Novo

Hunt, Ward - Historija

Hunt, Ward - Historija

Ward Hunt rođen je 14. juna 1810. u Utici u New Yorku. Jednu godinu je pohađao Hamilton College u Clintonu u New Yorku, a zatim je prešao na Union College u Schenectadyju u New Yorku, koji je diplomirao s počastima. Godine 1829. Hunt je otišao u školu Tapping Reeve, privatnu akademiju u Litchfieldu, Connecticut, na studij prava. Među alumnistima Tappinga Reevea bila su dva suca Vrhovnog suda, Henry Baldwin i Levi Woodbury. Nakon što je radio kao službenik za suca u Utici, primljen je u advokatsku komoru 1831. Uskoro je uspostavio unosnu advokatsku praksu izvan svoje matične kancelarije, a 1837. se oženio Mary Ann Savage. Par je imao troje djece prije nego što je Savage umro u 1845.
Hunt je osvojio mjesto u zakonodavnom tijelu države New York 1838. godine, koji je služio jedan mandat, a 1844. je izabran za gradonačelnika Utice. Kasnih 1840 -ih prekinuo je s Jacksonian demokratama po pitanju produženja ropstva i aneksije Teksasa , objema se protivio. Nakon što se pridružio Republikanskoj stranci, Hunt je postao politički saveznik Roscoe Conkling. Savez je pomogao Huntu da dobije nominaciju za Vrhovni sud SAD -a, budući da je Conkling kasnije postao šef njujorške republikanske političke mašine.
Tokom građanskog rata, Hunt je bio privremeni predsjedavajući Konvencije Republikanske unije 1863. godine. 1865. izabran je u Apelacioni sud u New Yorku. Nakon što je 1868. godine unaprijeđen u vrhovnog sudiju apelacionog suda, postao je povjerenik za žalbe nakon reorganizacije pravosuđa 1869. Godine 1872., Conkling je uvjerio predsjednika Ulyssesa S. Granta da imenuje Hunta za Vrhovni sud SAD -a. Hunt je zauzeo svoje mjesto na Sudu u januaru 1873.
Hunt je na Sudu bio aktivan samo pet godina, tokom kojih je napisao samo nekoliko mišljenja, od kojih je sedam bilo protivno. Njegovo najvažnije neslaganje bilo je u predmetu United States v. Reese (1876), u kojem se sam suprotstavio ostatku Suda podržavajući optužnicu protiv dva inspektora u Kentuckyju koji su odbili prihvatiti i prebrojati glasove Williama Garnera, Afroamerikanca. Američko. Odluka Suda oslabila je potencijalnu primjenu Petnaestog amandmana u zaštiti manjinskih biračkih prava. Njegova očita podrška afroameričkim pravima nije se, međutim, proširila na podršku pravu glasa za žene. Dok je bio okružni sudija, predsjedavao je suđenjem na kojem je Susan B. Anthony suđeno za "svjesno ... glasanje bez zakonskog prava glasa", i kaznio je sa 100 dolara kada ju je porota proglasila krivom.
Tri godine nakon što je 1879. doživio težak moždani udar, Hunt je odbijao dati ostavku na sud. Hunt je pristao na penziju 1882. godine, kada je Kongres usvojio poseban zakon o penzionisanju koji mu je omogućio da prima penziju iako nije navršio standardnu ​​starost penzionera od sedamdeset. Četiri godine kasnije, 24. marta 1886, Hunt je umro u Washingtonu, DC


E. Howard Hunt

Everette Howard Hunt Jr. (9. oktobar 1918. - 23. januar 2007.) bio je američki obavještajni oficir i pisac. Od 1949. do 1970. Hunt je služio kao službenik u Centralnoj obavještajnoj agenciji (CIA), posebno u umiješanosti Sjedinjenih Država u promjenu režima u Latinskoj Americi, uključujući državni udar u Gvatemali 1954. i invaziju na Zaljev svinja 1961. godine. Zajedno sa G. Gordonom Liddyjem, Frankom Sturgisom i drugima, Hunt je bio jedan od "vodoinstalatera" Niksonove administracije, tima operativaca zaduženih za identifikaciju vladinih izvora informacija o nacionalnoj sigurnosti "koji cure" vanjskim stranama. Hunt i Liddy planirali su provale u Watergate i druge tajne operacije za Nixonovu administraciju. U skandalu koji je uslijedio Watergate, Hunt je osuđen za provale, zavjere i prisluškivanje, na kraju je odslužio 33 mjeseca zatvora. Nakon oslobađanja, Hunt je živio u Meksiku, a zatim na Floridi do svoje smrti.

  • Robert Dietrich
  • Gordon Davis
  • David St. John
  • Edward Warren
  • Edward J Hamilton
  • Hugh W. Newstead
  • Eduardo

Hunt, Ward - Historija

porijeklo lova na Middleburg može se pratiti do velikog međunarodnog lova na lisice između Middlesexa A. Henryja Higginsona i graftonskih pasa Harryja Worcestera Smitha 1905. Utakmica je dogovorena da riješi spor između gospode u vezi s superiornošću njihovog engleskog i američkog čopora. pasa. Američki goniči gospodina Smitha su odlučno pobijedili. Lov tokom te dvije sedmice utakmice, kao i posljedični publicitet koji je uslijedio, uspostavili su Middleburg kao osovinu lovačke zemlje Amerike, budući da se lov uglavnom odvijao u blizini sela.

John T. Townsend služio je kao prvi majstor Foxhoundsa u Middleburškom lovu, osnovanog 1906. i priznatog 1908. od strane Udruženja Majstora Foxhounds. Jedan od najistaknutijih sportista i građana lovačke zemlje, Daniel Cox Sands, postao je majstor Middleburga 1915. godine i trebao je voditi polje gotovo četrdeset godina do penzionisanja 1953. Godine 1912. gospodin Sands je osnovao i postao prvi predsjednik Američko udruženje lisičara. Otprilike u isto vrijeme pomogao je u organizaciji Middleburške trkačke asocijacije i predsjedavao je trkačkim odborom do svoje smrti 1963. Godine 1932. Glenwood Park je izgrađen na imanju gospodina Sands -a i nastao je ovaj ljupki teren sa tribinama i neprevaziđenim pogledima. .

Gospođica Charlotte Noland, osnivač Foxcroft škole, služila je kao majstor zajedno sa gospodinom Sandsom od 1932. do 1946. godine. Direktorica Foxcrofta je četrdeset i sedam godina ohrabrivala svoje učenike na lov na lisice, a jahanje je postalo sastavni dio Foxcroftovog nastavnog programa . 1946. kada se Miss Noland penzionisala kao Joint-Master, prenijela je titulu na Newell J. (Buddy) Ward. G. Ward je naslijedio gospodina Sands -a kao majstor 1953. sve dok se nije povukao na kraju sezone 1972. godine. Od g. Ward -a kao zajednički majstori služe g. Archibald J. Kingsley, gđa Richard Riemenschneider, gđa. Rodion Cantacuzene, dr. James Gable i gđa Gary Gardner. Danas služe gospodin Jeffrey Blue i gospođa John Denegre.

Naš poznati čopor broji 40 par unesenih američkih lisičara. Zemlja Middleburg Hunt -a udaljena je otprilike 10 do 15 milja i proteže se uglavnom sjeverno i istočno od Middleburga. Lov se održava u ponedjeljak, četvrtak i subotu od početka septembra do sredine marta. Odjeća za lov je grimizna s jabučasto-zelenim ovratnikom, a gumbi su mjedeni s inicijalima MH.


Ward Hunt

Uz sudije Benjamina Cardoza i Rufusa Peckhama mlađeg, sudija Ward Hunt ima razliku u tome što je bio sudija Apelacionog suda koji je kasnije sjedio na Vrhovnom sudu Sjedinjenih Država. Poznat je i po tome što je bio sudija u federalnom tužilaštvu Susan B. Anthony za glasanje u Rochesteru u New Yorku 1872.

Ward Hunt, rođen 14. juna 1810. u Utici u New Yorku, od Montgomeryja i Elizabeth (Stringham) Hunt, bio je treće od osmoro djece. 1 Gospođa Hunt bila je kći kapetana Josepha Stringhama iz New Yorka. Porodica je porijeklom iz okruga Westchester. Sudac Hunt bio je potomak Thomasa Hunta koji je boravio u Stamfordu u Connecticutu oko 1650. Dugi niz godina, sudac Huntov otac, Montgomery Hunt, 2 bio je blagajnik u Prvoj nacionalnoj banci Utica.

