text:
Mississippi v. Arkansas/Dissent Douglas

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.

Luna Bar is today an island in the Mississippi River. Arkansas on the west claims it is hers because the river as a result of an avulsion moved west. Mississippi claims it is hers because Luna Bar was created as a result of slow gradual accretion. The Special Master found for Mississippi and the case is here on exceptions to his Report.

[p295] No one has a historical recorded account of what happened. Mississippi made its case by use of experts who testified as to how the Mississippi River usually performs. They testified that the river at low water washes the concave side of a turn (this being the side that marks Luna Bar) but that during high water it scours the convex side (that being Arkansas). That testimony gives force to the argument that accretion formed Luna Bar, washing heavily Arkansas land to form the island. Favoring Mississippi was other testimony that at least in the Mississippi avulsion would shorten the course of the river, while here the course was lengthened. Never did the experts know of an instance where avulsion had worked the way Arkansas claims.

Opposed to these highly qualified experts were lay witnesses who knew Luna Bar. They had located great trees that once grew there, the age of the trees going back before 1800. Luna Bar therefore was not recently created nor was it created within the last 100 years. It had been there a long, long time. Moreover, the soil matched Arkansas' soil and the height of the land on Luna Bar was comparable to Arkansas' elevation. The Arkansas case was further bolstered by the theory that in the 1870's the avulsive action took place when the river returned to its old channel.

The Special Master stated in his report:

"I am aware that as Special Master it is not my function to render a decision. My duty is to make a report containing such review of the evidence as I consider justifies my findings of fact. I do not consider that to make the findings I do, it is necessary to totally destroy the validity of Arkansas' contentions. The burden of persuasion was upon Arkansas. Initially Arkansas conceded that Mississippi [p296] had met its initial burden, aided as it was by the presumption that the change in the thalweg of the river was the product of accretion. The quite special character of the reasoning of Arkansas' witnesses leaves me unpersuaded that it has met its burden of proof. I make clear also that I would come to this conclusion even if the burden of proof was not on Arkansas, but was on plaintiff Mississippi." Report of Special Master 33.

The case is close and if we were governed by the rule governing district court findings when an appeal is taken I would agree that the Special Master's findings are not "clearly erroneous." Heretofore the Court has not considered itself limited in its review of its Masters by the "clearly erroneous" test. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a) provides that findings of fact made by district courts "shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous." It also provides that "[t]he findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court." Rule 53(e)(2) provides that "[i]n an action to be tried without a jury the court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous." But those Rules are applicable only to "the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature." Rule 1. But we have never formulated such a rule when it comes to our review of reports submitted by Special Masters whom we have named in cases under our original jurisdiction. It seems inappropriate that we adopt such a rule in view of the delicacy and gravity of many of the issues in these contests between two sovereign states or between the United States and one or more of the States. The ultimate decision on the facts should rest with us, the sole tribunal to which the resolution of the issues in this type of case has been entrusted by Art. III. In Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 1, the Court in a case under the head of its original jurisdiction impaneled a jury. And that procedure, though soon abandoned, was followed in a few other cases: [p297] See 1 H. Carson, History of the United States Supreme Court 169 n.1 (1902). In Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 734, involving a boundary dispute, the Court said: "[W]e may ascertain facts with or without a jury, at our discretion, as the circuit courts, and all others do, in the ordinary course of equity" or alternately "a commission of boundary" may be awarded. In Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 9 How. 647, a commissioner was appointed to hold hearings and report to the Court, Pennsylvania having complained of the erection of a bridge across the Ohio River at Wheeling. While commissioners were appointed in the early years, the practice this century has been to use Special Masters. We said in [p297] United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64, 89, that the "findings of the master are justified by the evidence"; and in Kansas v. Missouri, 322 U.S. 213, 232, that the Master's judgment "accords with the conclusions we make from our own independent examination of the record." And see United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 29. It has at times been argued that original jurisdiction should not be taken, because of the waste of judicial time by this Court: "In an original suit, even when the case in first referred to a master, this Court has the duty of making an independent examination of the evidence, a time consuming process which seriously interferes with the discharge of our ever increasing appellate duties." Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U.S. 439, 470 (Stone, C.J., dissenting). The majority opinion did not dispute that claim but gave special reasons why original jurisdiction was necessary in that case. Id., at 465–466. The findings of the Special Master are of course entitled to respect and their weight will be increased to the extent that credibility of witnesses is involved, as he saw them and heard them, while we have only a cold record. Credibility, however, seems to play no part here. The record [p298] consists of maps and of testimony of witnesses. Those testifying for Mississippi qualified as eminent experts. Those testifying for Arkansas were in part experts and in part countrymen who for years knew Luna Bar, frequented it, and studied it. The experts of Mississippi state a plausible explanation that bolsters the theory of accretion. But the countrymen with their physical evidence convince me that the Mississippi River acted in an unprecedented way, found an old channel and in one convulsive operation invaded Arkansas leaving Luna Bar as island carved out of Arkansas.

There is evidence taken from borings that the soil of the island is not compatible with the soil that would result from accretion. An expert, Dr. Clarence O. Durham, head of the Geoscience Department of Louisiana State University spent two days on the island. He concluded that prior to 1823, the date of the first Federal Land Office Survey, the river had flowed west of the island but that between 1823 and 1871 the channel at that point was not divided. He reached this conclusion from an 1872 map [p299] which showed an abrupt shift of the Arkansas western bank into an abandoned prehistoric channel of the river. The island is the hard base of an ancient clay plug that dates prior to 1823. The ancient cypress stumps on the Arkansas mainland and those on the west side of the island are compelling evidence that the island and the mainland were connected for some centuries. To say that the island was formed by accretion is to use magic to make the ancient cypress stumps on the island disappear. Those trees are of the climax species; and the experts all agree that where climax trees appear the land mass on which they grow is at least 150 years old. The trees found on the high ground of the island were black walnut and red mulberry. Those trees were there prior to 1800 which would be impossible if Luna Bar was the product of accretion in modern times. The Master stated that the testimony about vegetation and the age of trees on the island was, "as far as I can tell, reasonably comparable" to that presented in two earlier cases concerning the origin of Luna Bar (Anderson-Tully Co. v. Walls, 266 F. Supp. 804; Arkansas Land & Cattle Co. v. Anderson-Tully Co., 248 Ark. 495, 452 S.W.2d 632). The Master also stated: "It was the position of Mississippi that various stumps found on Luna Bar and Spanish Moss Bend had been brought there by flood waters. Its position in such regard was sustained by the courts heretofore considering the matter. I do likewise." Neither of the earlier cases makes clear the exact extent of testimony admitted, or precisely how it corresponds with the testimony given before the Special Master in the instant case. Arkansas, however, notes that "evidence of the relic trees found on top of the island [was] not discovered at [the time of the earlier litigation], and this record is the only record of their existence." Moreover, it is hardly true that the Arkansas court "sustained" Mississippi's position that the cypress stumps found in Spanish Moss Bend had been carried there by floodwaters. That court, remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings, noted that the appearance [p330] of at least two of the stumps in photographs tended to lend support to testimony that they had grown in place. So did the designation of "cypress knees" and "cypress stumps" and trees along the Arkansas shore near the mainland on several early Mississippi River Commission charts. These designations indicated that there was evidence of cypress stumps many years before 1940, when it was contended that they had been floated downriver and left at Luna Bar. 248 Ark., at 502, 452 S.W.2d, at 637. Finally, the opinion of the District Court in Anderson-Tully Co. v. Walls, supra, does not even mention the cypress stumps. Therefore, as to the ancient relic stumps found on top of the island and in Spanish Moss Bend, it would not seem that we are forced to overcome the decision of any previous court which has accepted Mississippi's theory about their origin. On the other hand, Richard Proctor, who has lived in the area of Luna Bar for 91 years, testified that he had fished around cypress stumps in the river which had been there "as long as I been big enough to know." Moreover, he testified that he found a mink in an old cistern on the Bar, the existence of which is quite inconsistent with the Point Bar migration theory. The hard core [p300] of the island has an elevation between 133.2 feet and 133.5 feet; and the elevation on the adjacent Arkansas bank is between 132.2 feet and 139 feet. Again there [p301] is a compelling inference that while accretion may have added some soil to the island, the high hard core of the island was once connected with the mainland and severed from it by some abrupt and violent action of the river.

title: Mississippi v. Arkansas/Dissent Douglas


text:
Page:Self-help with illustrations of conduct and perseverance (IA selfhelpwithillu00smiliala).pdf/17

origin of this book may be briefly told.

Some fifteen years since, the author was requested to deliver an address before the members of some evening classes, which had been formed in a northern town for mutual improvement, under the following circumstances:—

Two or three young men of the humblest rank resolved to meet in the winter evenings, for the purpose of improving themselves by exchanging knowledge with each other. Their first meetings were held in the room of a cottage in which one of the members lived; and, as others shortly joined them, the place soon became inconveniently filled. When summer set in, they adjourned to the cottage garden outside; and the classes were then held in the open air, round a little boarded hut used as a garden-house, in which those who officiated as teachers set the sums, and gave forth the lessons of the evening. When the weather was fine, the youths might be seen, until a late hour, hanging round the door of the hut like a cluster of bees; but sometimes a sudden shower of rain would dash the sums from their slates, and disperse them for the evening unsatisfied.

