There remain the possibilities that petitioner's larceny conviction might be considered generally by a judge if and when petitioner is sentenced following some future conviction, and that the conviction might be used to impeach him in future judicial proceedings. In the circumstances of this case, these potential consequences are plainly insignificant. Petitioner's burglary and larceny convictions were based upon the very same series of acts on his part. This fact could readily be brought to the attention either of a sentencing judge or of a trier of fact before whom petitioner was sought to be impeached. Predictably, knowledge of the identical origin of the two convictions would reduce the extra impact of the larceny conviction to negligible proportions. Thus, it would be difficult to imagine a case in which a 'concurrent' conviction would be likely to entail fewer adverse consequences.

C.

The Court nonetheless holds that '(b)ecause of the special circumstances in this case' it will not apply the concurrent sentence doctrine, and that it is unnecessary even to decide whether the doctrine has 'continuing validity, even as a rule of convenience.' See ante, at 792. One of the 'special circumstances' cited by the Court is the existence of the 'taint' issue, which the Court finds it desirable to remand to the state courts. As has been noted, I can perceive no difficulties which would justify a remand.

The second of the 'special circumstances' relied on by the Court is that 'in this case the (state courts) decided not to apply the concurrent sentence rule' and reached the 'double jeopardy' issue themselves. See ante, at 792. The Court concludes that '(s)ince (the Maryland courts) decided this federal constitutional question, we see no reason why we should not do so as well.' See ante, at 792-793. This reasoning baffles me. In determining whether or not to reach a constitutional issue the decision of which is not absolutely necessary to the disposition of a case, this Court has long been guided by the rule that '(w)here a case * * * can be decided without reference to questions arising under the Federal Constitution that course is usually pursued and is not departed from without important reasons.' Silver v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 193, 29 S.Ct. 451, 455, 53 L.Ed. 753 (10 9); see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345, 56 S.Ct. 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). In deciding whether such 'important reasons' exist, this Court has never regarded itself as bound to reach the constitutional issue merely because the court below did so, and has often declined to pass upon constitutional questions even though fully canvassed by the lower court. On some of these occasions, the Court has relied in justification upon the concurrent sentence doctrine.

Since I cannot believe that the Court wishes as a general matter to abandon the salutary and well-established principle of declining to rule on constitutional questions in advance of necessity, and since I find the 'taint' issue entirely free of the complexities which the Court claims to perceive, I cannot help but conclude that the real reason for reaching the 'double jeopardy' issue in this case is the Court's eagerness to see that provision 'incorporated' into the Fourteenth Amendment and thus made applicable against the States.

D.

As has been shown, this case satisfies both preconditions to application of the concurrent sentence doctrine. Reliance upon that doctrine would enable the Court to avoid decision of a substantial constitutional question. Accordingly, I would apply the concurrent sentence rule and decline to review petitioner's larceny conviction. Since the case was brought here on a writ of certiorari limited to the 'double jeopardy' question, decision of which would affect only the larceny conviction, I would dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

II.

Having concluded that the writ should be dismissed, I would ordinarily not go further. However, as indicated at the outset, I felt impelled to continue with some observations respecting what can only be regarded as a complete overruling of one of this Court's truly great decisions, and with an expression of my views as to how petitioner's claim respecting his retrial for larceny should fare under the traditional due process approach.

A.

I would hold, in accordance with Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take over the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth, as such. Today Palko becomes another casualty in the so far unchecked march toward 'incorporating' much, if not all, of the Federal Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause. This march began, with a Court majority, in 1961 when Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, was decided and, before the present decision, found its last stopping point in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968), decided at the end of last Term. I have at each step in the march expressed my oposition, see, e.g., my opinions in Mapp v. Ohio, supra, at 672, 81 S.Ct., at 1700 (dissenting); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 44, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1635, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (concurring in result); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 14, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1497, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) (dissenting); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 408, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1070, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965) (concurring in result); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 1233, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (concurring); Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 226, 87 S.Ct. 988, 995, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967) (concurring in result); and Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, at 171 88 S.Ct. 1444 (dissenting); more particularly in the Duncan case I undertook to show that the 'selective incorporation' doctrine finds no support either in history or in reason. Under the pressures of the closing days of the Term, I am content to rest on what I have written in prior opinions, save to raise my voice again in protest against a doctrine which so subtly, yet profoundly, is eroding many of the basics of our federal system.

More broadly, that this Court should have apparently become so impervious to the pervasive wisdom of the constitutional philosophy embodied in Palko, and that it should have felt itself able to attribute to the perceptive and timeless words of Mr. Justice Cardozo nothing more than a 'watering down' of constitutional rights, are indeed revealing symbols of the extent to which we are weighing anchors from the fundamentals of our constitutional system.

B.

Finally, how should the validity of petitioner's larceny conviction be judged under Palko, that is, under due process standards?