Za svoje rano obrazovanje, sudija Hunt je pohađao Oksfordsku i Ženevsku akademiju u Utici. U obe škole, budući guverner države New York Horatio Seymour bio je razrednik. Nakon kratkog studija na Hamilton koledžu, sa odličnom diplomom je diplomirao na Union College sa zvanjem prvostupnika 1828. u dobi od 18 godina. 3 Studirao je pravo na Utici u praksi Hirama (kasnije sudije) Denia (1799- 1868), a zatim od 1830-1831 u kući Tapping Reeve u Litchfieldu, Connecticut. Sudija Hunt primljen je u advokatsku komoru u New Yorku 1831.

Zakon i politika

Zbog lošeg zdravlja, Hunt nije mogao odmah pristupiti praksi, ali je bio prisiljen provesti zimu u New Orleansu kako bi se oporavio. Po povratku je uspostavio advokatsko partnerstvo sa Hiramom Deniom, njegovim bivšim mentorom. U privatnoj praksi od 1832. do 1865., Hunt je uspostavio veliku i unosnu praksu dijelom zbog svojih pravnih vještina, a dijelom i zbog klijenata od svog oca. 4 Za to vrijeme, Hunt je također bio povezan s Benjaminom F. Cooperom, Williamom L. Walradtom, Montgomeryjem H. Throopom (kodifikatorom zakona države New York) i Danielom Watermanom, Jr. Međutim, Hunt je pozvan na klupu i #8220 za koje mu je izrazito pristao ono što se općenito naziva "sudbenim umom". ” 5

Godine 1838. izabran je u zakonodavno tijelo države New York, gdje je služio jedan mandat. Godine 1844., dok je bio u praksi, izabran je za gradonačelnika Utice. Kasnije se kandidovao za mjesto u Apelacionom sudu i dobio demokratsku nominaciju nad Philo Gridley 6, ali je na izborima poražen. Prema jednom komentatoru, izgubio je zbog uspješne odbrane policajca koji je smrtonosno upucao Irca, što ga je koštalo irskih glasova i izbora. 7

Neustrašivi, Hunt je trčao drugi put 1853. godine i opet izgubio, ovaj put od Williama J. Bacona. Ovoga puta do njegovog poraza je došlo zbog raskida s Jacksonian Democrats zbog njegovog protivljenja proširenju ropstva na sjeverne države i njegove podrške kandidaturi Martina Van Burena i Adamsa na listi Free-Soil 1848. 1855. Hunt pomogao u formiranju Republikanske stranke, koja ga je smatrala mogućim kandidatom za američki Senat u klubu stranke u Albanyju.

Godine 1865. izabran je u Apelacioni sud sa više od 32.000 glasova da zamijeni svog mentora sudiju Denia koji je postao sudija Apelacionog suda 1853. 1868. smrću sudije Williama B. Wrighta i ostavkom sudije John K. Porter, Ward Hunt postao je glavni sudac Apelacionog suda, a tu je dužnost obnašao samo do kraja 1869. Zbog restrukturiranja Suda i ustavnih amandmana, sudac Ward postao je povjerenik za žalbe od 1870-1872. . 8 1872. Sudija Vrhovnog suda Sjedinjenih Država Samuel Nelson podnio je ostavku. Na nagovor senatorke Roscoe Conkling (prijateljice sudije Hunt), predsjednik Ulysses S. Grant je nominirao sudiju Hunta za vrhovnog suda.

Sudija Vrhovnog suda

Senat je potvrdio nominaciju sudije Hunt -a 11. decembra 1872., a on je na klupu stupio 9. januara 1873. Kolona u New York Times pohvalio izbor:

Nijedno imenovanje predsjednika Granta nije zasnovano na snažnijim preporukama Vrhovnom sudu Sjedinjenih Država od sudije Ward Hunt -a. Gotovo trideset godina sudija Hunt bio je poznat kao vodeći advokat New Yorka i zauzimao je najviše sudijsko mjesto koje država može dodijeliti najvećim zaslugama. 9

Kao dio svojih dužnosti sudije Vrhovnog suda, Hunt je morao da sasluša predmete na nivou suđenja kao sudija saveznog okružnog suda. Njegova najpoznatija odluka bila je Sjedinjene Države protiv Anthonyja (24 F. Cas. 829, 830 [N.D. Cir. Ct., 1873]):

Dana 1. novembra 1872. [Susan B.] Anthony i njene tri sestre ušle su u ured za registraciju birača postavljen u brijačnici. Četiri žene Anthony bile su dio grupe od pedeset žena koje je Anthony organizirao da se registrira u svom rodnom gradu Rochesteru. Kad su ušle u brijačnicu, žene su vidjele stacionirana u uredu tri mladića koji su radili kao matičari. Anthony je otišao direktno do izbornih inspektora i, kako će kasnije jedan od inspektora posvjedočiti, ‘zahtjevao da ih registrujemo kao birače. ’ 10

Na osmom odjelu grada Rochester -a, u novembru 1872., Anthony je zatražio pravo glasa, pozivajući se na Četrnaesti amandman i svoja građanska prava. Kada inspektori za glasanje ne bi popustili, citira se ona kako kaže “Ako nam odbijete naša građanska prava, podnijet ću tužbu protiv vas na Krivičnom sudu i tužit ću svakog od vas lično za veliku, izuzetnu štetu! ” Rekla je, “Znam da mogu pobijediti. Imam sudiju Seldena kao advokata. Postoji bilo kakva suma novca za moju podršku, a ako budem morao, gurnut ću do posljednjeg jarka na oba suda. ” 11 Muškarci su konačno popustili i dozvolili četrnaest žena da se registruju za glasanje. Dana 5. novembra 1872. godine, Anthony je zajedno sa sedam ili osam drugih žena glasao. U pismu svojoj prijateljici Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Anthony je izvijestila da je glasala za pravu republikansku kartu. 12

Dana 18. novembra, Anthony je uhapšen i optužen za ilegalno glasanje kojim se krši Zakon o izvršenju zakona iz 1870. godine, federalni prekršaj. Nakon što je odbila da se izjasni, održano je ročište kako bi se utvrdilo da li je glasala dobrovoljno i znalo ” protivzakonito. Ročište je odloženo za decembar 1872. godine, a na kraju rasprave komesar William Storrs je otkrio da je Anthony prekršio zakon. Odbila je kauciju i bila je u zatvoru. Navodno, Anthony je mislio da će, ostajući u zatvoru, slučaj stići do Vrhovnog suda po podnesku habeas corpus. Na kraju, međutim, sudija Selden, 13 njen advokat platio joj je kauciju.

Velika porota optužila ju je za "svjesno, protivpravno i nezakonito glasanje za člana Kongresa", bez zakonskog prava glasa. . . spomenuta Susan B. Anthony bila je tu i tamo osoba ženskog spola. ” Suđenje je prvobitno zakazano za maj 1871. godine, ali je tužilac vjerovao da je Anthony svojim predavanjima utjecao na potencijalnu skupinu porota, te je zatražio od pravosuđa Pokušajte promijeniti mjesto u Canandaigua, u okrugu Ontario. Sudac Hunt se složio i odredio novi datum za 17. jun 1873. Anthony je predavao 21 dan u okrugu Ontario prije suđenja.

U Sjedinjene Države protiv Anthonyja odlukom od 18. juna, Justice Hunt, koji je zasjedao kao okružni sudija, utvrdio je da su prava utvrđena Trinaestim, Četrnaestim i Petnaestim izmjenama i dopunama zajamčena građanima Sjedinjenih Država, a ne građanima država.

Tako je presudio da svaka država ima pravo postaviti svoje glasačke kvalifikacije:

Ako država New York treba predvidjeti da niko ne smije glasati sve dok nije navršio trideset godina, ili nakon što je napunio pedeset godina, ili da nijedna osoba koja ima sijedu kosu ili koja nije koristila sve svoje Udovi bi trebali imati pravo glasa, ne vidim kako bi se to moglo smatrati kršenjem bilo kojeg prava proizašlog ili držanog prema ustavu Sjedinjenih Država. Mogli bismo reći da su takvi propisi bili nepravedni, tiranski, neprikladni za uređenje inteligentne države, ali, ako su time povrijeđena prava građanina, oni su te temeljne klase, proizašli iz njegovog položaja građanina države, a ne ta ograničena prava koja mu pripadaju kao državljaninu Sjedinjenih Država (SAD protiv Anthonyja, 24 F. Cas. 829, 830 [1873]).