Winter, with its cold nights, was drawing near, and what were they to do for shelter? Their numbers had by this time so increased, that no room of an ordinary cottage could accommodate them. Though they were for the most part young men earning comparatively small weekly wages, they resolved to inçur the risk of hiring a room; and, on making

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


text:
Page:Self-help with illustrations of conduct and perseverance (IA selfhelpwithillu00smiliala).pdf/18

 inquiry, they found a large dingy apartment to let, which had been used as a temporary Cholera Hospital. No tenant could be found for the place, which was avoided as if the plague still clung to it. But the mutual improvement youths, nothing daunted, hired the cholera room at so much a week, lit it up, placed a few benches and a deal table in it, and began their winter classes. The place soon presented a busy and cheerful appearance in the evenings. The teaching may have been, as no doubt it was, of a very rude and imperfect sort; but it was done with a will. Those who knew a little taught those who knew less—improving themselves while they improved the others; and, at all events, setting before them a good working example. Thus these youths—and there were also grown men amongst them—proceeded to teach themselves and each other, reading and writing, arithmetic and geography; and even mathematics, chemistry, and some of the modern languages.

About a hundred young men had thus come together, when, growing ambitious, they desired to have lectures delivered to them; and then it was that the author became acquainted with their proceedings. A party of them waited on him, for the purpose of inviting him to deliver an introductory address, or, as they expressed it, "to talk to them a bit"; prefacing the request by a modest statement of what they had done and what they were doing. He could not fail to be touched by the admirable self-helping spirit which they had displayed; and, though entertaining but slight faith in popular lecturing, he felt that a few words of encouragement, honestly and sincerely uttered, night not be without some good effect. And in this spirit he addressed them on more than one occasion, citing examples of what other men had done, as illustrations of what each might, in a greater or less degree, do for himself; and pointing out that their happiness and well-being as individuals in after life must necessarily depend mainly upon themselves—upon their own diligent self-culture, self-discipline, and self-control—and, above all, on that honest


text:
Page:Self-help with illustrations of conduct and perseverance (IA selfhelpwithillu00smiliala).pdf/19

 and upright performance of individual duty which is the glory of manly character.

There was nothing in the slightest degree new or original in this counsel, which was as old as the Proverbs of Solomon, and possibly quite as familiar. But old-fashioned though the advice may have been, it was welcomed. The youths went forward in their course; worked on with energy and resolution; and, reaching manhood, they went forth in various directions into the world, where many of them now occupy positions of trust and usefulness. Several years after the incidents referred to, the subject was unexpectedly recalled to the author's recollection by an evening visit from a young man—apparently fresh from the work of a foundry—who explained that he was now an employer of labour and a thriving man; and he was pleased to remember with gratitude the words spoken in all honesty to him and to his fellow-pupils years before, and even to attribute some measure of his success in life to the endeavours which he had made to work up to their spirit.

The author's personal interest having in this way heen attracted to the subject of Self-Help, he was accustomed to add to the memoranda from which he had addressed these young men; and to note down occasionally in his leisure evening moments, after the hours of business, the results of such reading, observation, and experience of life, as he conceived to bear upon it. One of the most prominent illustrations cited in his earlier addresses was that of George Stephenson, the engineer; and the original interest of the subject, as well as the special facilities and opportunities which the author possessed for illustrating Mr. Stephenson's life and career, induced him to prosecute it at his leisure, and eventually to publish his biography. The present volume is written in a similar spirit, as it has been similar in its origin. The illustra. tive sketches of character introduced are, however, necessarily less elaborately treated—being busts rather than full-length portraits, and, in many of the cases, only some striking feature has been noted; the lives of individuals, as indeed of nations,


text:
Hill v. Lockhart

Pursuant to a plea-bargaining agreement, petitioner pleaded guilty in an Arkansas court to charges of first-degree murder and theft of property, and the court accepted the plea, sentencing him, in accordance with the State's recommendations, to concurrent sentences of 35 years for the murder and 10 years for the theft. Petitioner later filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging, inter alia, that his guilty plea was involuntary by reason of ineffective assistance of counsel because his court-appointed attorney had misinformed him that if he pleaded guilty he would become eligible for parole after serving one-third of his prison sentence, whereas under Arkansas law petitioner, as a “second offender,” was required to serve one-half of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. The District Court denied habeas relief without a hearing, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The District Court did not err in declining to hold a hearing on petitioner's claim. Pp. 56–60.

(a) Where a defendant enters a guilty plea upon counsel's advice, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether the advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. The two-part standard adopted in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—requiring that the defendant show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different—applies to guilty plea challenges based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to satisfy the second, or “prejudice,” requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Pp. 56–60.

(b) In the present case it is unnecessary to determine whether there may be circumstances under which erroneous advice by counsel as to parole eligibility may be deemed constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, because petitioner's allegations were insufficient to satisfy the “prejudice” requirement. He did not allege in his habeas petition that, had counsel correctly informed him about his parole eligibility date, [p53] he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial. Nor did he allege any special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether to plead guilty. P. 60.

764 F.2d 1279, affirmed.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which STEVENS, J., joined, post, p. 60.

Jack T. Lassiter, by appointment of the Court, 471 U.S. 1064, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

John Steven Clark, Attorney General of Arkansas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Alice Ann Burns, Deputy Attorney General.

title: Hill v. Lockhart


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/54

was sitting in his house one day, counting his pots of honey, when there came a knock on the door.

“Fourteen,” said Pooh. “Come in. Fourteen. Or was it fifteen? Bother. That’s muddled me.”

“Hallo, Pooh,” said Rabbit.

“Hallo, Rabbit. Fourteen, wasn’t it?”

“What was?”

“My pots of honey what I was counting.”


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/55

 “Fourteen, that’s right.”

“Are you sure?”

“No,” said Rabbit. “Does it matter?”

“I just like to know,” said Pooh humbly. “So as I can say to myself: ‘I’ve got fourteen pots of honey left.’ Or fifteen, as the case may be. It’s sort of comforting.”

“Well, let’s call it sixteen,” said Rabbit. “What I came to say was: Have you seen Small anywhere about?”

“I don’t think so,” said Pooh. And then, after thinking a little more, he said: “Who is Small?”

“One of my friends-and-relations,” said Rabbit carelessly.

This didn’t help Pooh much, because Rabbit had so many friends-and-relations, and of such different sorts and sizes, that he didn’t know whether he ought to be looking for Small at the top of an oak-tree or in the petal of a buttercup.

“I haven’t seen anybody today,” said Pooh, “not so as to say ‘Hallo, Small,’ to. Did you want him for anything?”

“I don’t want him,” said Rabbit. “But it’s always useful to know where a friend-and-relation is, whether you want him or whether you don't.”

“Oh, I see,”’ said Pooh. “Is he lost?”’

“Well,” said Rabbit, “nobody has seen him for a long time, so I suppose he is. Anyhow,” he went on


text:
Page:Masnavi I Ma'navi.pdf/100

52 THE MASNAVI, [BOOK 1, carried off the palm, as all the colours of the other house were reflected on its walls with an endless variety of shades and hues.

Knowledge of the heart preferable to the knowledge of the sehools (p. 86).

The knowledge of men of heart bears them up,

The kuowledge of men of the body weighs them down, When ‘tis knowledge of the heart, it is a friend ;

When knowledge of the body, it is a burden.

God saith, ‘As an ass bearing a load of baoks,”?

The knowledge which is not of Him is a burden. Knowledge which comes not immediately from Him Endures no longer than the rouge of the tirewoman, Nevertheless, if you bear this burden in a right spirit "Twill be removed, and you will obtain joy.

See you bear not that burden out of vainglory,

Then you will behold a store of true knowledge within. When you mount the steed of this true knowledge, Straightway the burden will fall from your back.

If you drink not His cup, how will you escape lusts ? You, who seek no more of him than to name His name ? What do His name and fame suggest? The idea of Him, And the idea of Him guides you to union with Him, Know you a guide without something to which it guides ? Were there no roads there would be no ghouls.

Know you a name without a thing answering to it ? Have you ever plucked a rose (G2) from Gaf and Lam? You name His name; go, seek the reality named by it! Look for the moon in heaven, not in the water!

Tf you desire to rise above mere names and letters,

Make yourself free from self at one stroke!

Like a sword be without trace of soft iron;

Like a steel mirror, scour off all rast with contrition ; Make yourself pure from all attributes of self, 1 Koran Ixii. 5.

title: Page:Masnavi I Ma'navi.pdf/100


text:
Page:Self-help with illustrations of conduct and perseverance (IA selfhelpwithillu00smiliala).pdf/15

 is reason to doubt whether it is an object that ought to be set before youth at the beginning of it. Indeed, "how not to do it" is of all things the easiest learnt: it needs neither teaching, effort, self-denial, industry, patience, perseverance, nor judgment. Besides, readers do not care to know about the general who lost his battles, the engineer whose engines blew up, the architect who designed only deformities, the painter who never got beyond daubs, the schemer who did not invent his machine, the merchant who could not keep out of the Gazette. It is true, the best of men may fail, in the best of causes. But even these best of men did not try to fail, or regard their failure as meritorious; on the contrary, they tried to succeed, and looked upon failure as misfortune. Failure in any good cause is, however, honourable, whilst success in any bad cause is merely infamous. At the same time success in the good cause is unquestionably better than failure. But it is not the result in any case that is to be regarded so much as the aim and the effort, the patience, the courage, and the endeavour with which desirable and worthy objects are pursued;—

The object of the book briefly is, to re-inculcate these old-fashioned but wholesome lessons-which perhaps cannot be too often urged,—that youth must work in order to enjoy,—that nothing creditable can be accomplished without application and diligence,—that the student must not be daunted by difficulties, but conquer them by patience and


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/56

 importantly, “I promised Christopher Robin I'd Organize a Search for him, so come on.”