A brief recapitulation of the facts first seems advisable. Petitioner was indicted and tried simultaneously for burglary and larceny. He was acquitted of larceny but convicted of burglary. Petitioner appealed, and the Maryland courts remanded in light of earlier Maryland decisions holding invalid a provision of the Maryland Constitution requiring that grand and petit jurors declare their belief in God. Petitioner was given the option either of accepting the result of his trial or of demanding reindictment and retrial. He chose to attack the indictment, was re-indicted and retried for both larceny and burglary, and was convicted of both offenses.

The principle that an accused should not be tried twice for the same offense is deeply rooted in Anglo-American law. In this country, it is presently embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and in the constitution or common law of every State. The Palko Court found it unnecessary to decide '(w)hat the answer would have to be if the state were permitted after a trial free from error to try the accused over again or to bring another case against him * * *.' 302 U.S., at 328, 58 S.Ct., at 153. However, I have no hesitation in stating that it would be a denial of due process at least for a State to retry one previously acquitted following an errorless trial. The idea that the State's interest in convicting wrongdoers is entirely satisfied by one fair trial ending in an acquittal, and that the accused's interest in repose must thereafter be given precedence, is indubitably a "principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." Id., at 325, 58 S.Ct., at 152.

The situation in this case is not quite so simple. Had petitioner not appealed his burglary conviction, the State would surely have allowed him to rest on his larceny acquittal and merely serve out his burglary sentence. However, the State argues that the burglary and larceny counts were originally contained in a single indictment; that upon petitioner's appeal the indictment was declared totally void and the trial court found to have lacked jurisdiction; and that the State could then proceed as if there had never been a previous indictment or trial.

The State's contention that petitioner's first trial was a complete nullity because the trial court 'lacked jurisdiction' is unconvincing. As has been noted, it appears that the State would willingly have been petitioner serve out the burglary sentence imposed in consequence of that trial. Under state procedure, petitioner could avail himself of the 'jurisdictional' defect only by appealing his conviction. The crucial issue, therefore, is what legitimate interest had the State in compelling petitioner to jeopardize his larceny acquittal as a condition of appealing his burglary conviction?

I can perceive no legitimate state interest. Certainly it is the purest fiction to say that by appealing his burglary conviction petitioner 'waived' his right not to be retried for larceny or 'consented' to retrial on that charge. The notion of 'waiver' was first employed in United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896), to justify retrial of an accused for the same offense following reversal of a conviction on appeal. The 'waiver' doctrine was more fully articulated in Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 26 S.Ct. 121, 50 L.Ed. 292 (1905), where it was held that retrial and conviction for murder following a successful appeal from a manslaughter conviction did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Trono apparently dictated the result in Brantley v. Georgia, 217 U.S. 284, 30 S.Ct. 514, 54 L.Ed. 768 (1910), in which the Court held in a brief per curiam, without citing any authority, that a Georgia retrial and conviction for murder following the reversal on appeal of an earlier manslaughter conviction did not amount to 'a case of twice in jeopardy under any view of the Constitution of the United States.' Id., at 285, 30 S.Ct., at 515. We have since recognized that the 'waiver' rationale is a 'conceptual abstraction' which obscures rather than illuminates the underlying clash of societal and individual interests. See United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 466, 84 S.Ct. 1587, 1589, 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964). Accordingly, 1 do not think that the reasoning in Trono or the apparent holding in Brantley, insofar as they would require affirmance of petitioner's larceny conviction, can any longer be regarded as good law.

Nor did the State in the present case have the sorts of interests which have been held to justify retrial for the same offense after a conviction has been reversed on appeal by the accused and in the more unusual case when an acquittal has been set aside following an appeal by the State. When the accused has obtained a reversal on appeal, the societal interest in convicting the guilty has been deemed too weighty to permit every such accused to be 'granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction.' United States v. Tateo, supra, at 466, 84 S.Ct., at 1589. The rationale for allowing the State to appeal an acquittal has been that the State, like the accused, is entitled to assure itself of a trial 'free from the corrosio of substantial legal error' which might have produced an adverse verdict. See Palko v. Connecticut, supra, at 328, 58 S.Ct., at 153.18

In the present case, the State did not appeal, and the defect in the composition of the grand jury could not have affected petitioner's subsequent acquittal at trial. Society's legitimate interest in punishing wrongdoers could have been fully vindicated by retrying petitioner on the burglary count alone, that being the offense of which he was previously convicted. The State had no more interest in compelling petitioner to stand trial again for larceny, of which he had been acquitted, than in retrying any other person declared innocent after an error-free trial. He retrial on the larceny count therefore, in my opinion, denied due process, and on that ground reversal would be called for under Palko.


text: Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Berliner, Emile


text: Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Oiouhaton, Teresa


text: Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Ojéda, Alonso de


text:
Page:Dictionary of spoken Russian (1945).djvu/359

 □ медленно slowly. Пожалуйста, говорите медленно. Please speak slowly. — Здесь нужно ехать медленно. You have to drive slowly along here.

медный copper.

медперсонал (медицинский персонал) medical staff.

медсестра nurse. На эту палату полагается три медсестры. Three nurses are supposed to be on duty in this ward.

медфак (медицинский факультет) university medical school.