Nakon što je odlučilo da Petnaesti amandman ne govori ništa o ženama s pravom glasa, Justice Hunt je zaključio da se “Regulacija biračkog prava na taj način priznaje državama kao državno pravo##8217 s pravom ” (id. Na 831). Odbijajući predati slučaj poroti, naredio je sudskom službeniku da donese osuđujuću presudu protiv Anthonyja, zatim se obratio vijeću i izjavio “Gospodo porota, da ste otpušteni. ” 14

Sutradan je sudac Selden, odvjetnik Anthonyja#8217, podnio zahtjev za novo suđenje, što je pravda Hunt odbio. Zatim je imao žustru razmjenu sa Susan B. Anthony:

SUD: Ima li zatvorenik bilo šta da kaže zašto se kazna ne izriče?

ANTONI: Da, časni sude, imam mnogo toga da kažem u vašoj naređenoj presudi o krivici, pogazili ste svaki vitalni princip naše vlade. Moja prirodna prava, moja građanska prava, moja politička prava, moja sudska prava, podjednako se zanemaruju. Lišen osnovne privilegije državljanstva, degradiran sam iz statusa građanina u status podanika, i ne samo ja pojedinačno, već i cijeli moj spol, po vašoj časti, osuđen na političku podložnost prema ovome, tzv. oblik vladavine

SUD: Sud ne može slušati probu argumenata koje je advokat zatvorenika već utrošio u izlaganje tri sata.

ANTONI: Molim vas, časni sude, ne argumentiram pitanje, već samo izlažem razloge zašto se pravda ne može izreći protiv mene. Vaše uskraćivanje glasačkog prava mog građanina je uskraćivanje mog prava na pristanak kao jednog od upravljanih, uskraćivanje mog prava na suđenje od strane porote mojih vršnjaka kao prekršioca zakona, stoga, poricanje moja sveta prava na život, slobodu, imovinu i ...

SUD: Sud ne može dozvoliti zatvoreniku da nastavi.

ANTONI: Ali vaša čast neće mi uskratiti ovu jedinu i jedinu privilegiju protesta protiv ovog silnog gnjeva nad mojim građanskim pravima. Molim vas da Sud zapamti da je to od dana mog hapšenja u novembru prošle godine, ovo je prvi put da je meni ili bilo kojoj osobi iz moje klase bez prava glasa dopuštena riječ odbrane pred sudijom ili porotom.

SUD: Zatvorenik mora da sedi-sud to ne može dozvoliti.

ANTONI: Svi moji tužioci, od političara za namirnice iz osmog odeljenja, koji je podneo žalbu, do maršala Sjedinjenih Država, komesara, okružnog tužioca, okružnog sudije, časni sude, nije mi jedan kolega, već svi i svi da li su moji politički suverenisti i da je vaša čast predala moj slučaj poroti, što je očito bila vaša dužnost, čak i tada sam trebao imati samo razlog protesta, jer nijedan od tih ljudi nije bio moj vršnjak, već, domaći ili stranac, bijelac ili crni, bogati ili siromašni, obrazovani ili neuki, budni ili uspavani, trijezni ili pijani, svaki od njih mi je bio politički nadređen, pa ni u kom smislu moj vršnjak. Čak bi i pod takvim okolnostima običan stanovnik Engleske, kome se sudilo pred porotom lordova, imao mnogo manje razloga za žalbu nego što bih ja, žena, pokušala pred porotom muškaraca. Čak i moj savet, časni Sude. Henry R. Selden, koji je tako vješto, tako iskreno, tako neodgovorno tvrdio moju stvar, pred vašom čašću, moj je politički suveren. Baš kao što nijedna osoba bez prava nema pravo sjediti u poroti, a nijedna žena nema pravo na franšizu, pa nikome osim redovito primljenom advokatu nije dozvoljeno da radi na sudovima, pa nijedna žena ne može dobiti prijem u advokatsku komoru, stoga porota, sudija, advokat, svi moraju biti iz više klase.

SUD: Sud mora insistirati da je zatvoreniku suđeno u skladu sa utvrđenim oblicima zakona. 15

Dana 18. juna 1873., pravda Hunt je Anthonyja osudila na kaznu od sto dolara i troškove sudskog gonjenja, kaznu koju je odbila platiti, a zapravo je nikada nije platila. 16

Sudija Hunt zauzeo je nešto drugačije mišljenje kada su u pitanju glasačka prava muškaraca afričkog porijekla Sjedinjene Države protiv Reesea (92 US 214, 216-222 [1875]). Slučaj je uključivao zakonsku odgovornost inspektora za glasanje u Kentuckyju da prihvate glasove muškaraca afričkog porijekla. Većina je smatrala da, iako je Petnaesti amandman predviđao kažnjavanje birača za rasnu diskriminaciju protiv građana Sjedinjenih Država i stanovnika države, nije predviđao kaznu izbornih inspektora koji su bili zaduženi samo za prikupljanje i prebrojavanje glasova. Takođe, većina je smatrala da je optužnica nedovoljna te je potvrdila mišljenje nižih sudova. Presudom je oslabljen Zakon o izvršenju iz 1870. godine i onemogućena je provedba Petnaestog amandmana. Sudija Hunt se nije slagao:

Držim, stoga, da treći i četvrti dio statuta koje razmatramo predviđaju kažnjavanje izbornih inspektora koji odbijaju glasove kvalificiranih birača zbog njihove rase ili boje kože. Optužnica je dovoljna, a statut dovoljno opisuje djelo (vidi 92 US 214, 245, gore).
. . .
Pogođene osobe su državljani Sjedinjenih Država, predmet je prava tih osoba da glasaju, ne na određenim izborima ili za određene službenike, ne za savezne službenike ili državne službenike, već pravo glasa u najširem smislu (vidi 92 US 214, 248, gore).

Sudija Hunt je otkrio da su odredbe Zakona o izvršenju zakona koje od inspektora zahtijevaju da prihvate glas muškaraca afričkog porijekla zapravo ustavne i da se kršenje kažnjava zakonom.

In Sjedinjene Države protiv Cruikshanka, 92 US 542, 556 [1875], međutim, slučaj iz Louisiane koji uključuje grupu pojedinaca koji su se urotili kako bi spriječili muškarca afričkog porijekla da glasa, Justice Hunt je stao na većinu smatrajući da na temelju Reesea nije bilo kršenja Zakona o izvršenju iz 1870. Sud je obrazložio da pravo glasa u Sjedinjenim Državama dolazi iz država, ali pravo izuzeća od zabranjene diskriminacije dolazi iz Sjedinjenih Država. Prvi nije odobren niti osiguran Ustavom Sjedinjenih Država, ali ovaj drugi jeste. ”

Sud je tada utvrdio da nije ustavno kršenje da se dvije ili više osoba kombiniraju kako bi spriječile nekoga da glasa. Sud je potvrdio državne propise, potraživanja obveznika i policijska ovlaštenja u odnosu na zahtjeve za rasnu jednakost prema Četrnaestom amandmanu.

Nakon što je napisao 149 mišljenja Vrhovnog suda, od kojih se osam bavilo ustavnim pitanjima, a četiri izdvojena mišljenja (protivno 18 puta bez mišljenja), zdravlje pravosuđa Hunt -a#8217 ponovo je bilo u opadanju. Bolovao je od gihta, a posljednji slučaj čuo je u decembru 1878. godine.

U siječnju 1879. doživio je paralitički moždani udar u desnu stranu i više se nije vratio u potpunosti. Bio je na Vrhovnom sudu do 1882. godine, kada je Kongres donio akt koji mu je omogućio da se penzioniše sa manje od deset godina radnog staža na sudu. Dana 17. februara 1882, dan nakon što je zakon usvojen, sudija Hunt podneo je ostavku sa punom penzijom. U pismu od 4. marta 1882 i objavljenom na 105 US ix-x [1882], njegovi saradnici su napisali:

Dragi sudijo Hunt, Vaša ostavka kao jedna od naših koja se dogodila tek na početku februarske pauze, do sada nismo imali priliku izraziti vam žaljenje što je vaša dugotrajna bolest učinila takav korak neophodnim. Niko od nas nije zaboravio koliko ste vjerno radili, dok je zdravlje dopuštalo, da obavljate svoj dio posla koji nas je neprestano pritiskao, i ne možemo a da ne osjetimo da ste bili pažljiviji prema svojoj snazi, a manje odlučni da učinite sve ono što ste zamislili kao svoju dužnost, nužnost ovog razdvajanja ne bi postojala. Vaše odsustvovanje s klupe nije nam oduzelo sjećanje na vašu savjesnu službu dok ste tamo, niti na vašu jedinstvenu ljubaznost i ljubaznost svuda i u svim prilikama.