Pooh said good-bye affectionately to his fourteen pots of honey, and hoped they were fifteen; and he and Rabbit went out into the Forest.

“Now,” said Rabbit, “this is a Search, and I’ve Organized it⸺”

“Done what to it?” said Pooh.

“Organized it. Which means—well, it’s what you do to a Search, when you don’t all look in the same place at once. So I want you, Pooh, to search by the Six Pine Trees first, and then work your way towards Owl’s House, and look out for me there. Do you see?”’

“No,” said Pooh. “What⸺”

“Then I'll see you at Owl’s House in about an hour’s time.”

“Is Piglet organdized too?”’

“We all are,” said Rabbit, and off he went.

As soon as Rabbit was out of sight, Pooh remembered that he had forgotten to ask who Small was, and whether he was the sort of friend-and-relation who settled on one’s nose, or the sort who got trodden on by mistake, and as it was Too Late Now, he thought he would begin the Hunt by looking for Piglet, and asking him what they were looking for before he looked for it.


text: Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/57


text:
Hill v. Lockhart/Opinion of the Court

JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner William Lloyd Hill pleaded guilty in the Arkansas trial court to charges of first-degree murder and theft of property. More than two years later he sought federal habeas relief on the ground that his court-appointed attorney had failed to advise him that, as a second offender, he was required to serve one-half of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied relief without a hearing, and the en banc Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed by an equally divided court. We granted certiorari because of the difference between the result reached in the present case and that reached by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Strader v. Garrison, 611 F.2d 61 (1979). 470 U.S. 1049 (1985). We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit because we conclude that petitioner failed to allege the kind of prejudice from the allegedly incompetent advice of counsel that would have entitled him to a hearing.

Under Arkansas law, the murder charge to which petitioner pleaded guilty carried a potential sentence of 5 to 50 [p54] years or life in prison, along with a fine of up to $15,000. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-1502(3), 41-901(1)(a), 41-1101(1)(a) (1977). Petitioner's court-appointed attorney negotiated a plea agreement pursuant to which the State, in return for petitioner's plea of guilty to both the murder and theft charges, agreed to recommend that the trial judge impose concurrent prison sentences of 35 years for the murder and 10 years for the theft. Petitioner signed a written "plea statement" indicating that he understood the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty, that his plea had not been induced "by any force, threat, or promise" apart from the plea agreement itself, that he realized that the trial judge was not bound by the plea agreement and retained the sole "power of sentence," and that he had discussed the plea agreement with his attorney and was satisfied with his attorney's advice. The last two lines of the "plea statement," just above petitioner's signature, read: "I am aware of everything in this document. I fully understand what my rights are, and I voluntarily plead guilty because I am guilty as charged."

Petitioner appeared before the trial judge at the plea hearing, recounted the events that gave rise to the charges against him, affirmed that he had signed and understood the written "plea statement," reiterated that no "threats or promises" had been made to him other than the plea agreement itself, and entered a plea of guilty to both charges. The trial judge accepted the guilty plea and sentenced petitioner in accordance with the State's recommendations. The trial judge also granted petitioner credit for the time he had already served in prison, and told petitioner that "[y]ou will be required to serve at least one-third of your time before you are eligible for parole."

More than two years later petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging, inter alia, that his guilty plea was involuntary by reason of ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had misinformed him as to his parole eligibility [p55] date. According to petitioner, his attorney had told him that if he pleaded guilty he would become eligible for parole after serving one-third of his prison sentence. In fact, because petitioner previously had been convicted of a felony in Florida, he was classified under Arkansas law as a "second offender" and was required to serve one-half of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2829B(3) (1977). Petitioner asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to reduce his sentence to a term of years that would result in his becoming eligible for parole in conformance with his original expectations.

The District Court denied habeas relief without a hearing. The court noted that neither Arkansas nor federal law required that petitioner be informed of his parole eligibility date prior to pleading guilty, and concluded that, even if petitioner was misled by his attorney's advice, parole eligibility "is not such a consequence of [petitioner's] guilty plea that such misinformation renders his plea involuntary." The court also held that "even if an attorney's advice concerning such eligibility is not wholly accurate, such advice does not render that attorney's performance constitutionally inadequate."

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that parole eligibility is a collateral rather than a direct consequence of a guilty plea, of which a defendant need not be informed, and that the District Court did not err in declining to hold a hearing on petitioner's claims. 731 F.2d 568, 570–573 (1984). One judge dissented, arguing that a hearing should have been held to determine whether the attorney's alleged mistake in informing petitioner about "the applicable law" constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and warranted vacating the guilty plea. Id., at 573–574 (Heaney, J., dissenting). On rehearing, the en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District [p56] Court by an equally divided court. 764 F.2d 1279 (1985).

The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is "whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant." North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969); Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 493 (1962). Here petitioner does not contend that his plea was "involuntary" or "unintelligent" simply because the State through its officials failed to supply him with information about his parole eligibility date. We have never held that the United States Constitution requires the State to furnish a defendant with information about parole eligibility in order for the defendant's plea of guilty to be voluntary, and indeed such a constitutional requirement would be inconsistent with the current rules of procedure governing the entry of guilty pleas in the federal courts. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(c); Advisory Committee's Notes on 1974 Amendment to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, 18 U.S.C. App., p. 22 (federal courts generally are not required to inform defendant about parole eligibility before accepting guilty plea). Instead, petitioner relies entirely on the claim that his plea was "involuntary" as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney supplied him with information about parole eligibility that was erroneous. Where, as here, a defendant is represented by counsel during the plea process and enters his plea upon the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel's advice "was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970). As we explained in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973), a defendant who pleads guilty upon the advice of counsel "may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from counsel [p57] was not within the standards set forth in McMann." Id., at 267.

Our concern in McMann v. Richardson with the quality of counsel's performance in advising a defendant whether to plead guilty stemmed from the more general principle that all "defendants facing felony charges are entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel." 397 U.S., at 771, and n.14; see Reece v. Georgia, 350 U.S. 85, 90 (1955); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). Two Terms ago, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), we adopted a two-part standard for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. There, citing McMann, we reiterated that "[w]hen a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance, the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." 466 U.S., at 687–688. We also held, however, that "[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., at 694. This additional "prejudice" requirement was based on our conclusion that "[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment." Id., at 691.

Although our decision in Strickland v. Washington dealt with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a capital sentencing proceeding, and was premised in part on the similarity between such a proceeding and the usual criminal trial, the same two-part standard seems to us applicable to ineffective-assistance claims arising out of the plea process. Certainly our justifications for imposing the "prejudice" requirement in Strickland v. Washington are also relevant in the context of guilty pleas:

"The government is not responsible for, and hence not able to prevent, attorney errors that will result in reversal of a conviction or sentence. Attorney errors come in [p58] an infinite variety and are as likely to be utterly harmless in a particular case as they are to be prejudicial. They cannot be classified according to likelihood of causing prejudice. Nor can they be defined with sufficient precision to inform defense attorneys correctly just what conduct to avoid. Representation is an art, and an act or omission that is unprofessional in one case may be sound or even brilliant in another. Even if a defendant shows that particular errors of counsel were unreasonable, therefore, the defendant must show that they actually had an adverse effect on the defense." Id., at 693, 104 S.Ct., at 2067.

In addition, we believe that requiring a showing of "prejudice" from defendants who seek to challenge the validity of their guilty pleas on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel will serve the fundamental interest in the finality of guilty pleas we identified in United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (1979):

Every inroad on the concept of finality undermines confidence in the integrity of our procedures; and, by increasing the volume of judicial work, inevitably delays and impairs the orderly administration of justice. The impact is greatest when new grounds for setting aside guilty pleas are approved because the vast majority of criminal convictions result from such pleas. Moreover, the concern that unfair procedures may have resulted in the conviction of an innocent defendant is only rarely raised by a petition to set aside a guilty plea. Id., at 784, 99 S.Ct., at 2087 (quoting United States v. Smith, 440 F.2d 521, 528–529 (CA7 1971) (Stevens, J., dissenting)).

We hold, therefore, that the two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In the context of guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. Washington test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in Tollett v. Henderson, supra, and [p59] McMann v. Richardson, supra. The second, or "prejudice," requirement, on the other hand, focuses on whether counsel's constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process. In other words, in order to satisfy the "prejudice" requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.

In many guilty plea cases, the "prejudice" inquiry will closely resemble the inquiry engaged in by courts reviewing ineffective-assistance challenges to convictions obtained through a trial. For example, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to investigate or discover potentially exculpatory evidence, the determination whether the error "prejudiced" the defendant by causing him to plead guilty rather than go to trial will depend on the likelihood that discovery of the evidence would have led counsel to change his recommendation as to the plea. This assessment, in turn, will depend in large part on a prediction whether the evidence likely would have changed the outcome of a trial. Similarly, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the "prejudice" inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial. See, e.g., Evans v. Meyer, 742 F.2d 371, 375 (CA7 1984) ("It is inconceivable to us that [the defendant] would have gone to trial on a defense of intoxication, or that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received"). As we explained in Strickland v. Washington, supra, these predictions [p60] of the outcome at a possible trial, where necessary, should be made objectively, without regard for the "idiosyncrasies of the particular decisionmaker." Id., at 695.

In the present case the claimed error of counsel is erroneous advice as to eligibility for parole under the sentence agreed to in the plea bargain. App. 31. We find it unnecessary to determine whether there may be circumstances under which erroneous advice by counsel as to parole eligibility may be deemed constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, because in the present case we conclude that petitioner's allegations are insufficient to satisfy the Strickland v. Washington requirement of "prejudice." Petitioner did not allege in his habeas petition that, had counsel correctly informed him about his parole eligibility date, he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial. He alleged no special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether or not to plead guilty. Indeed, petitioner's mistaken belief that he would become eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence would seem to have affected not only his calculation of the time he likely would serve if sentenced pursuant to the proposed plea agreement, but also his calculation of the time he likely would serve if he went to trial and were convicted.