медь (F) copper. Тут производится добыча меди. Copper is mined here. — Вам сдачу серебром или медью? Do you want your change in silver or copper? • copper coins. Ничего, что я вам дам сдачу медью? Do you mind if I give you your change in copper coins?

междометие interjection.

между (/with i/) between. Я потерял чемодан где-то между двумя станциями. I lost my suitcase somewhere between the two stations. — Буду у вас между двумя и тремя. I'll be at your place between two and three. — Ну, какое может быть сравнение между ними! There can't be any comparison between them. • among. Мы разделим конфеты между всеми детьми. We'll distribute the candy among all the children. □ между прочим incidentally. Между прочим, вы не забыли отправить письмо? Incidentally, you didn't forget to mail the letter, did you? • by the way. Между прочим, у вас не найдётся пятёрки до вторника? By the way, could you let me have five rubles till Tuesday? □ Между нами всё кончено. I'm through with you. • Пусть это останется между нами. Keep it to yourself. • Его не любят, а между тем, он не плохой человек. People don't like him; but he's not a bad fellow at all. • Я не пианист, а играю так, между прочим. I'm not a real pianist; I just play when I have the time.

международный international.

мел (/g -у; в мелу/) chalk.

мелкий (sh -лка; cp мельче; мельчайший) small. Она разорвала записку на мелкие кусочки. She tore the note into small pieces. • light. Накрапывает мелкий дождь. There's a light drizzle. • petty. Они целиком ушли в свой мелкие интересы. They're completely engrossed in their own petty interests. □ мелкая тарелка dinner plate. Дайте мне полдюжины мелких тарелок. Give me half a dozen dinner plates. мелкий рогатый скот goats and sheep. мелко shallow. Не бойтесь плавать, здесь мелко. Don't be afraid to swim; it's shallow here. □ Вот вам пять рублей на мелкие расходы. Here's five rubles for pocket money. • *Чего это он рассыпается перед ними мелким бесом? Why is he fawning all over them?

мелкобуржуазный petty bourgeois.

мелочь (P -чи, -чей F) detail. У нас очень подчёркивается, как важно внимание к мелочам. We make it a point to pay special attention to detail. • change. У меня нет мелочи. I have no change. • trifle. Не стоит раздражаться из-за таких мелочей. It doesn't pay to get excited about such trifles. □ Она избавила меня от заботы о житейских мелочах. She took all my everyday worries off my hands. • Он разменивается на мелочи. He's wasting his talents.

мель (/на мели/F) shoals. Нам пришлось перетащить лодку через мель. We had to drag the boat over the shoals. □ снять с мели to set afloat. С большим трудом удалось снять пароход с мели. It was very difficult to set the ship afloat. □ *Он уже третий месяц сидит на мели. He's been on the rocks for the last three months now. • Наш пароход сел на мель. Our ship ran aground.

мельник miller.

мельница mill. Это самая большая паровая мельница в городе. This is the largest steam-operated mill in the city. — *Это вода на его мельницу. That's grist for his mill. □ ветряная мельница windmill. В нашем районе много ветряных мельниц. There are many windmills in our region. — *Не стоит воевать с ветряными мельницами. There's no sense fighting windmills. кофейная мельница coffee grinder. Где ваша кофейная мельница? Where is your coffee grinder?

мельче See мелкий.

мелю See молоть.

мена exchange. Я на эту мену не согласен. I don't want to make that exchange.

менее (/cp of малый'; cf мало/).

меньше See малый, маленький, мало.

меньший (/cp of малый/).

меньшинство (P меньшинства) minority. За это предложение высказалось только незначительное меньшинство. Only a small minority spoke in favor of the proposal. — Мы остались в меньшинстве. We remained in the minority. — В школах национальных меньшинств преподавание ведётся на родном языке. In the national minority schools, teaching is conducted in their native language.

меню (indecl N) menu.

меня (/ag of я/).

менять to exchange. Где здесь меняют деньги? Where do they exchange money around here? — Меняю свою комнату на комнату в другом районе. I'd like to exchange my room for one in another neighborhood. • to change. Почему вы всё время меняете работу? Why do you keep changing jobs all the time? — Мне не хочется менять квартиру. I don't feel like changing apartments. — Он меняет свой убеждения, как перчатки. He changes his convictions as he does his gloves.

-ся to change. Ветер, кажется, меняется. I think the wind is changing. • to exchange. Хотите меняться комнатами? How about exchanging rooms with me?

мера measure. Вам было трудно справиться с нашими мерами веса? Was it hard for you to get used to our measures of weight? (See Appendix 2). • step. Надо поскорей принять меры, чтобы прекратить это. It's necessary to take immediate steps to stop this. □ в значительной мере to a large extent. Это в значительной мере ваша вина. It's your fault to a large extent. в меру in moderation. Мы вчера выпили, но в меру. We did some drinking yesterday, but in moderation. в полной мере completely. Я с вами согласен в полной мере. I agree with you completely. высшая мера наказания capital punishment. мера предосторожности precaution. Мы приняли все необходимые меры предосторожности. We took all the necessary precautions. по крайней мере at least. Эта работа отнимет, по крайней мере, два дня. This work will take at least two days to do.