S iskrenim poštovanjem ostajemo vaši prijatelji i bivši saradnici,
M.R. Waite,
Sam F. Miller,
Stephen J. Field,
Joseph P. Bradley,
John M. Harlan

Sudija Hunt umro je u Washingtonu, 24. marta 1886, i sahranjen je u Utici, New York.

Dana 8. novembra 1837., sudac Hunt oženio se Mary Ann Savage, kćeri vrhovnog sudije savezne države New York Savage (1779-1863), s kojom je imao troje djece: Eliza, rođena 5. oktobra 1838., udata za Arthura B. Johnsona iz Utice , New York John Savage Hunt, rođen 9. decembra 1839., bio je povjerenik u Četvrtom puku Artiljerijskog odjela SAD -a Jr., rođen 5. septembra 1843., postao je advokat. Prva gospođa Hunt umrla je 1846. 18. juna 1853. oženio se Marijom Taylor, kćerkom Jamesa Taylora, esq., Koja je dugi niz godina bila blagajnica Komercijalne banke Albany. Preživjela ga je druga žena. Nije bilo djece iz drugog sindikata.

Njegov unuk, Ward Hunt, 17, umro je 31. avgusta 1901. u Castile -i, New York. Vježbao je u advokatskoj kancelariji Waterman & amp Hunt u Utici prije nego što se iz zdravstvenih razloga preselio u Colorado Springs, Colorado. Kasnije se vratio u područje Utica, New York, nakon što mu je otac umro i njegovo zdravlje je počelo opadati. Ward Hunt je imao jednog sina, Johna Savagea Hunta, koji se bavio pravom u Colorado Springsu, Colorado.

John Savage Hunt umro je u Utici, NY u 45. godini. 17 Prihvaćen u advokatsku komoru 12. avgusta 1893. bio je vodeći rudarski advokat u Colorado Springsu. Prema podacima Advokatske komore Kolorada, okrug El Paso, gospodin Hunt je bio jedan od osnivača Advokatske komore Kolorada. Do sada nije pronađeno živo potomstvo.

Ova biografija se pojavljuje u Sudije Apelacionog suda u New Yorku: Biografska istorija, ed. Hon. Albert M. Rosenblatt (New York: Fordham University Press, 2007). Nije ažurirano od objavljivanja.

Konsultovani izvori

Albany Law Journal, “Juce Hunt and the Appeals Commission, ” 11. januara 1873.

Bergan, Povijest apelacionog suda u New Yorku, 1847-1932, New York, Columbia University Press, (1985).

Zbirke Schafferove biblioteke, Union College, Schenectady, New York 12308, “Ward Hunt, ” 1828.

Cushman, [Urednik], Suci Vrhovnog suda, Ilustrirane biografije, 1789-1993, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1993).

Fairman, gospodin Justice Miller i Vrhovni sud, 1862-1890, Harvard University Press (1939), 373-400.

Hooker, “Sutkinja Hunt i pravo suđenja od strane porote ” u Isabella Beecher Hooker, Ustavna prava žena Sjedinjenih Država. Obraćanje pred Međunarodnim vijećem žena, Fowler & amp Miller, (1888).

In Memoriam, “Ward Hunt, LLD, ” 118 US 701-702 (1886).

Kutler, “Ward Hunt: Suci Vrhovnog suda Sjedinjenih Država 1789-1968: Njihovi životi i glavna mišljenja, sv. II. ” Friedman, L. i Israel, F.L., [Eds.] Chelsea House Publishers in assoc. s R.R. Bowker Co., (1969), 1221-1239.

Memorandumi, 105 SAD, ix-x [1882].

Nacionalna ciklopedija američke biografije, sv. 2, New York: James T. White & amp Co., 1891, 475-476.

New York Daily Times (1851-1857), 24. septembra 1853.

New York Times, 9. decembra 1872, str. 4, kolona 2.

New York Times, 10. januara 1873, str. 5, kolona 5.

Oksfordski pratilac Vrhovnog suda Sjedinjenih Država 417 (Kermit L. Hall, James W. Ely, Jr., Joel B. Grossman & amp. William M. Wiecek, ur., Oxford U.P. 1992).

“To će biti Apelacioni sud ”, 150. godišnjica Apelacionog suda države New York [1997].

Utica Morning Herald and Daily Gazette, čitulja, 25. marta 1886.

Objavljeni spisi

Iako ne znamo za objavljene članke ili knjige sudije Hunta, njegova pisma se nalaze u Njujorškom istorijskom društvu i na Univerzitetu u Čikagu upućena Williamu Evartsu i Henryju S. Randallu, tadašnjim uglednim njujorškim advokatima.

  1. Braća i sestre Ward Hunt-a#8217 bili su Frances (r.1806), James Stringham (r.1808-d.1862), Lydia (r.1813), Montgomery, jr. (b.1816-d.1854), John Stringham (r.1818), Cornelia (r.1820) i Elizabeth (b.1823-d.1828), http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person (posjećeno 20. jula 2005).
  2. “Otac mu je bio Monty Hunt, koji je prethodne godine došao u Uticu da predstavlja banku Manhattan u New Yorku, a koji je 1812. bio aktivan u organizaciji banke Utica, sada Prve nacionalne ”, Utica Morning Herald and Daily Gazette, utorak, 25. marta 1886.
  3. Sudija Hunt dobio je počasnog doktora prava (LL.D.) diplome Union College i Rutgers 1870.
  4. Popis iz 1850. za grad Utica, okrug Oneida, država New York, Ward Hunt naveden je kao muškarac, 36 godina, advokat, koji posjeduje nekretnine u vrijednosti od 10.000 dolara. Njegovo troje djece navedeno je kao Eliza (11), John (10) i Ward, jr. (7). Njegov brat John Hunt (25) naveden je kao službenik. Popis je morao biti završen prije 1850. godine jer su starosti niže od onih koje bi imale 1850. godine.
  5. Nekrolog, New York Times, 10. januara 1873.
  6. New York Daily Times (1851-1857), 24. septembra 1853. Gridley (1796-1864) je služio ex-officio Apelacionom sudu 1852. godine.
  7. Cushman, [Urednik], Suci Vrhovnog suda, Ilustrirane biografije, 1789-1993, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1993).
  8. Bergan, Povijest apelacionog suda u New Yorku, 1847-1932, New York, Columbia University Press, [1985], str. 92, 116-117.
  9. New York Times, 9. decembra 1872, str. 4, col. 2.
  10. Ovo je račun po zakonu profesor Douglas Linder objavljen u časopisu Jurist Legal News & amp Research, “The Suđenje Susan B. Anthony za nezakonito glasanje ”, http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0g8Wmrn06m4J:jurist .law.pitt.edu/famoustrials/ant (posećeno 28. februara 2005). Vidi također, Izvještaj o postupku suđenja Susan B. Anthony o optužbi za nezakonito glasanje na predsjedničkim izborima u novembru 1872. i suđenju Beverley W. Jones, Edwinu T. Marshu i Williamu B. Hallu, The Izborni inspektori kome je evidentiran njen glas. Rochester, NY: Daily Democrat and Chronicle Book Print, 3 West Main St, 1874.
  11. Id.
  12. Id.
  13. Sudija Henry R. Selden (1805-1885) bio je na Apelacionom sudu u državi New York od 1862-1864. Anthonyja je zastupao i John Van Voorhis (1891-1905), otac Johna Van Voorhisa koji je služio u Apelacionom sudu od 1953-1967.
  14. “Arrest and Trial ”-http: //secure.palmdigitalmedia.com, (posjećeno 28. februara 2005), odlomak iz knjige American Women of Achievement Barbare Weisberg i Matine S. Horner, izdavača kuće Chelsea (1988).
  15. Linder, gore, str. 12.
  16. Sjedinjene Američke Države protiv Anthonyja, Cir. Ct., NDNY, 17.-18. Juna 1873., http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/history/dubois, (posjećeno 1. marta 2005.), Susan B. Anthony: “ Neka vas čast, I nikada neće platiti ni dolar vaše nepravedne kazne. Sve trgovačke zalihe koje posjedujem su dugovi od 10.000 dolara nastali objavljivanjem mog rada-Revolucija-prije četiri godine, čiji je jedini cilj bio educirati sve žene da rade upravo ono što sam ja učinila, pobuniti se protiv vašeg čovjeka, nepravedni, neustavni oblici zakona, taj porez, globa, zatvaranje i vješanje žena, dok im uskraćuju pravo predstavljanja u Vladi, a ja ću raditi na tome da svim silama platim svaki dolar tog poštenog duga, ali ne peni će otići na ovu nepravednu tužbu. Ozbiljno i ustrajno ću i dalje poticati sve žene na praktično priznavanje stare revolucionarne maksime, da je otpor prema tiraniji poslušnost Bogu. ” Vidi i Hammond, Komentar, “Trijeb i nevolja: Priča o Sjedinjene Države protiv Anthonyja, ” 48 Provjera formatiranja buffala, 7. studenog 2005.alo L Rev 981 (2000).
  17. Podaci o unuku i praunuku preuzeti iz Utica Herald-Dispatch i Daily Gazette, četvrtak, 5. septembar 1901.
  18. Podaci preuzeti iz Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, 27. juna 1911.