Because petitioner in this case failed to allege the kind of "prejudice" necessary to satisfy the second half of the Strickland v. Washington test, the District Court did not err in declining to hold a hearing on petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

title: Hill v. Lockhart/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:Masnavi I Ma'navi.pdf/101

STORY XV.] COUNSELS OF RESERVE. 53 That you may see your own pure bright essence!1 Yea, see in your heart the knowledge of the Prophet, Without book, without tutor, without preceptor. The Prophet saith, "He is one of my people, Whoso is of like temper and spirit with me. His soul beholds me by the selfsame light Whereby I myself behold him,- Without traditions and scriptures and histories, In the fount of the water of life." Learn the mystery, "I was last night a Kurd, And this morning am become an Arab."1 This mystery of "last night" and "this morning" Leads you into the road that brings you to God. But if you want an instance of this secret knowledge, Hear the story of the Greeks and the Chinese.

STORY XV. Conscis of Reserve given by the Prophet to his Freedman Zaid (p. 87). At dawn the Prophet said to Zaid, "How is it with thee this morning, O pure disciple?" He replied, "Thy faithful slave am I." Again he said, "If the garden of faith has bloomed, show a token of it." He answered, "I was athirst many days, By night I slept not for the burning pangs of love; So that I passed by days and nights, As the point of a spear glances off a shield. For in that state all faith is one, A hundred thousand years and a moment are all one; World without beginning and world without end are one; Reason finds no entrance when mind is thus lost." The Prophet again urged Zaid to deliver to him a present from that celestial region, as a token that he had really been there in the spirit. Zaid answered that he had seen ¹ Syad Abu'l Wafa, an unlettered Kurd, found a paper with the words Bismillah upon it, and, after spend. ing the night in prayer, found him- self able to understand Arabic (Luck- now Commentator),

title: Page:Masnavi I Ma'navi.pdf/101


text:
Hill v. Lockhart/Concurrence White

JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, concurring in the judgment.

The only question properly before the Court is whether petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in a federal habeas proceeding where he has alleged that his guilty plea [p61] entered in state court was involuntary and resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel. I write separately to state why, under the particular facts of this case, petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his habeas claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

It is necessary, in my view, to focus on the "plea statement" signed by petitioner. The statement is a standardized form to be completed by defense counsel, in consultation with his client, and submitted to the court for consideration. The form calls for the insertion of specific information in the appropriate spaces. Among the items to be included are the crime with which the defendant is charged, whether that crime is a felony or a misdemeanor, and the maximum sentence and/or fine defendant could receive if found guilty of the offense. There is also a blank space in which to indicate the number of prior convictions which the defendant has suffered. App. 28.

As the majority indicates, petitioner signed such a written "plea statement" indicating that he understood the charges against him, the consequences of pleading guilty, and that he was "aware of everything in this document." Ante, at 54; App. 28. In the space provided for disclosing the number of prior convictions, petitioner's form reads "0." Ibid.

Although it is unclear whether petitioner or his counsel filled out the form and inserted this number, there is no allegation that petitioner told his attorney about his previous Florida felony conviction. Indeed, it is incredible that the attorney would have filled in the "0" had he known there was a prior conviction. Petitioner thus has no factual basis for suggesting that his attorney's advice was incompetent, or that he was affirmatively misled by counsel as to his earliest possible parole eligibility date. Without an allegation that the attorney knew of petitioner's prior conviction, but failed to inform him of the applicability of the Arkansas "second offender" statute, there is no reason to provide petitioner with an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance [p62] of counsel. None of his allegations, if proved, would entitle petitioner to relief, as there is nothing in the record to indicate "that [defense] counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–688 (1984); see also McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970).

Were it not for the misinformation in the plea statement—had petitioner's attorney known of a prior conviction and still informed petitioner that he would be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence—petitioner would be entitled to an evidentiary hearing and an opportunity to prove that counsel's failure to advise him of the effect of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2829B(3) (1977) amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The failure of an attorney to inform his client of the relevant law clearly satisfies the first prong of the Strickland analysis adopted by the majority, as such an omission cannot be said to fall within "the wide range of professionally competent assistance" demanded by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland v. Washington, supra, at 690.

Moreover, an examination of the record reveals that petitioner alleged sufficient facts to "show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Ante, at 59. In the first two paragraphs of his habeas petition, petitioner alleged, in pertinent part, as follows:

"I agreed to plead guilty with the understanding that I'd get 35 yrs. for 1st degree murder & 10 years concurrent for theft of property, and that I would only have ⅓ of my sentence to do, less good time

"My lawyer told me that a plea negotiation was binding to both sides and that the Court would impose the sentence agreed to by me and the prosecutor. I did not know that the Court could deviate from the concessions agreed to without informing me, nor that it could say to do 1/3 minimum enstead [sic] of just 1/3, until parole." App. 8–9.

[p63] Later, petitioner made the following objections to the Magistrate's proposed order:

"Petitioner's first two arguments should be restated to allege that his guilty plea was involuntary in that his counsel improperly advised him as to his earliest possible parole eligibility date and as a result of that incorrect advice the Petitioner did not fully understand the consequences of his plea." Id., at 40.

"The Petitioner contends that his counsel's erroneous advice concerning his potential parole eligibility date was a critical factor in his decision to enter a guilty plea. It was an important consequence of his plea which he did not understand." Id., at 41–42.

"It is Petitioner's contention that he would not have entered the negotiated plea had his attorney correctly advised him that he would be required to serve one-half of his sentence less good time under Arkansas law." Id., at 46–47.

In sum, because petitioner failed to allege that his attorney knew about his prior conviction but failed to inform him of the applicability of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2829B(3) (1977), I find that petitioner did not allege sufficient facts to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Had petitioner made such an allegation, however, he would be entitled to such a hearing, as he clearly alleged more than sufficient facts that, if proved, would show that he was prejudiced by his counsel's error, and thus entitled to habeas relief.

title: Hill v. Lockhart/Concurrence White


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/58

 “And it’s no good looking at the Six Pine Trees for Piglet,” said Pooh to himself, ‘“because he’s been organdized in a special place of his own. So I shall have to look for the Special Place first. I wonder where it is.” And he wrote it down in his head like this:

“Which makes it look like a bothering sort of day,” thought Pooh, as he stumped along.

The next moment the day became very bothering indeed, because Pooh was so busy not looking where he was going that he stepped on a piece of the Forest which had been left out by mistake; and he only just had time to think to himself: “I’m flying. What Owl does. I wonder how you stop” when he stopped.

Bump!

“Ow!” squeaked something.

“That’s funny,” thought Pooh. “I said ‘Ow!’ without really oo’ing.”

“Help!” said a small, high voice.


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/59

 “That’s me again,” thought Pooh. “I’ve had an Accident, and fallen down a well, and my voice has gone all squeaky and works before I’m ready for it, because I’ve done something to myself inside, Bother!”

“Help—help!”

“There you are! I say things when I’m not trying. So it must be a very bad Accident." And then he thought that perhaps when he did try to say things he wouldn’t be able to; so, to make sure, he said loudly: “A Very Bad Accident to Pooh Bear.”

“Pooh!” squeaked the voice.

“It’s Piglet!” cried Pooh eagerly. “Where are you?”


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/60

 “Underneath,” said Piglet in an underneath sort of way.

“Underneath what?”

“You,” squeaked Piglet. “Get up!”

“Oh!” said Pooh, and scrambled up as quickly as he could. “Did I fall on you, Piglet?”

“You fell on me,” said Piglet, feeling himself all over.

“I didn’t mean to,” said Pooh sorrowfully.

“I didn’t mean to be underneath,” said Piglet sadly. “But I’m all right now, Pooh, and I am so glad it was you.”

“What’s happened?” said Pooh. “Where are we?”

“I think we’re in a sort of Pit. I was walking along, looking for somebody, and then suddenly I wasn’t any more, and just when I got up to see where I was, something fell on me. And it was you.”

“So it was,” said Pooh.


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/61

 “Yes,” said Piglet. “Pooh,” he went on nervously, and came a little closer, “do you think we’re in a trap?”

Pooh hadn’t thought about it at all, but now he nodded. For suddenly he remembered how he and Piglet had once made a Pooh Trap for Heffalumps, and he guessed what had happened. He and Piglet had fallen into a Heffalump Trap for Poohs! That was what it was.

“What happens when the Heffalump comes?” asked Piglet tremblingly, when he had heard the news.

“Perhaps he won’t notice you, Piglet,” said Pooh encouragingly, “because you’re a Very Small Animal.”

“But he'll notice you, Pooh.”

“He'll notice me, and I shall notice him,” said Pooh, thinking it out. “We'll notice each other for a long time, and then he’ll say: ‘Ho-ho!’ ”

Piglet shivered a little at the thought of that “Ho-ho!” and his ears began to twitch.

“W-what will you say?” he asked.

Pooh tried to think of something he would say, but the more he thought, the more he felt that there is no real answer to “Ho-ho!” said by a Heffalump in the sort of voice this Heffalump was going to say it in.

“I shan’t say anything,” said Pooh at last. “I shall


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/62

 just hum to myself, as if I was waiting for something.”

“Then perhaps he'll say, ‘Ho-ho!’ again?” suggested Piglet anxiously.