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Christian Science

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. A term given by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, of Concord, N. H., to a religio-scientific discovery which she declares to have been made by her in the year 1866.

It purports to reveal the science of God, and to declare the actual truth about Deity; also the science of life and of man, both of which have been regarded as a mystery. It professes to be the science of the divine Mind, or Omniscience, and the science of Jesus' mission and teaching — the science of Christianity.

Christian Science affirms the divine individuality or infinite spiritual personality of God, and denies all man-made conceptions of Him as a finite personality of anthropomorphic nature or presence. It declares that God can only be spiritually or supersensibly discerned, and that the so-called material senses cannot cognize or comprehend God. In defining God, according to Christian Science, Mrs. Eddy adds to the generally accepted synonyms for Deity, such as Life, Truth, Love, and Spirit, the further declaration that God is the Divine Principle of all true being, meaning thereby that He is the creative

the cause, origin, source, basis, foundation, government, and law of all that has actual and permanent existence. She also declares that God is Substance, meaning thereby that Spirit, Mind, is the only actual, immortal substance or reality. In defining God as Good, she holds that the divine consciousness includes only the consciousness of good. She repudiates all assumption that God has created or consented to any form of evil, sin, sickness, or death, or that the fundamental law of being provides for the inception and continuance of sickness. She declares that all of God's laws mean and provide for life, and life only.

Christian Science purports to solve the mystery of evil. It denies the personality of evil as devil, and avers that evil has no real entity or immortality. Sin or evil is a negation — a wrong sense of the truth of being — a wrong sense of that which is eternally right. Christian Science denies the supposed naturalness of sin, sickness and death, and declares them to be abnormities or monstrosities of the ‘carnal mind,’ or ‘mortal mind,’ as it is termed in Christian Science — the paraphernalia of an ignorant and depraved sense of existence which can be mastered and lawfully abolished.

Christian Science acknowledges the Messiahship of the divine Christ as the manifested mediatorial link between sinning and suffering mortals and the divine Love, God. It declares that Jesus exhibited and taught the power of God to heal and to save, and that Jesus' works, instead of being unnatural and in contravention of law, were divinely natural, scientific, and in demonstration of divine order. It claims to remove the entire ministry of Christ from the realm of impenetrable mystery, and to present it as a lawful manifestation of the divine immanence — as the availability and adaptability of the truth or science of being. It pronounces sin and sickness the works of the devil, which Jesus came to destroy, and declares that salvation through Christ, which He demonstrated, naturally includes the healing of the sick as well as the reformation of the sinner.

In reference to the cure of disease, it asserts that the primary cause of sickness is to be found in the mental realm. It declares that fear, sin, superstition, ignorance, and a depraved, erroneous, fatal philosophy constitute the primal cause of bodily degradation and depletion and have involved the human race in mortality, and the statement is made prophetically that when the world fully learns this fact, it will, for the first time, begin to cope scientifically with and permanently master disease. It declares as a scientific postulate that ‘all manner of diseases’ are curable and that the practice of Christian Science is attesting this statement by healing all of the diseases heretofore regarded as incurable, such as malignant cancers, etc.

As a religious denomination, Christian Scientists believe in God, in the inspiration of the Scriptures, in the divinity of Christ, in the supremacy of God as Spirit, in prayer without ceasing, and in all the essentials of Christianity, and claim that the prime office of Christian Science is to destroy evil and reform mankind. They believe that all evil will eventually be destroyed and become extinct.

This denomination had in 1902 about seven hundred established church societies or

in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, and France, many of which have acquired large and costly church edifices. At the head of these is what is called the ‘Mother Church’ in Boston, Mass., with a membership of nearly 30,000, and of which Mrs. Eddy is the pastor emeritus.

There is no central denominational government. The Mother Church, through its ‘manual,’ or Church by-laws, exercises some control over the denomination as a whole, but the local or branch churches have a purely congregational form of organization and government. The denomination maintains a ‘publishing society,’ and issues a monthly magazine, The Christian Science Journal, and a weekly paper, The Christian Science Sentinel. The publishing house is in Boston, and the denominational literature is actively distributed. Reading-rooms, generally open daily, are maintained in connection with most of the churches.

As the discoverer of this science and the founder of the incidental religious movement, Mrs. Eddy has been and is the logical and inevitable leader of the denomination and its activity. She has written several works concerning Christian Science, the principal one being Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures, which is known as the Christian Science text-book. This book states that this science is utterly unlike faith cure, prayer cure, spiritualism, theosophy, mesmerism, or hypnotism, and that the healing is accomplished naturally, scientifically, and according to law, in demonstration of fixed principles and accurate rule.

Although there are no compiled statistics available, the Christian Scientists estimate their numerical strength as nearly a million of people throughout the world, very many of whom believe that they have been healed of supposedly incurable diseases.