O društvu

Historijsko društvo sudova u New Yorku osnovala je 2002. godine tadašnja glavna sudija države New York Judith S. Kaye. Njegova misija je očuvanje, zaštita i promocija pravne istorije New Yorka, uključujući ponosno naslijeđe njegovih sudova i razvoj vladavine prava.

Pridružite se našoj adresi

Prijavite se za primanje našeg besplatnog tromjesečnog biltena, pozivnica za javne CLE programe, važnih najava i mnogo više!


Hunt, Ward - Historija

Pomaknite se prema dolje da vidite slike stavke ispod opisa

Hunt, preplavljen kopijama statuta New Yorka,

pita da li je bilo “ neke greške pri slanju toliko kopija "

Ward Hunt, 1810 �. Associate Justice, Vrhovni sud Sjedinjenih Država, 1872 �. Potpisano pismo s autogramom, Ward Hunt, jedna stranica, 5 "x 8", sa priloženim integralnim listom, na dopisnici države New York, Žalbena komisija, Utica, [New York], 29. decembra 1871.

Huntov autografski materijal broj 700s jedan je od oskudnijih među sudijama Vrhovnog suda. Our review of auction results has found only two autograph letters signed that have been offered since 1975.

In this beautiful example, Hunt, then serving as a member of the New York Commission of Appeals, inquires of the Secretary of State why he was sent multiple copies of the New York state code. He writes, in full: “I received a package, a few days since, containing ten copies, of Banks Edition of the code. Is there not some error in the sending to me so many copies? / I am Very Respectfully . . . . "

Hunt served as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, the stateʼs highest court, for almost two years, from January 12, 1868, through December 31, 1869. In November 1869, New York voters adopted a new judicial article to the state constitution that abolished Huntʼs court and created a new Court of Appeals as the stateʼs highest court. At the same time, the new judicial article created the Commission of Appeals, to which all of the sitting judges on the old court were transferred, along with their backlog of some 800 pending cases. The Commission was to phase out of existence in three years, the deadline for it to decide the pending cases. Since the new Court of Appeals had jurisdiction only over appeals that were filed after January 1, 1870, however, and the Commission on Appeals had jurisdiction over the old cases, the system created confusion as to which bodyʼs decision was the authoritative one if there were a conflict between them.

Hunt did not stay on the Commission long. He was politically well connected through his participation in founding the Republican Party in New York. At the request of his political mentor, the influential New York Senator Roscoe Conkling, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Hunt to the United States Supreme Court in 1872 to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Samuel Nelson.

In 1878, Hunt suffered a stroke that paralyzed him and prevented him from participating in the Supreme Courtʼs work. He nevertheless remained on the Court because, by law, he could not qualify for a full retirement pension until he had served ten years and turned age 70. As a result, Hunt was largely a back-bench Justice. He voted with the majority in all but 22 cases and wrote but four dissents. Congress encouraged him to retire by waiving the pension requirements if he would step down within 30 days, and he did so.

Perhaps Huntʼs most notable decision was his 1873 opinion, sitting as a Circuit Justice, finding womenʼs suffragist Susan B. Anthony guilty of violating New York law by voting in the 1872 congressional election when the state limited the right to vote to men. Anthony argued that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gave her rights that overrode state law. Hunt ruled otherwise. “The right of voting, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege arising under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States,” Ward wrote. Although particular restrictions denying the right to vote to one of too young or too old an age, or one “having gray hair,” or one not having “the use of all of his limbs" might be “unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state,” he wrote, nevertheless “if the rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States." He concluded:

Miss Anthony knew that she was a woman, and that the constitution of this state prohibits her from voting. She intended to violate that provision—intended to test it, perhaps, but, certainly, intended to violate it. The necessary effect of her act was to violate it, and this she is presumed to have intended. There was no ignorance of any fact, but, all the facts being known, she undertook to settle a principle in her own person. She takes the risk, and she can not escape the consequences.

United States v. Anthony, 24 F. Cas. 829, 830󈞋 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1873).

This letter is in fine to very fine condition. Hunt has written and signed it in dark black pen. The letter has an attractive vignette of the state seal at the upper left. It has two normal horizontal mailing folds, and t here is a small stain in a blank area below the text and to the left of Hunt's signature, but it does not affect any of the handwriting.

Because of the scarcity of Huntʼs letters, collectors of Supreme Court material should be careful not to pass this one by.


Hunt, Ward - History

Judge Hunt: (Ordering the defendant to stand up) "Has the prisoner anything to say why sentence shall not be pronounced?"

Miss Anthony: "Yes, your honor, I have many things to say for in your ordered verdict of guilty, you have trampled under foot every vital principle of our government. My natural rights, my civil rights, my political rights, my judicial rights, are all alike ignored. Robbed of the fundamental privilege of citizenship, I am degraded from the status of a citizen to that of a subject and not only myself individually, but all of my sex, are, by your honor's verdict, doomed to political subjection under this so-called republican form of government."

Judge Hunt: (Interrupting) "The Court cannot listen to a rehearsal of arguments the prisoner's counsel has already consumed three hours in presenting."

Miss Anthony: "May it please your honor, I am not arguing the question, but simply stating the reasons why sentence cannot, in justice, be pronounced against me. Your denial of my citizen's right to vote, is the denial of my right of consent as one of the governed, the denial of my right of representation as one of the taxed, the denial of my right to a trial by a jury of my peers as an offender against law, therefore, the denial of my sacred rights to life, liberty, property and—"

Judge Hunt: "The Court cannot allow the prisoner to go on."

Miss Anthony: "But your honor will not deny me this one and only poor privilege of protest against this high-handed outrage upon my citizen's rights. May it please the Court to remember that since the day of my arrest last November, this is the first time that either myself or any person of my disfranchised class has been allowed a word of defense before judge or jury—"

Judge Hunt: "The prisoner must sit down—the Court cannot allow it."

Miss Anthony: "All of my prosecutors, from the eighth ward corner grocery politician, who entered the compliant, to the United States Marshal, Commissioner, District Attorney, District Judge, your honor on the bench, not one is my peer, but each and all are my political sovereigns and had your honor submitted my case to the jury, as was clearly your duty, even then I should have had just cause of protest, for not one of those men was my peer but, native or foreign born, white or black, rich or poor, educated or ignorant, awake or asleep, sober or drunk, each and every man of them was my political superior hence, in no sense, my peer. Even, under such circumstances, a commoner of England, tried before a jury of Lords, would have far less cause to complain than should I, a woman, tried before a jury of men. Even my counsel, the Hon. Henry R. Selden, who has argued my cause so ably, so earnestly, so unanswerably before your honor, is my political sovereign. Precisely as no disfranchised person is entitled to sit upon a jury, and no woman is entitled to the franchise, so, none but a regularly admitted lawyer is allowed to practice in the courts, and no woman can gain admission to the bar—hence, jury, judge, counsel, must all be of the superior class.

Judge Hunt: "The Court must insist—the prisoner has been tried according to the established forms of law."