“He will,” said Pooh.

Piglet’s ears twitched so quickly that he had to lean them against the side of the Trap to keep them quiet.

“He will say it again,” said Pooh, “and I shall go on humming. And that will Upset him. Because when you say ‘Ho-ho’ twice, in a gloating sort of way, and the other person only hums, you suddenly find, just as you begin to say it the third time—that—well, you find⸺”

“What?”

“That it isn’t,” said Pooh.

“Isn’t what?”

Pooh knew what he meant, but, being a Bear of Very Little Brain, couldn’t think of the words.

“Well, it just isn’t,” he said again.

“You mean it isn’t ho-ho-ish any more?” said Piglet hopefully.

Pooh looked at him admiringly and said that that was what he meant—if you went on humming all the time, because you couldn’t go on saying ‘“‘Ho-ho!” forever.

“But he'll say something else,”’ said Piglet.

“That’s just it. He’ll say: ‘What’s all this?’ And


text:
Lockhart v. Fretwell

An Arkansas jury convicted respondent Fretwell of capital felony murder and sentenced him to death, finding, inter alia, the aggravating factor that the murder, which occurred during a robbery, was committed for pecuniary gain. On direct appeal, Fretwell argued that his sentence was unconstitutional under the then-existing Eighth Circuit precedent of Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258, because it was based on an aggravating factor that duplicated an element of the underlying felony—murder in the course of a robbery. However, the State Supreme Court declined to consider whether to follow Collins because Fretwell had not objected to the aggravator's use during the sentencing phase, and that court later rejected a state habeas corpus challenge in which he raised an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The District Court conditionally vacated his sentence on federal habeas, holding that counsel's failure to raise the Collins objection amounted to prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, in which deficient performance and prejudice were identified as the two components of any ineffective-assistance claim. Although the Court of Appeals had overruled Collins, it affirmed, reasoning that the trial court would have sustained a Collins objection had it been made at Fretwell's trial and the jury would not have sentenced him to death.

Held: Counsel's failure to make the Collins objection during the sentencing proceeding did not constitute prejudice within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, supra. To show prejudice under Strickland, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's errors are so serious as to deprive him of a trial whose result is unfair or unreliable, id., at 687, not merely that the outcome would have been different. Unfairness or unreliability does not result unless counsel's ineffectiveness deprives the defendant of a substantive or procedural right to which the law entitles him. The sentencing proceeding's result in the present case was neither unfair nor unreliable, because the Court of Appeals, which had decided Collins in 1985, overruled it in Perry v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1384, four years later. Thus, respondent suffered no prejudice from his counsel's deficient performance. Contrary to Fretwell's argument, prejudice is not determined under the laws existing at the [p365] time of trial. Although contemporary assessment of counsel's conduct is used when determining the deficient performance component of the Strickland test, the prejudice component, with its focus on fairness and reliability, does not implicate the same concerns that motivated the former component's adoption: that a more rigid requirement could dampen the ardor and impair the independence of defense counsel, discourage the acceptance of assigned cases, and undermine the trust between attorney and client. The instant holding is not inconsistent with the retroactivity rule announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310. The circumstances that gave rise to that rule do not apply to claims raised by a federal habeas petitioner, who has no interest in the finality of the state-court judgment under which he was incarcerated and, unlike the States, ordinarily has no claim of reliance on past judicial precedent as a basis for his actions. Pp. 368–373.

946 F.2d 571, reversed.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., post, p. 373, and THOMAS, J., post, p. 375, filed concurring opinions. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 376.

Winston Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Clint Miller, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and J. Brent Standridge, Assistant Attorney General.

Amy L. Wax argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Mueller, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, and Richard A. Friedman.

Ricky R. Medlock, by appointment of the Court, 504 U.S. 984, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

title: Lockhart v. Fretwell


text: Author:Thomas Tallis

title: Author:Thomas Tallis


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/63

 then I shall say—and this is a very good idea, Piglet, which I’ve just thought of—I shall say: ‘It’s a trap for a Heffalump which I’ve made, and I’m waiting for the Heffalump to fall in.’ And I shall go on humming. That will Unsettle him.”

“Pooh!” cried Piglet, and now it was his turn to be the admiring one. “You’ve saved us!”

“Have I?” said Pooh, not feeling quite sure.

But Piglet was quite sure; and his mind ran on, and he saw Pooh and the Heffalump talking to each other, and he thought suddenly, and a little sadly, that it would have been rather nice if it had been Piglet and the Heffalump talking so grandly to each other, and not Pooh, much as he loved Pooh; because he really had more brain than Pooh, and the conversation would go better if he and not Pooh were doing one side of it, and it would be comforting afterwards in the evenings to look back on the day when he answered a Heffalump back as bravely as if the Heffalump wasn’t there. It seemed so easy now. He knew just what he would say:

H (gloatingly): “Ho-ho!”

P (carelessly): “Tra-la-la, tra-la-la.”

H (surprised, and not quite so sure of himself): “Ho-ho!”

P (more carelessly still): "Tiddle-um-tum, tiddle-um-tum.”

H (beginning to say Ho-ho and turning


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/64

 it awkwardly into a cough): “H’r’m! What’s all this?”

P (surprised): “Hullo! This is a trap I’ve made, and I’m waiting for a Heffalump to fall into it.”

H (greatly disappointed): “Oh!” (after a long silence): “Are you sure?”

P: “Yes.”

H: “Oh!” (nervously): “I—I thought it was a trap I’d made to catch Piglets.”

P (surprised): “Oh, no!”

H: “Oh!” (apologetically): “I—I must have got it wrong, then.”

P: “I’m afraid so.” (politely): “I’m sorry.” (he goes on humming.)

H: ‘“Well—well—I—well. I suppose I’d better be getting back?”

P (looking up carelessly): “Must you? Well, if you see Christopher Robin anywhere, you might tell him I want him.”

H (eager to please): “Certainly! Certainly!” (he hurries off.)

P (who wasn’t going to be there, but we find we can’t do without him): “Oh, Piglet, how brave and clever you are!”

P (modestly): “Not at all, Pooh.” (And then, when Christopher Robin comes, Pooh can tell him all about it.)


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/65

 While Piglet was dreaming this happy dream, and Pooh was wondering again whether it was fourteen or fifteen, the Search for Small was still going on all over the Forest. Small’s real name was Very Small Beetle, but he was called Small for short, when he was spoken to at all, which hardly ever happened except when somebody said: “Really, Small!” He had been staying with Christopher Robin for a few seconds, and he started round a gorse-bush for exercise, but instead of coming back the other way, as expected, he hadn’t, so nobody knew where he was.

“I expect he’s just gone home,” said Christopher Robin to Rabbit.

“Did he say Good-bye-and-thank-you-for-a-nice-time?” said Rabbit.


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/66

 “He'd only just said how-do-you-do,”’ said Christopher Robin.

“Ha!” said Rabbit. After thinking a little, he went on: “Has he written a letter saying how much he enjoyed himself, and how sorry he was he had to go so suddenly?”

Christopher Robin didn’t think he had.

“Ha!” said Rabbit again, and looked very important. ‘“This is Serious. He is Lost. We must begin the Search at once.”

Christopher Robin, who was thinking of something else, said: “Where’s Pooh?”—but Rabbit had gone. So he went into his house and drew a picture of Pooh going a long walk at about seven o'clock in the morning, and then he climbed to the top of his tree and climbed down again, and then he wondered what Pooh was doing, and went across the Forest to see.

It was not long before he came to the Gravel Pit, and he looked down, and there were Pooh and Piglet, with their backs to him, dreaming happily.

“Ho-ho!” said Christopher Robin loudly and suddenly.

Piglet jumped six inches in the air with Surprise and Anxiety, but Pooh went on dreaming.

“It’s the Heffalump!” thought Piglet nervously.

“Now, then!” He hummed in his throat a little, so that none of the words should stick, and then, in


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/68

 the most delightfully easy way, he said: “Tra-la-la, tra-la-la,” as if he had just thought of it. But he didn’t look round, because if you look round and see a Very Fierce Heffalump looking down at you, sometimes you forget what you were going to say. “Rum-tum-tum-tiddle-um,” said Christopher Robin in a voice like Pooh’s. Because Pooh had once invented a song which went:

So whenever Christopher Robin sings it, he always sings it in a Pooh-voice, which seems to suit it better.


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/69

 “He’s said the wrong thing,” thought Piglet anxiously. “He ought to have said, ‘Ho-ho!’ again. Perhaps I had better say it for him.” And, as fiercely as he could, Piglet said: “Ho-ho!”

“How did you get there, Piglet?” said Christopher Robin in his ordinary voice.

“This is Terrible,” thought Piglet. “First he talks in Pooh’s voice, and then he talks in Christopher Robin’s voice, and he’s doing it so as to Unsettle me.” And being now Completely Unsettled, he said very quickly and squeakily: “This is a trap for Poohs, and I’m waiting to fall in it, ho-ho, what’s all this, and then I say ho-ho again.”

“What?” said Christopher Robin.

“A trap for ho-ho’s,” said Piglet huskily. “I’ve just made it, and I’m waiting for the ho-ho to come-come.”

How long Piglet would have gone on like this I don’t know, but at that moment Pooh woke up suddenly and decided that it was sixteen. So he got up; and as he turned his head so as to soothe himself in that awkward place in the middle of the back where something was tickling him, he saw Christopher Robin.

“Hallo!” he shouted joyfully.

“Hallo, Pooh.”