For a complete statement of the Christian Science belief, consult Eddy, Science and Health, with a Key to the Scriptures (226th ed., Boston, 1902, and many editions since).


text:
Page:Dictionary of spoken Russian (1945).djvu/360

 по меньшей мере at least. Билет обойдётся вам, по меньшей мере, в сто рублей. The ticket will cost you at least a hundred rubles. по мере возможности as … as possible. Я сделал этот перевод, по мере возможности, точно. I made the translation as exact as possible. □ Она ни в чём меры пе знает. She goes to extremes in everything. • По мере того как приближалось окончание работы, её недостатки становились яснее. As the work neared completion its faults stood out. • Он не в меру усердствует, чтобы доказать свою лояльность. He's leaning over backwards in his anxiety to prove his loyalty.

мерзавец (-вца) scoundrel.

мерзкий (sh -зка) miserable. Не стоит выходить в такую мерзкую погоду. It's not worth going out in such miserable weather. • mean. Кто бы поверил, что он способен на такой мерзкий поступок! Who'd believe he was capable of doing such a mean thing?

мёрзлый frozen. Земля совершенно мёрзлая. The soil is completely frozen. — Эту мёрзлую картошку надо выбросить. These frozen potatoes have to be thrown out.

мёрзнуть (/p мёрз, мёрзла/) to freeze. Вы, наверно, у нас сильно мёрзнете. It must be freezing for you here.

мерить (/pct: с-/) to measure. У нас материю мерят на метры. Here we measure cloth by the meter. • to fit. Когда мне прийти мерить костюм? When shall I come to have my suit fitted?

мерка measurements. Снимите с него мерку. Take his measurements. • yardstick. Нельзя всех мерить одной меркой. You can't judge everybody by the same yardstick.

мероприятие measure. Правительством выработан ряд мероприятий по улучшению жилищных условий. The government worked out a series of measures for the improvement of housing conditions.

мёртвый (sh -тва/-о, -ы/) dead. Он мёртв? Is he dead? — Теперь у нас самая мёртвая пора. This is our deadest season. — *Я была ни жива, пи мертва от страха. I was so frightened I didn't know whether I was dead or alive. □ мёртвая точка deadlock. Не стоит больше спорить, мы на мёртвой точке. We're deadlocked; there's no use arguing any more. мёртвый час siesta. После обеда у нас в доме отдыха мёртвый час. In our rest home we take a siesta after dinner. на мёртвой точке at a standstill. Все его дела застыли на мёртвой точке. All his activities are at a standstill. мертво dead. Ночью у нас на улицах всё мертво! Our streets are dead at night. □ Он как лёг, так и уснул мёртвым сном. As soon as he hit the pillow he was dead to the world. • Все его знания сейчас только мёртвый капитал. All his knowledge is just so much excess baggage now.

мести (мету, метёт; мёл, мела, -о, -и; мётший; метённый, sh -тён, -тена, -о, -ы) to sweep. Не входите, она сейчас как раз метёт комнату. Don't walk in now. She's just sweeping the room. • to snow. Лучше не выходите, сегодня сильно метёт. You'd better not go out. It's snowing too hard.

местком (местный комитет) trade-union committee (in an office). Я был членом месткома нашего учреждения. I was a member of the trade-union committee in our office.

местность ([-sn-] F) district. Вы знаете название этой местности? Do you know the name of this district? • area, region. Это очень гористая местность. It's a very mountainous area. □ дачная местность summer resort. Мы живём в дачной местности. We live at a summer resort.

местный ([-sn-]) local. У вас часы идут по местному времени? Is your watch set at local time? — Это местное выражение; в Москве, например, его не поймут. This is a local expression. In Moscow, for instance, they wouldn't understand it. — Это завод местного значения. This factory manufactures only for local use. — Это вам нужно спросить у кого-нибудь из местных жителей. You'll have to ask one of the local residents about it.

место (P места) place. Мост провалился в двух местах. The bridge collapsed in two places. — Покажите мне то место в газете, где говорится о нашей работе. Point out the place in the newspaper where it mentions our work. — Тут не место говорить о наших личных делах. This is not the place to talk about personal matters. — И не надоело вам переезжать с места на место? Don't you ever get tired of moving from one place to another? — Надо поставить её на место. We'll have to put her in her place. — Год и место рождения. Place and date of birth. • spot. Здесь рыбное место. This is a good spot for fishing. — Кажется, математика ваше слабое место? I believe mathematics is your weak spot, isn't it? • room. У нас в доме совершенно нет места. We have no room at all at our house. — Тут не место обидам и оскорблённому самолюбию. There's no room here for sulking and false pride. • seat. Это место занято? Is this seat occupied? — Постарайтесь получить хорошие места на завтрашний спектакль. Try to get good seats for tomorrow's performance. • berth. Я взял место в спальном вагоне. I took a berth in the sleeping car. • part. Скотоводство занимает видное место в хозяйстве этого колхоза. Cattle breeding plays an important part in the economy of this kolkhoz. □ место заключения (See also тюрьма) jail. место назначения destination. Когда он прибудет на место назначения? When will he arrive at his destination? населённое место populated place. общее место commonplace. Кого он думает убедить, повторяя эти общие места? Does he think he can convince anyone with such commonplace arguments? с места в карьер right off the bat. *Я не могу этого решить с места в карьер. I can't decide this right off the bat. узкое место bottleneck. Сейчас у нас на производстве узким местом оказывается недостаток рабочей силы. At present the lack of manpower has created a bottleneck in our industry. □ Сколько у вас мест (багажа)? How much luggage do you have? • Я родился в этих местах. I was born around here. • Положите книгу на место. Put this book where it belongs. • Дорогому гостю честь и место! Welcome! We are proud to have you with us. • Он так волнуется, просто места себе не находит. He's so excited he doesn't know what to do with himself. • Комиссариат земледелия только сейчас послал инструкцию на места. The Commissariat of Agriculture only just mailed out instructions to all its local offices. • Они уже год как топчутся на месте. They've been marking time for a year. • На вашем месте я бы туда не ходил. If I were you I wouldn't go there. • Он был пойман на месте преступления. He was caught red-handed. • От него давно нет писем, у меня душа не на месте. I'm uneasy because I haven't heard from him