Miss Anthony: "Yes, your honor, but by forms of law all made by men, interpreted by men, administered by men, in favor of men, and against women and hence, your honor's ordered verdict of guilty against a United States citizen for the exercise of "that citizen's right to vote," simply because that citizen was a woman and not a man. But, yesterday, the same man made forms of law, declared it a crime punishable with $1,000 fine and six months imprisonment, for you, or me, or you of us, to give a cup of cold water, a crust of bread, or a night's shelter to a panting fugitive as he was tracking his way to Canada. And every man or woman in whose veins coursed a drop of human sympathy violated that wicked law, reckless of consequences, and was justified in so doing. As then, the slaves who got their freedom must take it over, or under, or through the unjust forms of law, precisely so, now, must women, to get their right to a voice in this government, take it and I have taken mine, and mean to take it at every possible opportunity."

Judge Hunt: "The Court orders the prisoner to sit down. It will not allow another word."

Miss Anthony: "When I was brought before your honor for trial, I hoped for a broad and liberal interpretation of the Constitution and its recent amendments, that should declare. equality of rights the national guarantee to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. But failing to get this justice—failing, even, to get a trial by a jury not of my peers—I ask not leniency at your hands—but rather the full rigors of the law—"

Judge Hunt: "The Court must insist—" (Here Miss Anthony sat down.) "The prisoner will stand up. (Here Miss Anthony arose again.) " The sentence of the Court is that you pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs of the prosecution."

Miss Anthony: Anthony protested. "May it please your honor, I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty. All the stock in trade I possess is a $10,000 debt, incurred by publishing my paper— The Revolution —four years ago, the sole object of which was to educate all women to do precisely as I have done, rebel against your manmade, unjust, unconstitutional forms of law, that tax, fine, imprison and hang women, while they deny them the right of representation in the government and I shall work on with might and main to pay every dollar of that honest debt, but not a penny shall go to this unjust claim. And I shall earnestly and persistently continue to urge all women to the practical recognition of the old revolutionary maxim, that "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."

Judge Hunt, in a move calculated to preclude any appeal to a higher court, ended the trial by announcing, "Madam, the Court will not order you committed until the fine is paid."


HistoryLink.org

In 1999 and 2000, after a hiatus of seven decades, Makah Indian whalers again hunted gray whales from their ancestral lands around Cape Flattery on the Olympic Peninsula. The Makah, whose whaling tradition dates back thousands of years, are the only tribe in the United States with a treaty guaranteeing the right to hunt whales. Makahs had not whaled since the 1920s, when commercial whaling nearly wiped out whale populations, but the tribe announced it would resume whaling after the gray whale was removed from the Endangered Species List in 1994. The decision ignited worldwide controversy. Some animal rights activists bitterly denounced the Makah, but other groups, from advocates for indigenous rights to the United States government, supported the tribe's right to hunt. Following legal battles and physical confrontations with protestors, Makah whalers landed their first whale in more than 70 years on May 17, 1999. A 2000 hunt was not successful, and court decisions put further authorized hunts on hold (although five whalers killed a whale without permission in 2007) as the Makah, who continue to assert their treaty right to hunt whales, seek federal approval to continue their tradition.

People of the Cape

In their language, the Makah are "people of the cape" (Sullivan, 23). For generations, they inhabited a large portion of the Olympic Peninsula, extending from Cape Flattery at the tip of the Peninsula for many miles south along the Pacific coast and east along the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Archeological research has documented well over 2000 years of Makah life and culture at the village of Ozette, about 15 miles south of Cape Flattery.

Traditions passed down to contemporary Makahs, reports of early visitors to Makah territory, and the discoveries at Ozette all confirm that pre-contact Makah had a well-developed technology and economy based largely on resources from the ocean, principally halibut, fur seals, and whales. These are usually obtained far out to sea, and the Makah were renowned for their seafaring tradition. Paddling large cedar canoes carved from the trunk of a single tree, Makahs regularly hunted and fished 30 or 40 miles, and sometimes more than 100 miles, out to sea. Early white observers commented on the Makahs' great skill as canoeists and as whale hunters.

Hunting the Gray Whale

The Makah hunted several varieties of whale, but concentrated on the gray whale. These baleen whales, which feed by passing water and mud through large baleen plates in their mouths to strain out food, average 35 to 45 feet in length, and 20 to 35 tons in weight. Pacific gray whales make the longest migration of any mammal. After feeding off the coast of Alaska during the summer, the whales travel up to 5,000 miles from the Bering Sea to the coastal lagoons of Baja California, where the females give birth. In the spring, they return to Alaska. These twice-yearly migrations historically brought thousands of gray whales past the Makah hunting grounds off Cape Flattery every spring and fall.

Since even a single whale supplied many needs, and because a whale hunt required substantial resources, whalers occupied positions of high prestige in Makah society. Only certain families were eligible to lead hunts, and whaling crews were led by the heads of those families. All whalers underwent rigorous spiritual training, including prayer and ritual cleansing and purification, as well as practice in techniques of the hunt.

Makah whaling canoes carried eight men -- a harpooner in front, one to steer in the rear, and six paddlers. The harpoon consisted of a copper or iron head, with horn barbs, tied to a rope of whale sinew and fastened to a wooden staff. When the whale was harpooned, numerous buoys made of inflated sealskins and tied to the rope were thrown in the water to slow the wounded whale and prevent it from diving. More harpoons and buoys were attached until the whale tired and could be killed with lances. The whale was then towed to shore where it was carved and distributed among the crew and other tribe members according to custom.

Virtually every part of the whale was used. The oil, blubber, and flesh were eaten, sinews were used for ropes, cords and bowstrings, and the stomach and intestines were dried and inflated to hold oil. Even the bones were occasionally used in house construction. The Makah frequently produced a surplus of whale oil and blubber, which they traded to other tribes, and to white settlers when they arrived.

The Treaty of Neah Bay

Like all American Indians, the Makah were devastated by contact with whites and the resulting epidemics, which killed more than two thirds of the Makah population. As their population declined, white settlement increased and the Makah, like other tribes, were pressured to sign treaties with the U.S. government ceding most of their ancestral land. However, while they agreed to give up many thousands of acres -- all their territory except a small reservation centered around Neah Bay and Cape Flattery -- the Makah insisted on retaining the rights to whale and fish that were central to their culture. As a result, the Treaty of Neah Bay, signed in 1855, specifically guarantees that "The right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said [Makah] Indians in common with all citizens of the United States" (Treaty of Neah Bay).

Makahs continued to hunt whales until the 1920s, when commercial whaling decimated the gray whale population. In 1855, the same year the Makah signed their treaty, Charles Scammon, a whaler from New England, discovered the gray whales' birthing lagoons in Baja California. White commercial whalers crowded the lagoons, and within a short time the gray whale was nearly extinct, its population dropping from an estimated 30,000 to only a few thousand.

Gray Whales Return

In 1946, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was formed, initially to conserve whales for continued commercial harvest. Later, the U.S. government placed the gray whale on the Endangered Species List. By 1986, with worldwide sentiment against whaling rising, the U.S. and other nations persuaded the International Whaling Commission to adopt a moratorium on commercial whaling. The moratorium allowed hunts by some indigenous groups to continue. Gray whale populations rebounded, reaching 23,000 in 1994, with an annual growth rate of 2.5 percent. That year, the whale was removed from the Endangered Species List.

Meanwhile, like other Indians, Makahs were engaged in revitalizing their culture and defending treaty rights restricted by state laws and regulations. Through "fish-in" demonstrations in the 1960s, and landmark federal court cases in the 1970s, Northwest tribes including the Makah won the right to a substantial percentage of salmon, halibut, and other fisheries based on their treaties. In the mid-1960s the Makah Tribe hired a returning college graduate to apply for funding from the federal Office of Economic Opportunity, part of President Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty," to launch the Makah Community Action Program and Headstart Program. The programs were able to use anti-poverty funds to help further cultural renewal by pushing the boundaries for defining "poverty" to also include a loss of language and traditions. Elders were employed to teach Makah language and stories to children in Headstart and early elementary grades, summer cultural classes were initiated to help children learn traditional songs and dances, and organized classes in basket-making, carving, and weaving were begun.

The discoveries at Ozette, which began in 1970 after a winter storm revealed a long-buried village, were important for some tribal members, including the youth who worked on the excavations and elders whose knowledge was validated and affirmed by the thousands of well-preserved artifacts that they helped identify and discuss. The Makah also participated in the revival of the traditional Northwest carved cedar canoes. Carvers on Vancouver Island made the tribe a 35-foot canoe called the Hummingbird. In 1993, the crew of the Hummingbird joined canoes from many other tribes on a journey to Bella Bella in northern British Columbia, paddling 340 miles over the Pacific Ocean from Neah Bay.