Piglet looked up, and looked away again. And he felt so Foolish and Uncomfortable that he had


text:
Page:New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (Rodkinson) Volume 1.pdf/157

 one intended to observe a commandment, but was accidentally prevented and could not accomplish it, it is credited to him as if he had actually observed it." Thus the passage "thought upon His name" is interpreted.

Said R. Hanina b. Ide: Whosoever observes a commandment as prescribed, will not be the recipient of bad tidings, for it is written [Eccl. viii. 5]: "Whoso keepeth the commandment will experience no evil thing." R. Assi, others say R. Hanina, said: "Even if the Holy One, blessed be He, has so decreed it (that he shall experience evil things) the decree is annulled through the prayers of this man, as it is written [ibid. 4]: "Because the word of a king is powerful, and who may say unto him, what doest thou?' and this immediately followed by the passage: 'Whoso keepeth the commandment will experience no evil thing.'"

R. Aba in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Two scholars who mutually instruct themselves in the Law, the Holy One, blessed be He, hearkens to their voices, for it is written [Song of Solomon, viii. 13]: "Thou that dwellest in the gardens, the companions listen for thy voice; oh, let me hear it"; but if they do not do so, they cause the Shekhina to move away from Israel, for further it is written [ibid. 14]: "Flee away, my beloved," etc.

The same in the name of the same authority said: The Holy One, blessed be He, loves two scholars who combine to study the Law, for it is written [Solomon's Song, ii. 4]: "And his banner over me was love." Said Rabha: "Provided they know something of Law, but have no instructor to teach them at the place where they reside."

The same said again: "The man who lends his money is more deserving than the charitable man, and the most deserving of all is he who gives charity surreptitiously or invests money in partnership (with the poor)." Furthermore he said: "If thy teacher is jealous (for thy welfare) and as spiteful as a serpent (if thou neglect thy studies), carry him on thy shoulders (because from him thou wilt learn), and if an ignoramus plays the pious, do not live in his neighborhood."

R. Kahana, according to others R. Assi, and according to still others R. Abba in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, said: "Whoso raises a vicious dog in his house prevents charity to proceed therefrom (for the poor are afraid to go in as it is written [Job, vi. 14]: "As though I were one who refuseth kind-


text:
Page:The House at Pooh Corner (1961).pdf/70

 decided to run away to Sea and be a Sailor, when suddenly he saw something.

“Pooh!” he cried. “There’s something climbing up your back.”

“I thought there was,” said Pooh.

“It’s Small!” cried Piglet.

“Oh, that’s who it is, is it?” said Pooh.

“Christopher Robin, I’ve found Small!” cried Piglet.

“Well done, Piglet,” said Christopher Robin.

And at these encouraging words Piglet felt quite happy again, and decided not to be a Sailor after all. So when Christopher Robin had helped them out of the Gravel Pit, they all went off together hand-in-hand.

And two days later Rabbit happened to meet Eeyore in the Forest.

“Hallo, Eeyore,” he said, “what are you looking for?”


text:
Page:New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (Rodkinson) Volume 1.pdf/158

 ness to a friend." ("As though I were one who refuseth" is expressed in Hebrew by one word, viz., lamos; in Greek λαμος means dog, and hence R. Simeon's inference.) Said R. Na'hman: "He even forsaketh the fear of the Lord," for it is written at the end of the verse [ibid., ibid.]: "And forsaketh the fear of the Lord."

Once a woman went into a certain house to bake, and a dog, through barking at her, caused her to have a miscarriage. Said the landlord of the house "Fear him not, I have deprived him of his teeth and claws"; but the woman answered: "Throw thy favors to the dogs, the child is already gone!"

Said R. Huna: It is written [Eccl. xi. 9]: "Rejoice, oh young man, in thy childhood, and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youthful vigor, and walk firmly in the ways of thy heart and in the direction in which thy eyes see; but know thou that concerning all these things God will bring thee into judgment." (Does not this passage contradict itself? Nay.) Up to the words "and know" are words of the misleader, and from there on are words of the good leader. Resh Lakish said up to "(and) know" the theoretical part of the law is meant, and from there on it speaks of good acts.

"Knee-buckles are clean," etc. Said R. Jehudah: This (birith) means arm-bandages. To this R. Joseph objected: "We have learned that a birith is (virtually) clean, and one may go out with it on the Sabbath. If it is an arm-band, how can that be? The latter is subject to defilement." It means that the birith is worn on the same part of the leg as the arm-bandage on the arm.

Rabbin and R. Huna sat before R. Jeremiah, who slumbered, and Rabbin said: "A birith is worn on one of the thighs and kebalim on both shins." But R. Huna said both are worn on both shins, but the chain attached to the birith on both shins is called kebalim, and the chain makes them a perfect vessel. At this point of the argument R. Jeremiah awoke and said: "I thank you. Even so I heard R. Johanan say." When R. Dimi came to Neherdai, he sent to tell the sages: My former information in the name of R. Johanan that the Tzitz was a woven thing was an error, as so was said in his name. Whence the adduction that any ornament is subject to becoming defiled? From the Tzitz, the golden plate on the


text:
Page:The Reshaping of British Railways (Beeching Report).pdf/3

Rh


text:
Page:The Sense of the Past (London, W. Collins Sons & Co., 1917).djvu/102

 the sense, in an extraordinary degree, of something done in passion, and of an experience far stranger than a mere glimpse, or than, if it came to that, a positive perpetration, of murder. He wondered that a knowledge of anything less than murder could be able to constitute in one's soul such a closed back room; but what was of course now most present to him was that he had hitherto grasped of life a sadly insignificant shred. There were at least as many more things in it for one's philosophy than poor Hamlet himself was to have found in heaven and earth. He went about and took his food and did his business; he had tested the truth of the promise made, the promise that he should successively present, even to himself, on reappearance; he was in fact fully aware that he had never yet had for the world—yes, and perhaps too for himself—so much to rest on as in the appearance he presented.

Nothing perhaps was more strange than that what he had accepted he still accepted; he was not attended with disorders or fears; he had neither alarms nor lapses nor returns, neither cold sweats nor hot flushes: it was much nearer true that he found in the excitement—for it was after all, however muffled and compressed, the felt throb of a pulse—an inordinate charm. But if it might be a charm, for the time, as much as one would, just so it might become later on, and was probably sure to, a terror; whatever form one should finally 88


text:
Page:The Sense of the Past (London, W. Collins Sons & Co., 1917).djvu/103

 best know it by, he wanted in some single instance to impart his knowledge. He desired, he chose, that one other person, anxiously selected, should share his charge of it. One person would do—in fact more than one would spoil everything. There was a difference for him that he conceived this would make if he could only be sure of the safety of the vessel. His word once dropped into that moral receptacle and the key turned upon it and pocketed, he should come the more assuredly back to life, or might rather, and as for the first time, attack and perhaps surmount it. The motive he obeyed was indeed on the occasion of the visit itself as completely expressed as might be. The Ambassador, blest and distinguished man, was not a personal friend, was only the friend of friends. These latter had so taken the field that Ralph was more "introduced" than he had ever been to anyone, or than his Excellency could ever have known any bearer of letters. Such, however, was the high urbanity of this personage that our young man was as well received as if the heralds had been dumb. To the blare of trumpets Ralph had moreover not himself contributed, leaving his letters at the Embassy as little as elsewhere: he only knew that suggestion would have been applied from over the sea without action of his own, and this in fact put further delay at odds with good manners. It was sufficient that the representative of his country should be pre-eminent, accomplished, 89


text:
Page:The Sense of the Past (London, W. Collins Sons & Co., 1917).djvu/104

 witty and kind, and that, much addicted to good cigars, he should usually be accessible at about six o'clock.

On the spot of course and in presence of his easy host, who must have adopted, he could see, defensively and professionally, the plan of taking for granted only the usual—it was naturally there and so difficult enough to state; at the same time that he had not been three minutes in the room without feeling how fully he should at last deliver himself. The way, it was true, was not smoothed by the Ambassador's remark that he knew all about him: there was at present so much more to know than even an Ambassador could possibly imagine. He remembered his excellent father; and was also good enough to mention that he remembered his beautiful mother, concerning whose later years he inquired; and they talked for some minutes of the several friends who had, as his Excellency was so good as to call it, brought them together, and of whom our young man found himself surprised, for particular reasons, to be able to give coherent news. He felt the charm of his host's tone, with its note of free recognition, which seemed to make him for the moment something almost of an equal; and yet even while he wondered if these were perhaps not, as minor instances, high refinements of that very diplomacy which he had studied, afar off, in dusty books and tracked through the wilderness of history, he was quite 90


text:
Page:The Sense of the Past (London, W. Collins Sons & Co., 1917).djvu/105

 aware of not being made ashamed, as a person received with such special marks possibly ought to have been, of what he had there up his sleeve. He was only a little abashed when the Ambassador, who had read everything, spoke of having read his book and found it remarkably clever. He himself had learnt three days after landing in England how clever it wasn't, but the case was now above all that this faint effort of a groundless presumption had forfeited even such claim to existence as might belong to some nameless baby of the prehistoric age who should have died at birth. But only after he had shaken his head quite sadly and too sharply had he the sense of having, by this contradiction, appeared to attribute to his entertainer more innocence than was altogether just. He had not at all events come to put him in his place, and his need was immediately, that this should be clear, to explain for what he had come—a question the more urgent as he was really full of it to the brim. "I know but too well," he said, "that nine compatriots out of ten approach you with a Story. But no strayed maniac of them all can have bored you with one like mine."

The Ambassador, from his deep chair, in his "own" room on the ground floor, where books and papers were many and colours brown and sounds soft, smiled across the old Turkey rug through his beard and his fumes. "Is it very, very good?" 91


text:
Page:The Sense of the Past (London, W. Collins Sons & Co., 1917).djvu/106

 "For credibility no. But for everything else," said poor Ralph, "lovely."