text: Author:Edward Ancel Kimball

title: Author:Edward Ancel Kimball


text:
Page:Dictionary of spoken Russian (1945).djvu/361

 for a long time. • Ни с места, а то стрелять буду! Don't move or I'll shoot!

местожительство address. О перемене местожительства полагается сообщать немедленно. Changes of address should be reported immediately. — Укажите ваше постоянное местожительство. Fill in your permanent address.

местоимение pronoun.

месть (F) revenge, vengeance.

месяц month. Я здесь уже пять месяцев. I've been here five months already. — Мы уезжаем в конце месяца. We're leaving at the end of the month. — Сколько вы получаете в месяц? How much do you earn a month? — Я бываю в театре раз в месяц. I go to the theater once a month. — Мой приятель вернётся через месяц. My friend will be back in a month.

месячный monthly. Я буду выплачивать остаток суммы месячными взносами. I'll pay out the rest of the sum in monthly installments.

металл metal.

металлист metalworker. Мой отец и дед тоже были металлистами. My father and grandfather were also metalworkers.

металлический metal. Вы лучше возьмите металлическую кровать. You'd better take a metal bed. • metallic. В её голосе звучат металлические нотки. She has a metallic voice.

металлург □ инженер-металлург metallurgical engineer. Для инженера-металлурга у нас всегда найдётся работа. A metallurgical engineer can always get work here.

металлургический metallurgical.

металлургия metallurgy.

метель (F) snowstorm. Весь город занесло снегом после вчерашней метели. The whole town was buried under snow after yesterday's snowstorm.

метить to aim. Я метил снежком в товарища, а в вас попал нечаянно. I aimed the snowball at my friend, but hit you accidentally. • to initial. Ваше бельё не мечено. Your underwear isn't initialed. • to refer to. Вы понимаете, в кого он метит? Do you know who he's referring to? □ По-моему он метит в начальники. I think he's got his eye on the chief's job. • *Метил в ворону, а попал в корову! You're way off the mark!

меткий (sh -тка) keen. От лётчика требуется меткий глаз и уверенная рука. A flyer must have a keen eye and a sure hand. □ метко appropriate. Он очень метко выразился на её счёт. He made a very appropriate remark about her. □ Это был меткий удар. That was a bull's eye. • Вот это меткое замечание! That was well put. • Он метко стреляет. He's a dead shot.

метла (P мётлы) broom. Где вы держите метлу? Where do you keep the broom? — *Новая метла чисто метёт. A new broom sweeps clean.

метод method. Какой метод применяется у вас при преподавании иностранных языков? What method do you use in teaching foreign languages? — Этот метод был уже испробован в пашем цехе. This method has already been tested in our shop.

метр meter. Сколько метров сукна вам отрезать? How many meters of cloth shall I cut off for you? • ruler. Вот вам метр, измерьте ширину окна. Here's a ruler; measure the width of the window.

метрический metric.

метро (indecl N) subway.

метрополитен See метро.

мету See мести.

мех (P -а/"furs"/ or -и/"bellows"/, -ов/на меху/) fur. Мы вывозим меха, заграницу. We export furs. — Она носит дорогие меха. She wears expensive furs. □ *Шуба у вас на рыбьем меху, того и гляди простудитесь. That coat is as thin as paper; be careful you don't catch cold. • Я недорого купил шубу на беличьем меху. I got a good buy on a coat lined with squirrel. • *Нельзя вливать новое вино в старые мехи. Don't put new wine in old bottles.

механизация mechanization.

механизм mechanism. У этих старых часов великолепный механизм. This old watch has a wonderful mechanism. — Я попробую вам объяснить сложный механизм нашей организации. I'll try to explain to you the complicated mechanism of our organization.

механик mechanic.

механика mechanics. Он изучает прикладную механику. He's studying applied mechanics. □ Это хитрая механика. That's a smart set-up.