The Makah Decide to Resume Whaling

For many Makahs, the next step was to resume hunting the no longer endangered gray whale. As one Makah put it:

"We quit whaling because we were told to. The whales are back. Whaling is what we do, it's what our songs and stories are all about" (Seattle Times, September 12, 1997).

The tribe planned to hunt traditionally, by harpooning whales from a cedar canoe manned by eight men prepared according to the traditional holy rituals. The only change was using a powerful .50-caliber rifle to kill the whale instantaneously after it was harpooned, avoiding the prolonged death that resulted when only harpoons and lances were used.

Starting in 1996, the Makah sought permission from the International Whaling Commission to take up to five gray whales annually. Honoring the 1855 treaty, the U.S. government strongly supported the tribe's request. Doing so put the United States in an awkward position, given its long-standing opposition to increased whaling. The Makah request and U.S. support generated a storm of protest from anti-whaling and animal rights groups around the world.

Many Groups Oppose the Hunt

More than 350 groups from 27 countries opposed the tribe's plans. Most opponents conceded that taking only five whales per year would not threaten the gray whale population, but condemned the precedent that would be set by allowing the Makah to resume whaling after 70 years. Some feared that other indigenous peoples with a whaling tradition would try to follow suit, or that U.S. support for the Makah hunt would weaken efforts to end commercial whaling by other countries. However, some of the most prominent environmental and conservation groups, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, made deliberate decisions not to oppose the Makah whale hunt.

One of the most vocal critics of the Makah was the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The group, which had gained notoriety for using its fleet to attack whaling boats, threatened to physically disrupt the Makah hunt. Sea Shepherd head Paul Watson accused the Makah of acting as a front for Japanese commercial whaling interests, which the tribe denied. Among other organizations opposing the proposed hunt were the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) and the Humane Society of the United States.

Despite the opposition, the U.S. won International Whaling Commission agreement in October 1997, for a deal between the U.S. and Russia allotting the Makah four gray whales per year from the 124-whale quota for native groups in the North Pacific. Even before the IWC decision, the Makah hunt was challenged in federal court by plaintiffs -- including Republican U.S. Representative Jack Metcalf (1927-2007) of Whidbey Island, animal rights groups, tour-boat operators and kayakers -- who argued that the government had not properly assessed the environmental impacts of the hunt. A year after the International Whaling Commission ruling, federal judge Franklin Burgess rejected the plaintiffs' claims.

Confrontations in Neah Bay

With the hunt cleared to begin October 1, 1998, protestors vowing to stop the Makah and reporters hoping to cover the action descended on Neah Bay, the principal town on the reservation. However, there was no hunt that fall. The whaling crew continued to prepare and practice, paddling the canoe Hummingbird out to sea almost daily. There were confrontations between protestors and Makahs in the harbor and on the road to the reservation. But the gray whale migration was late, and as the weather worsened protestors departed and the whalers put the hunt on hold until spring.

The first Makah whale hunt in more than 70 years took place on May 10, 1999, off Ozette, where numerous gray whales were passing on their spring migration. As the whalers in the Hummingbird approached the whales, speedboats and Zodiacs from the protest group Sea Defense Alliance tried to stop them. Protestors threw things at the canoe and fired fire extinguishers. Twice harpooner Theron Parker threw the harpoon at a whale but missed. The whalers hunted again on May 15, but did not harpoon a whale. Each time a protest boat entered the 500-yard "exclusion zone" established around the canoe, the Coast Guard detained it. The Sea Shepherd ship Sirenian left the area to pick up replacement boats.

The Whale Is Caught

On the morning of Monday, May 17, 1999, there were no protest boats around when, after praying together, the Makah whalers paddled the Hummingbird off Cape Alava near Ozette. With TV cameras broadcasting live from a helicopter overhead, the 35-foot canoe approached a 30-foot gray whale. As the whale surfaced, Theron Parker thrust the harpoon into it. The whale was harpooned a second time from the support boat that accompanied the canoe, and then shot and killed with the rifle. Only then did Sea Shepherd's Sirenian reach the scene, blasting its horn in protest. After the whalers prayed in their canoe, crewmember Donnie Swan, a diver, attached additional lines to the whale, which was towed back to Neah Bay by a Makah fishing boat. The Hummingbird, accompanied by canoes from visiting tribes, brought the dead whale to the beach where Makahs and many visitors waited to celebrate. The whaling crew and then other Makahs stood triumphantly on the whale. Following tradition, harpooner Parker sprinkled eagle feathers on the body.

The whale was carved on the beach in preparation for a potlatch feast. Makahs of all ages ate fresh blubber, many for the first time. A 13-year-old said "I've heard so many stories about this from my grandpa. Now I finally know what he meant" (Seattle Times, 5/18/99). The potlatch, attended by members of native groups from the northwest and around the world, was held the following weekend to celebrate the successful hunt as a rebirth of Makah culture and a victory for treaty rights of all indigenous peoples.

Protestors quickly condemned the whale's death and the Makahs' celebration. A candlelight vigil was held in Seattle the evening of the kill. Newspapers throughout the state were deluged with letters and e-mails denouncing the hunt and the Makah. The outrage among some animal rights activists was so great that within a few days religious leaders in Seattle called for tolerance, expressing dismay at death threats against the Makah and the racist tone of some protests.

Makah Leaders See Culture Revitalized

The protests and controversy continued in May 2000, when Makah whalers again set out in pursuit of gray whales, pursued in turn by protest boats. The level of confrontation remained high, and the Coast Guard continued to seize boats violating the exclusion zone. In one instance, an inflatable Coast Guard "safe boat" ran over a protestor on a Jet Ski who had been buzzing the Makah canoe. Although Makah families made nine hunts, throwing seven harpoons, no whales were caught.

Despite the controversy, Makah leaders saw lasting positive effects from the successful hunt. The tribal chairman said in 2001 that "no one is the same" since the crew brought in the whale (Post-Intelligencer, July 14, 2001). Helma Ward, one of the few remaining elders who grew up speaking Makah, reported that attendance at language classes swelled after the hunt. Enough young people spoke Makah sufficiently to pass the language on to another generation. Makah high school students assembled the bones of the whale for display in the museum at the Makah Cultural and Research Center. John McCarty, first chairman of the tribe's whaling commission, stated:

"The interest of the people in our culture was sparked by the whale. It brought a lot of talk about the culture and how the Makahs were in the past. That was our aim: to revitalize the culture" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 14, 2001).

Litigation Leaves Hunts on Hold

Then on June 9, 2000, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Burgess and ordered that hunts cease until a new environmental assessment was prepared. The new assessment was issued in July 2001, again approving the hunt. In 2002, the International Whatling Commission approved the Makah request to renew its quota of whales for an additional five years, and Makah whalers began to prepare for a hunt that year. As they did, some of the most ardent anti-whaling groups said they would not try to obstruct the hunt. PAWS decided not to return in part because its campaign was interpreted as a slur against treaty rights. And Sea Shepherd, leader of the anti-whaling fleet, announced it would not oppose the Makah hunt directly, although it would continue to support local opponents. Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd said the Makah hunt was a distraction from efforts to oppose large-scale whaling by nations such as Japan, Norway, Iceland, and the Danish Faroe Islands.

However, whaling opponents including the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals had appealed the new environmental assessment. Judge Burgess rejected the challenges, but on December 20, 2002, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit again reversed him, placing the hunt on hold indefinitely. The panel ruled that although the hunt would not have any significant impact on the overall gray whale population, the assessment did not adequately address possible impacts on the whale population in the local area of the northern Washington coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca. The court halted the hunt until a full fledged environmental impact statement evaluating those impacts is prepared. Moreover, in a ruling seen as having sweeping implications for all Indian treaty rights, the panel announced that the hunt cannot proceed unless Makah whalers obtain a permit or exemption under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

Hunt opponents celebrated the decision. Fund for Animals president Michael Markarian said "We are elated that the court has put a stop to this illegal and inhumane whale hunt" (Seattle Times, December 21, 2002). For their part, the Makah, other Indians, and experts in Indian law were all stunned by the ruling that the Marine Mammal Protection Act applied despite the treaty guaranteeing the Makahs’ right to hunt whales. Legal experts said that the ruling appeared to conflict with the long-standing principle that Indian treaties are the supreme law of the land and cannot be overridden by general statutes.

Makah leaders lamented the decision’s effect on the tribe’s efforts at cultural revitalization. Tribal chairman Nathan Tyler said the ruling

"will hurt across the board. That day the whale was on the beach, the whole town was down there. People were happy and looking forward to getting some of that whale meat. Everybody is going to feel it here. They are not going to be happy with the decision" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 21, 2002).