"And very, very long?"

"Only as long—beyond the prime fact or two—as your Excellency himself may make it. It hasn't for me somehow at all that sort of dimension. I don't know at least how long it is. I wish I did!"

"Do you mean," the Ambassador asked, "that it's only broad? Why don't you, with your cleverness," he pursued before his visitor could answer, "put it on paper?"

"They generally do write them, you mean?" Ralph on his side returned. "I daresay, but if I did, you see, you might be obliged by the rules of your position to reply—not that I'm at all acquainted with them; and any reply is exactly what I ask your leave to assure you that my communication absolutely doesn't look for. I simply want to make it—so that I shan't be the only person living to know; and my sole request of you is kindly to keep it altogether to yourself. There's nothing in the world you can 'do.' You can't lend me money. I've the advantage, which I fully appreciate, of having enough for my business. I'm not in love—or at least if I am it's not what I propose to trouble you with. I'm not in a scrape—that is I hope I'm not; for if I shall prove to be I fear the good offices of the Embassy even will scarce avail me and that I shall have to get out of it very much as I've got in." 92


text:
Page:The Sense of the Past (London, W. Collins Sons & Co., 1917).djvu/107

 "And how have you got in?" the Ambassador went on.

Ralph already felt how right his idea had been and how this application of it would help him. It was as if he had held in his hand the key he wished to confide for safe keeping. His friend's face—by this time quite that of a friend—was by itself as perfect a promise as the case required. It was exactly as if the key—too precious an object to be carried about the person were to be taken over before his eyes and placed in the official strong-box. "I think, sir, you will make it long."

"That won't matter if I don't find it so."

His Excellency had spoken with such kindness that Ralph laughed out. It was the kindness of indulgence; he saw, as he thought, what was behind it. "I'm at the worst," he replied, "one of the quiet kind—for I'm sure you see all sorts; but I shall nevertheless, if you'll pardon me, need to move a little as I talk." He was in fact out of his chair, and as he remained there before the fire, on the rug, the men exchanged a long look, a look which, as it gave the younger everything he wanted, must also more or less have comprised some gain for the elder. Ralph was willing to be taken for anything: he didn't mind the estimate—all that was important was the considerate form. It had quite begun, as we have seen, to draw him on and on. "I shan't even expect you to believe me," he after an instant resumed, "I 93


text:
Page:The Sense of the Past (London, W. Collins Sons & Co., 1917).djvu/108

 simply say to myself that my secret is one that your own interest will lead you to keep—though it can be but an interest merely intellectual, not at all official; if you permit me," our young man finally smiled, "to make the difference. I somehow see that you'll be sure to feel that giving it any publicity would somehow spoil it for you."

The Ambassador blandly smoked. "You mean I must keep it for my pleasure?"

Ralph, who had declined with thanks so much as a cigarette, met this from where he had continued to stand. "That will be exactly my strength. It will leave me as much at ease as the seal of confession. And there's another thing," he frankly added, "I don't fear to appear ridiculous; but with your Excellency, naturally, it won't be the same."

His Excellency was too delightful. "You don't fear to appear ridiculous to me. That's all. I can meet you at least on the same ground. I shan't fear to appear so to you. I'm perfectly willing," he went on, "to give you my definite word. If you do tell nobody else you may take it that I shall tell as little."

Ralph watched him a moment. "You think I will tell somebody else?"

The Ambassador got up at this to help himself from the chimney-piece to another cigar, the end of which he nipped off and lighted before replying. When he did reply it was with a reassuring hand on 94


text:
Page:Batman upon Bartolome.djvu/15

 ¶TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE Lord,, of the moſt noble , , gouernour of the Queenes Maieſties towne of Barwicke, & Lord Warden of the Eaſt Marches of England, anempteſt Scotland, & one of the Queenes maieſties honorable Counſaile, his ſingular good Lord: wiſheth; the feruent zeale of Gods truth, and long continuaunce of proſperous health, with the increaſe of much honour.

THE prudent and moſt wiſe king of the world,, in his , among many ſentences of profound ſapience, ſaith, that thoſe which be wiſe ſhal haue honor in poſſeſſion: Alſo that the proſperity of the right Honourable ſhall not decay, becauſe they ſhall be had in an euerlaſting remembraunce, O happie birth wherevnto many are borne, to double honour: among men on Earth, among Angells in Heauen. Seeing therefore that wiſdome is the onely preferrour to honour, how much is he, to be had in ſpeciall reuerence, who in very deed ſayth. I Wiſdome dwell with Counſaile, and find out Knowledge and Vnderſtanding. By me Princes reigne, beare rule, and Noble men doe iudge the Earth, I haue bene from euerlaſting, I was before the foundations were laide, therefore harken vnto me: Doe iuſtice, heare the oppreſſed, defend the innocent, forget not to doe good to al men, but ſpecially to thoſe, that are of the houſeholde of Faith: let not your hands be open to receiue, and ſhut when you ſhould giue: Be mercifull, for our heauenly Father is mercifull, who in very deede is the Wiſedome, whereof I haue ſpoken, and the ſame, from whome all actions of good directions proceedeth: by whoſe incomprehenſible grace I haue ben made able to renew and finiſh an olde auncient booke, containing the properties of ſundrie things, the diſcription of Countries, diſpoſitions of creatures, operation of Elements, effects of ſimples, and ſuch lyke, no leſſe needfull then profitable, as ſhall appeare, by peruſall thereof: Beſeeching your honour to accept this my Dedication, (not as a defendour of ſome friuolous fantaſie) but as this booke ſhall deſerue, being read ouer, wherein I doubt not, but that your honour ſhall finde many things to your contentation. This I end, depending on your honourable furtheraunce, when Oppertuniti ſhal miniſter Occaſion, and in the meane time, I ſhall not ceaſe to pray vnto God, whoſe mercifull prouidence guide you, with his endleſſe proſperitie, and all Chriſtian magiſtrates.

Your Honours Chaplaine, at commaundement. S.B.M.

Veſper. Accept the trauaile of him that wiſheth proſperitie to his Countrie: for the gift of knowledge is greater, then the patrimonie of many friends.

title: Page:Batman upon Bartolome.djvu/15


text:
Page:Batman upon Bartolome.djvu/16

 == TO THE READER. ==

THIS booke, beeing firſt ſet forth, in the yere of our Lord God. 1360. The Author whereof is reported to be a Franciſcan Frier, of the noble familie of the Earles of Suffolke, (named ) who ſtudeouſly gathered this ſingular worke, for the moſt part, of the properties of thoſe things the which he had found written in the Bible, to the onelye benefit of his Countrie: which booke, was had in great eſtimation among the learned, as well beyond the ſeas as at home, vntill within 60, yeares paſt, there ſprang vp famous, and worthy perſons, of ſingular perſeuerance and learning: which from the courſe of auncient beginnings, ſet foorth the ſame that was formally written of, with additions aunſwerable to time preſent, vſing new Titles, wherevnto is added ſo much as hath bene brought to light by the trauaile of others, as of Tygure, Phiſition, writing of the nature of beaſts, birds, fiſhes, & Serpents,, , , , and , theſe wrote of the natures, operations and effects of Hearbs, Plants, Trees, Fruit, Seeds, Mettalls and Mineralls. ,, and others of Aſtronomie and Coſmographie. of Antwarpe for maps & diſcriptions: all which woorkes hath done great good in diuerſe and ſundrie Common wealths. I haue therefore as an imitator of the learned, for the good will I bare to my countrie, collected forth of theſe aforeſaid Authors, the like deuiſes, which they in times paſt gathered of their elders, and ſo renuing the whole booke, as is apparant by additions, is brought home, the Maſter, the Pilot, and the profit thereto belonging, deſiring the well acceptation of the ſame, and the friendly correction, if anye wordes ſhall happen to be miſtearmed in the imprinting (hoping that there will be found very fewe.) Farewell in the Lord Ieſus, from whoſe magnificence floweth the ſpirituall knowledge of our perfection, both heere and in the world to come.

[∴]

Stephan Batman, profeſsour in Diuinitie.

title: Page:Batman upon Bartolome.djvu/16


text:
Portal:Green Guerillas

Works

 * Two Seed Grenade Recipes or How to Hide Illegal Dumping Space (1973)

title: Portal:Green Guerillas


text:
Page:Latin America and the war (IA latinamericawar00perc).djvu/18

xii Library of Stanford University, now recognized as one of the greatest collections of its kind in the world. Its Directors, especially Dr. E. D. Adams and Dr. R. H. Lutz, have been indefatigable in their endeavors to secure official documents, books, periodicals, and other material dealing with Latin America's relation to the war. But for the generous cooperation of these gentlemen the preparation of the present work would have been impossible.

The writer also wishes to record his gratitude to a number of distinguished South American scholars who have favored him with critical comments and advice. His thanks are especially due to Dr. Affonso de E. Taunay, the Director of the Museu Paulista and the author of many notable works of the history and institutions of Sao Paulo, to Dr. Helio Lobo, the scholarly Consul General for Brazil in New York and authority on the diplomatic relations between Brazil and the United States, and to Dr. Ricardo Rojas, the author of the standard history of Argentina literature.

In the preparation of this monograph for the press the writer is greatly beholden to his friend and colleague, Dr. B. O. Foster, who read the entire manuscript and made many useful suggestions on matter and style. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to Miss Lois Cottrell, Mr. Luis J. de Souza, and Miss Barbara Nolen for aid in collecting documentary material.

April, 1925.


text:
Author:Wilhelm Fried Fuchs

Producer

 * Regeneration (1915)
 * Monte Cristo (1922)
 * 7th Heaven (1927)
 * Sunrise (1927)
 * Street Angel (1928)

title: Author:Wilhelm Fried Fuchs


text:
Page:Latin America and the war (IA latinamericawar00perc).djvu/19

When on February 3, 1917, President Wilson announced to the world that diplomatic relations with Germany had been severed he expressed the hope that the remaining neutral countries might see fit to follow the example of the United States. There can be little doubt that he chiefly had in mind the republics of Latin America; if so, his hopes were only partially realized. Of the twenty Latin American republics, eight eventually declared war: Brazil, Cuba, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Five severed relations with Germany: Peru, Bolivia, Uruguay, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic. Seven remained neutral: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Salvador, Venezuela, and Paraguay. Thus thirteen of our southern neighbors voiced in some official manner their solidarity with and sympathy for the ideals and purposes of the United States and our Allies.

Of the actual belligerents, only two, Brazil and Cuba, may be said to have taken anything like an active part in the war; while Argentina and Chile, both members of the group of the so-called ABC powers, carefully preserved a status of official neutrality. Mexico, the most important state north of the Isthmus, and next


text:
Author:Ernest George Palmer

Cinematographer

 * 7th Heaven (1927)
 * Street Angel (1928)

title: Author:Ernest George Palmer


text:
Page:Latin America and the war (IA latinamericawar00perc).djvu/20

2 door neighbor to the United States, falls within the same category. In other words, of the four countries of most consequence in the comity of Latin American powers three studiously remained aloof from the struggle. It must also be conceded that the military contributions of the Latin American belligerents to the common cause did little to tip the balance of victory in favor of the Allies. As will be pointed out in due time the military and naval aid offered by Brazil and Cuba, owing in part to motives outside their control, was all but negligible. Of much greater weight to be sure, was the material assistance rendered the United States and the Allies. But even here no hard and fast distinction may be made between belligerents and neutrals. All of the great exporting countries of South America supplied without stint those raw materials of which the enemies of Germany stood so sorely in need.

These considerations, important as they are, should not blind us to the tremendous significance of the Great War in the historical evolution of our southern neighbors. This is true of neutrals and belligerents alike; for it is now recognized as all but axiomatic that in a struggle of such unprecedented proportions neutrality could in no wise spell immunity from the effects of the war. In keeping with the purpose of the Albert Shaw lectures on American diplomacy our study will be primarily concerned with an analysis of the foreign policies and international relations of the Latin American republics during the war years. The contest had hardly begun before a number of these countries found


text: Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/556


text: Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/365


text: Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/366


text: Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/393


text:
Author:Harry Handly Caldwell

Editor

 * 7th Heaven (1927)
 * Street Angel (1928)

title: Author:Harry Handly Caldwell


text: Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/394


text: Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/97


text: Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/98


text:
Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/13

 PREFACE

present book is an attempt to bring within the compass of a single volume an account of the history, government, and economic development of the twenty American republics lying south of the United States. To these nations the term Latin America or Hispanic America is applied. The term Spanish America is inexact and misleading, as it embraces only the eighteen states of Spanish origin. The expression Hispanic America—from Hispania, the name given by the Romans to the Iberian peninsula—is more accurate as it includes Portuguese-speaking Brazil. It ignores, however, the little Republic of Haiti, whose existence is due to France and whose present-day problems are of such serious concern to the United States. Despite certain well-founded objections to the use of the term it has seemed best to defer to current usage and include our sister republics under the blanket designation of Latin America.

As the title would indicate, the emphasis has been placed on the period subsequent to the achievement of independence. At the same time an effort has been made to describe the foundations on which the national life of the Latin- American states has been built. To an introductory chapter have been assigned such preliminary topics as the European background, the classification and distribution of the most important American Indian stocks with which the Spaniards and Portuguese came into contact, and the period of discovery and exploration. These topics are discussed with such brevity as is consistent with clearness. Thus in describing the European background attention is centered on those basic institutions which were subsequently adapted to New World conditions ; while the European conquest, where the story for a time merges into the larger history of the Americas, is sketched only in the briefest outline. The somewhat more com- vii


text:
Author:Harry Oliver

Production designer

 * 7th Heaven (1927)
 * Street Angel (1928)

title: Author:Harry Oliver


text:
Author:Joseph A. Valentine

Cinematographer

 * 7th Heaven (1927)

title: Author:Joseph A. Valentine


text:
Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/14

PREFACE prehensive treatment of the colonial period is largely confined to a discussion of the organs of colonial government, a survey of the economic and religious policies of the Spanish and Portuguese motherlands, and an analysis of social conditions, with particular attention to the relations of the colonists to the Indians. The wars of independence are taken up in a single short chapter. The subjects here stressed are the causes and preliminaries of the struggle, the significant military campaigns, the accomplishments of the two protagonists of the Revolution, Bolivar and San Martin, and the results of the contest. In connection with this last topic an attempt is made to indicate the obstacles confronting the new states on the threshold of their independent career.

Chapters IV to XII constituting the major portion of the text, are devoted to the history and institutions of the individual countries since the achievement of independence. The writers are aware that this method of presentation is not without its disadvantages. It is undeniable, for instance, that those countries whose language and traditions are derived from Spain have substantially the same type of civilization and that their history and development frequently reveal close parallels. With the method adopted occasional repetitions are therefore difficult to avoid. On the other hand, the majority of these countries, at least, have attained such a degree of separateness and have acquired such a strongly marked national individuality as to lend justification, in the judgment of the writers, to the plan followed in the present text. As far as possible the narrative has been kept unencumbered by the recital of minor events or by the introduction of personages of little consequence. Of the numerous civil wars and revolutions so characteristic of the earlier years of the nationalistic period only those have been stressed which left their impress on the political evolution of the countries concerned. Something over half of each of these chapters is given over to a detailed discussion of the constitutions, governments, political parties, and political conditions of the various republics. The existing constitutions are carefully analyzed and comparisons are made between the constitution under discussion and the constitutions of other viii


text:
Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/15

 Latin-American countries and the United States. An attempt is made to discover to what extent existing governmental forms and processes are adapted to the conditions and needs of each particular country. The agreement or divergence—as the case may be—between the theory and practice of democratic institutions is pointed out, as are the frequent differences between the government as outlined in the formal Constitution and the government in operation. At the present time there exists no work in which the political institutions, and more specifically the government of the Latin-American states, are treated with equal fullness. Brief sections of the chapters are devoted to the physiography, population, and characteristic products of each country, while statistical summaries supply data on recent economic developments, particularly in the fields of transportation, trade, and commerce.

The concluding chapter consists of a somewhat detailed account of the international relations of the Latin-American states, with special reference to the development of the Monroe Doctrine, Pan-Americanism, and Latin America and the War.

This book has been prepared to meet the needs of college courses in the field of history or government, or in foreign trade courses of the schools of commerce, where an elementary knowledge of the historical background and the political systems, as well as the main features of commercial geography, are recognized as an essential basis.

The lists of selected readings are designed to be of service both to students and teachers and to the general reader. No attempt is made at completeness. Only such works as are readily available and have been found by actual experience to be satisfactory for classroom use and for general reference are included. For this reason comparatively few works in languages other than English are noted. At the same time the references are sufficiently extended to afford the individual instructor wide latitude in emphasizing either the historical or the governmental aspect of the subject as he may see fit. For the guidance primarily of the teacher and research student certain bibliographical suggestions are added which will enable them easily to get in touch ix


text:
Author:Janet Gaynor

Cast member

 * Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925), minor role
 * 7th Heaven (1927), as Diane
 * Sunrise (1927), as the wife
 * Street Angel (1928), as Angela

title: Author:Janet Gaynor


text:
Page:The republics of Latin America (IA republicsoflatin00jame).djvu/16

PREFACE with important collections of sources, monographic material, and works on special periods or subjects.

The attempt to combine in a text of reasonable size satisfactory accounts of the history and government of our twenty sister republics is one whose difficulties the writers are the first to acknowledge. They willingly concede that few, if any, of their fellow teachers will be in complete agreement with the methods followed or the proportions assigned to each of the major topics. At the same time they venture to hope that the present work will prove of service not only to teachers and students, but also to that larger circle of general readers who are desirous of gaining an acquaintance with the achievements, institutions, and problems of our American neighbors.

PREFATORY NOTE TO SECOND EDITION

The gratifying reception accorded this book not only by the general reading public but more especially also by instructors in Latin American History and Government in secondary schools, colleges, and universities has proved that with all its admitted shortcomings it has filled a real need in the text book field.

In this second edition the authors have made a special effort not merely to correct typographical and other errors that inevi- tably escaped detection in the first edition, but also to bring the work as far as possible completely up to date on the statistical side. Figures relating to population, governmental budgets, and economic conditions have been revised in the light of the latest available authentic information, and a note has been added to the "Bibliography" calling attention to the more important works in the field that have appeared since the first edition was published.

The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions re- ceived from many kind friends, too numerous to mention, calling attention to errors or omissions, and indicating other ways in which the book may be made more useful. Many of these latter suggestions the authors hope to be able to incorporate into a later, more completely revised, edition. H.G.J. P. A. M.

November, 1924. x


text:
Author:Charles David Farrell

Cast member

 * The Ten Commandments (1923), minor role
 * The Freshman (1925), minor role
 * The Clash of the Wolves (1925), as Dave Weston
 * 7th Heaven (1927), as Chico
 * Street Angel (1928), as Gino

title: Author:Charles David Farrell