механический mechanical. Всё наше механическое оборудование нуждается в ремонте. All of our mechanical equipment needs a complete overhauling. □ механически mechanically. Вы, видно, переписывали совершенно механически. Evidently you copied it quite mechanically.

меховой fur. Запаситесь меховой шапкой с наушниками. Get yourself a fur cap with ear flaps.

мечеть mosque.

мечта dream. Все мой мечты сбылись. All my dreams came true. □ Это был не ужин, а мечта! That was one swell supper.

мечтатель dreamer.

мечтать to daydream. О чём вы мечтаете? Беритесь-ка лучше за дело. What are you daydreaming about? Get down to work. • to dream. Я мечтаю о летнем отпуске. I keep dreaming about next summer's vacation.

мечу See метить.

мешать to disturb. Я вам не мешаю? Am I disturbing you? • to mix. Рабочие мешали глину с песком. The workers mixed sand with clay. • to stir. Она мешает кашу, чтоб не пригорело. She keeps stirring the cereal so it won't burn, • to hinder. Одежда мешала мне плыть. The clothes hindered me while I was swimming. • to stop. Вам никто не мешает, делайте, что хотите. Nobody's stopping you; do what you want. □ Вам не мешало бы сходить к врачу. It wouldn't hurt you to see a doctor. • Комары мешали мне спать. The mosquitoes wouldn't let me sleep. • Самолюбие мешало ему признаться в своей ошибке. His pride wouldn't let him admit his mistake.

мешок (-шка) sack. Вам привезли три мешка картошки. They brought three sacks of potatoes for you. — Этот костюм на вас мешком сидит. That suit fits you like a sack. • bag. Продавщица положила мой яблоки в бумажный мешок. The saleslady put my apples into a paper bag. □ походный мешок knapsack. Мы сложили вещи в походные мешки. We packed our things in knapsacks.


text: Page:Flute and Violin and Other Kentucky Tales and Romances.djvu/82


text: Page:Flute and Violin and Other Kentucky Tales and Romances.djvu/114


text: Page:Flute and Violin and Other Kentucky Tales and Romances.djvu/112


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/53

Rh

sele-weard āseted;sundor-nytte behēold ymb aldor Dena,eoton-weard ābēad. Hūru Gēata lēodgeorne trūwode mōdgan mægnes,Metodes hyldo. Ðā hē him of dydeīsern-byrnan, helm of hafelan,sealde his hyrsted sweord, īrena cyst,ombiht-þegne, ond gehealdan hēthilde-geātwe. Gesprsec þā se gōdagylp-worda sum, Bēowulf *Gēata,ǣr hē on bed stige: “Nō ic mē an here-wǣsmun hnāgran talige gūþ-geweorcaþonne Grendel hine; forþan ic hine sweordeswebban nelle, aldre benēotan,þēah ic eal mæge. Nāt hē þāra gōda,þæt hēe mē ongēan slēa, rand gehēawe,þēah ðe hē rōf sīe nīþ-geweorca;ac wit on niht sculon secge ofersittan,gif hē gesēcean dear wīg ofer wǣpen,ond siþðan wītig God on swā hwæþere hond,hālig Dryhten, mǣrðo dēme,swā him gemet þince.” Hylde hine þā heaþo-dēor,hlēor-bolster onfēng eorles andwlitan,ond hine ymb monig snellīc sǣ-rincsele-reste gebēah. Nǣnig heora þōhte,þæt hē þanon scolde eft eard-lufanǣfre gesēcean, folc oþðe frēo-burh,þǣr hē āfēded wæs:

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/53


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Eddy, Clarence

EDDY, Clarence, American organist and composer: b. Greenfield, Mass., 23 June 1851. He studied under Buck in Hartford, counterpoint under Haupt, and piano under Loeschhorn in Berlin. In 1874-76 he was organist of the First Congregational Church, Chicago; afterward organist and choirmaster of the First Presbyterian Church for 17 years and from 1875 to 1908 was director of the Hershey School of Musical Art. In 1877-79 he gave a series of 100 organ recitals, with entirely different programs, a memorable achievement in Amencan musical annals. He has played at several expositions in America and abroad, and has given recitals in the principal American and European cities. He has composed several works for the organ and has written ‘The Church and Concert Organist’ (3 vols., 1885); ‘The Organ in Church’ (1887); ‘Concert Pieces for the Organ’ (1889), and a translation of Haupt's ‘Counterpoint, Fugue, and Double Counterpoint’ (1876).


text:
Page:Dictionary of spoken Russian (1945).djvu/362

 мещанин (P мещане, -щан, -щанам) common person. Куда этому ограниченному мещанину понять что тут происходит. How can that narrow-minded, common person understand what's happening here?

мещанка common person, F. Его хозяйка оказалась тупой, ограниченной мещанкой. His landlady turned out to be a stupid, common person.

мигом in no time. Я туда мигом слетаю. I'll be back in no time. □ Он мигом нашёлся, что ответить. He had a ready answer.

мизинец (-нца) little finger. □ мизинец на ноге small toe.

микроскоп microscope.

милиционер policeman. Вы бы лучше спросили у милиционера. (You'd) better ask a policeman. • officer. Гражданин (or товарищ) милиционер, скажите, пожалуйста, как пройти по этому адресу. Officer, can you please tell me how I can get to this address?

милиция police (USSR). Позвоните в милицию. Call the police. □ отделение милиции police station. Вас вызывают в отделение милиции. They want you at the police station. прописаться в милиции to register with the police. Вам придётся лично прописаться в милиции. You'll have to register with the police in person.

миллион million.

миллионный millionth.

милость (F) mercy. Они сдались на милость победителя. They threw themselves on the mercy of the conqueror. • favor. Сделайте милость, помолчите минутку. Do me a favor and keep quiet for a moment. • good graces. Он как-то всегда ухитряется быть в милости у начальства. Somehow he always manages to be in the good graces of his superiors. □ сделайте милость welcome. "Можно будет воспользоваться вашим телефоном?" "Сделайте милость, когда хотите". "Will you let me use your phone?" "You're welcome to use it any time." □ По вашей милости мы опоздали. It's your fault that we're late. • Милости просим к столу. Dinner is served; please be seated. • Ну, скажите на милость, кто так делает? For goodness' sake! That's no way to do things! • Смените гнев на милость. Come on now; forgive and forget.

милый (sh -ла/-ы/) nice. Они очень милые люди. They're very nice people. • kind. У него такое милое лицо! He has such a kind face. • dear. Письмо начинается обращением: "Милый Джонни!" The letter begins with these words: "Dear Johnny." • sweetheart. Его милая уехала. His sweetheart went away. □ мило nice. Мы очень мило провели время. We had a very nice time. • kind. Это очень мило с вашей стороны. That's very kind of you. □ *Милые бранятся — только тешатся! It's just a lover's quarrel. Nothing serious! • *Этого вам за милую душу хватит. That'll be more than enough for you. • Ну-ка, милый мой, признавайся, что ты наделал. Well, my fine, feathered friend, what have you been up to?

мимо past. Вы ведь проходите мимо почты, купите мне марки. You're going past the post office; buy me some stamps. • by. Как это вы прошли мимо и не зашли ко мне? How come you passed by and didn't come to see me? □ Что он ни скажет, всё — мимо. His remarks never hit the point. • Мимо! Missed! • Я решил пропустить эти колкости мимо ушей. I decided to pay no attention to those dirty cracks.

мимоходом on the way. Мы мимоходом заглянули к приятелю. We stopped at our friend's on the way. • in passing. Он мимоходом о вас упомянул. He mentioned you in passing.

мина mine. Наш пароход наскочил на мину. Our ship hit a mine. • face. *Не стройте кислой мины. Now don't make a wry face.

миндаль (-ля/g -лю)/M) almond.

минерал mineral.

минеральный mineral. □ минеральная вода mineral water.

минимальный minimum. Две недели — минимальный срок для этой работы. Two weeks is the minimum time for this work.

минимум minimum. Мы свели расходы к минимуму. We cut our expenses down to a minimum. • least. Какой здесь прожиточный минимум? What's the least you can live on around here?

миновать (pct) to pass. Мы уже миновали город. We've already passed that town. • to escape. Ох, не миновать нам нахлобучки. Well, I guess we can't escape being bawled out. • to avoid, to escape. *Чему быть, того не миновать. You can't escape the inevitable.

минута minute. На этой станции поезд стоит двадцать минут. The train makes a twenty-minute stop at this station. — Антракт — десять минут, пойдём покурим. There's a ten minute intermission; let's go for a smoke. — Сейчас три минуты первого. It's three minutes after twelve now. — Одну минуту! Just a minute! — Прошу минуту внимания. I ask your attention for a minute. □ сию минуту in a minute. Скажите ему, что я сию минуту приду. Tell him I'll be there in a minute. с минуты на минуту any minute. Мы ждём его с минуты на минуту. We expect him any minute now. □ Я сделаю это в первую свободную минуту. I'll do it the first chance I get.

мир (P -ы;/на миру/) world. Весь мир об этом знает. The whole world knows about it. □ Он привык вращаться в мире учёных. He's used to spending his time with scientists. • Я никогда не жил в капиталистическом мире. I've never lived under capitalism • *Она не от мира сего, она хозяйства вести не сможет. She can't manage a household; she always has her head in the clouds. • *На миру и смерть красна. Misery loves company. • *С миру по нитке, голому рубашка. Every little bit helps.

мир" peace. С ними будет трудно заключить мир. It will be difficult to make a peace treaty with them. — *Мой дедушка любил говорить, что худой мир лучше доброй ссоры. My grandfather used to say that a lean peace is better than a fat victory. □ мир и согласие perfect accord. Соседи жили в мире и согласии. The neighbors lived in perfect accord.

мирить (/pct: при-, по-/) to be a go-between. Я не хочу их мирить, пусть сами помирятся. I don't want to be their go-between, let them make up by themselves.

-ся to make up. Они ссорились и мирились по нескольку


text: Horsemanship for Women/Part 3

title: Horsemanship for Women/Part 3