Compliance and Defiance

The tribe made two attempts to get the appeals court to change its ruling, but the panel judges rejected the requests and the rest of the 9th Circuit declined to hear the case. Rather than appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and risk a further weakening of treaty rights, tribal leaders decided to comply with the procedures that the court said were necessary. In February 2005, seven months after the 9th Circuit’s final ruling, the Makah tribe submitted a formal request to the National Marine Fisheries Service for a waiver of the MMPA allowing them to hunt whales. The tribe and Fisheries Service also began work on the full environmental impact statement that the court required prior to any whale hunt.

The administrative process proved to be a lengthy one. Three years of public hearings and drafting followed before the Fisheries Service completed a first draft of the environmental impact statement. As the years passed with no authorization for a hunt, some Makah whalers grew impatient with what they considered the on-going violation of their treaty rights.

On September 8, 2007, five whalers, including several who had participated in the successful 1999 hunt, again harpooned a gray whale. They acted without permission from the Makah whaling commission or the federal government and the Coast Guard immediately seized the whale, which then sank without being harvested. This time the chorus of condemnation from anti-whaling forces was joined by tribal leaders, who shared the whalers’ frustration over the delays but feared that the unauthorized hunt would undermine their efforts to obtain the MMPA waiver. Makah authorities immediately announced plans to prosecute the whalers, who were ultimately convicted in federal court.

The Fisheries Service finally released a draft of the environmental impact statement in May 2008. However, three more years followed without issuance of a final statement or a decision on the waiver request. With more litigation likely to follow once a decision is issued, it remains uncertain, as of 2011, when or if Makah whalers will once more launch carved cedar canoes in search of gray whales, as they did for generations until the 1920s and again briefly at the turn of the twenty-first century.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I'm a new ward clerk working on my first annual history. The ward historian has asked all the auxiliaries to submit a small history so she can compile it into one. We have just started it and some of the leaders are already complaining.

I have read all the info on the church web site and understand what needs to be included. What I haven't found is a template of questions that could guide everyone through the process.

It is proposed. (to use a church phrase). that those on the forum submit thought provoking questions that we can compile into a template, to help each presidency contribute to the ward history.

1. What activities did your quorum or group participate in that helped to introduce a non member to the gospel.

2. What activities did your quorum or group sponsor to help reactivate it's members.

3. Describe any service projects your group participated in and how they helped those involved.

I think if they had a place to start they could complete this without much complaining.

Post by aebrown » Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:38 am

Re: Annual ward history template?

Post by mtgrind » Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:44 pm

I agree with this new ward clerk I have found myself in the same situation were I was called towards the middle of the year and not knowing that I had this responsibility and so when the Stake Clerk ask for your history it is difficult to make one up in a timely manor. And having a template that would be available to edit on line to your needs would be a big help. Thank you I really would appreciate your help.

Brother Toftdahl
Fullerton YSA

Re: ward history template?

Post by [email protected] » Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:57 am

Re: ward history template?

Post by lajackson » Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Annual ward history template?

Post by marykfoskey » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:44 pm

Re: Annual ward history template?

Post by davesudweeks » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:37 pm

Our cover letter is provided each year by our Stake Clerk. In addition, he provides information on what our stake would like each unit to put in their ward history.

I write up the general ward information as the clerk - if the individual organizations choose to not provide anything for the ward history in a particular year, then so be it.

Re: Annual ward history template?

Post by allendreher » Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:33 pm

This is my first time as stake clerk putting together the annual history. I have some information from the previous stake clerk, however, I have from mid July of last year through the end of the year as the stake clerk.

We just had bishopric training last night and when I asked the bishops if they knew what went into an annual history, you could hear crickets. I know where some of the confusion is.

I am curious to see what the cover letter that the stake clerk provided. This could be beneficial for the units. The stake has decided to use the basic option for reporting. I'm into keeping things simple.

Re: Annual ward history template?

Post by drepouille » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:12 pm

Re: Annual ward history template?

Post by davesudweeks » Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:14 pm

allendreher wrote: This is my first time as stake clerk putting together the annual history. I have some information from the previous stake clerk, however, I have from mid July of last year through the end of the year as the stake clerk.

We just had bishopric training last night and when I asked the bishops if they knew what went into an annual history, you could hear crickets. I know where some of the confusion is.

I am curious to see what the cover letter that the stake clerk provided. This could be beneficial for the units. The stake has decided to use the basic option for reporting. I'm into keeping things simple.

As the ward clerk, I write up a narrative on general ward activities. Things like deaths, marriages, births, special meetings or temple trips, average sacrament meeting attendance, leadership changes during the year in the ward, boundary changes, etc., etc. My piece is usually 1-2 pages. I include a listing (2-column format) of all the organization leaders at the end of the past year. I ask each organization to provide something from their organization. Most are 1-2 paragraphs. This year our Primary president provided the entire text of the annual primary program (this year, the youth provided their own quotes instead of memorizing ones given to them so it is a special record). If an organization chooses to not provide anything, I don't worry about it, but the bishop reviews it before I submit to the stake.

This is what our Stake Clerk requested from each unit this year:
1. Cover sheet (this is the general "stakes and districts" one)
2. A brief narrative describing the year’s important events and developments. Include faith-building stories,
3. The unit’s calendar, and
4. The Officers Sustained forms read at ward and branch conferences.

Our ward's history for 2017 currently stands at 9 pages plus the calendar and cover sheet. RS did not provide any input this year so it may grow a little - the bishop is going to "encourage" them. The stake will insert the officers sustained form so we are not sending that to them.

I have several past ward histories in my files (have been a ward or branch clerk several times - it's a glorious calling for me) and could share them on an individual basis. If you want to pm me your e-mail address, I could send an example or two from past years.


Hunt, Ward - History

The original thirteen colonies of the United States were settled along the east coast of North America. For many years, few colonists went beyond the Appalachian Mountains. However, as the country gained independence and continued to grow, more land was needed. The country began to expand into the western frontier.


United States Expansion Map
from the National Atlas of the United States
Click picture for larger view

In 1700 there were around 250,000 colonists living in the American colonies. By 1775, this number had grown to 2.5 million. Many people wanted new land to farm and hunt. They began to move west of the Appalachians.

One of the first areas settled was the Northwest Territory. This area today makes up the states of Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Daniel Boone led settlers across the Cumberland Gap and into Kentucky.

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory from the French for $15 million. This was a huge area of land west of the Mississippi River. It nearly doubled the land size of the United States. President Jefferson sent explorers Lewis and Clark to learn more about this vast frontier.

Many people in the United States believed it was the country's destiny to expand westward all the way to the Pacific Ocean. This belief became known as the Manifest Destiny.

One tragic result of the westward expansion of the United States was the forced relocation of many Native American tribes. As the United States moved west, it took over lands once occupied by Native Americans. In many cases, Native Americans were ordered to relocate to new lands or reservations. Sometimes they were forced to leave existing lands by the military and marched at gunpoint to new lands (see the Trail of Tears). You can read more about the culture and plight of Native Americans during the westward expansion here.

The United States continued to expand westward and gain land. After a war with Mexico over the rights to Texas, the country gained much of the southwest including the land of California. They also gained the Oregon Territory in a treaty from Great Britain.

Pioneers and settlers moved out west for different reasons. Some of them wanted to claim free land for ranching and farming from the government through the Homestead Act. Others came to California during the gold rush to strike it rich. Even others, such as the Mormons, moved west to avoid persecution.

As the first settlers and pioneers moved into the west, there was little government. The law was the local sheriff and people had to look to protect themselves against bandits and outlaws. During this time, gunslingers of the west such as Wild Bill Hickok and Jesse James became famous.

In 1890, the US government announced that the west had been explored. The country now had 44 states. Only Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arizona had not been admitted as states from today's contiguous 48 states.


Related Videos

Ward Union Hunt

Point-to-point horse racing from Ireland - some of the riders are dressed for hunting.

Ward Union Hunt

Deer hunting in Ireland, opening of Hunting Season.

Ward Union Hunt

The Ward Union Hunt gathers at Eight Mile Stone.

Ward Union Hunt

The Ward Union Hunt assembles beside a country lane.

Ward Union Hunt

A fox hunt in Ireland at Christmastime.

A Village Hunt

Schoolchildren watch from their playground as the Ward Union Hunt walks through the village.


Pogledajte video: Dejtonska historija Bosne (Novembar 2021).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos