My Web Site Page 215 Ovations 04Poki Mogarli chose the topics covered by My Web Site Page 215 without reflecting upon the choices others have made. Launching into a full discussion of all the objectives while riding a bicycle backwards down a steep hillside is another way to look at things in a different light. |
OvationsOvation 01Ovation 02 Ovation 03 Ovation 04 Ovation 05 Ovation 06 Ovation 07 Ovation 08 Ovation 09 Ovation 10 Ovation 11 Ovation 12 Ovation 13 Ovation 14 Ovation 15 Ovation 16 Ovation 17 Ovation 18 Ovation 19 Ovation 20 Ovation 21 Ovation 22 Ovation 23 Ovation 24 SitemapsSitemap 1Sitemap 2 Sitemap 3 |
Sometimes it may be advisable to dry 10 grams, in which case multiplying the loss by 10 will give the percentage. The dried ore should be transferred to a weighing-tube (fig. 3), and reserved for the subsequent determinations. The weighing-tube with the ore must be marked, and kept in a desiccator. Most ores and inorganic substances can be dried, and their moisture determined by the loss in this way. When, however, the substance contains another somewhat volatile ingredient, it is exposed over sulphuric acid in a desiccator for two days (if _in vacuo_, all the better), and the loss determined. Moisture in dynamite should be determined in this way. When water is simply mechanically mixed with a substance it presents but little difficulty. The combined water is a different matter. Slaked lime, even when perfectly dry, contains much water; and if the water of soda crystals were separated and frozen, it would occupy a volume equal to that of the original crystals. Perfectly dry substances may contain much water, and this combined water is retained by different materials with very unequal vigour. Sodium sulphate and sodium phosphate crystals lose water even when exposed under ordinary conditions to dry air. Soda crystals when heated melt, and at a moderate temperature give off their water with ebullition. The temperature at which all the water is given up varies with each particular salt; the actual determination of the water in each case will require somewhat different treatment. Such determinations, however, are seldom required; and from a practical point of view this combined water causes no trouble. |
The foregoing comments apply to cargoes destined for Germany. Cargoes coming out of German forts present another problem under the terms of the declaration. Under the rules governing enemy exports only goods owned by enemy subjects in enemy bottoms are subject to seizure and condemnation. Yet by the declaration it is purposed to seize and take into port all goods of enemy "ownership and origin." The word "origin" is particularly significant. The origin of goods destined to neutral territory on neutral ships is not, and never has been, a ground for forfeiture, except in case a blockade is declared and maintained. What, then, would the seizure amount to in the present case except to delay the delivery of the goods? The declaration does not indicate what disposition would be made of such cargoes if owned by a neutral or if owned by an enemy subject. Would a different rule be applied according to ownership? If so, upon what principles of international law would it rest? And upon what rule, if no blockade is declared and maintained, could the cargo of a neutral ship sailing out of a German port be condemned? If it is not condemned, what other legal course is there but to release it? |
During the Christmas festival of 1170 (December 29th) occurred an event memorable in ecclesiastical history--the murder of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1162 Becket (who had previously been Chancellor to Henry II.) was made Archbishop, in succession to Archbishop Theobald. The King soon found that he who had served him faithfully as Chancellor would oppose him doggedly as Archbishop. Henry determined to subject the Church as well as the State to the supremacy of the law; and Becket determined to resist the King to the end, thus manifesting his desire for martyrdom in the cause of the Church. Henry had greatly offended the Archbishop by causing his eldest son to be crowned by the Archbishop of York. For this violation of the rights of Canterbury Becket threatened to lay the country under an interdict, which he had the power from the Pope to pronounce. A sort of reconciliation was effected between the King and the Archbishop at Freteval on July 21, 1170, but a further dispute arose on Becket delaying his return to England, the King being anxious to get him out of France. The Archbishop was full of complaints against Henry for the injuries he had done to his see, and the King stood upon his dignity, regardless of the threatened interdiction. | ||
This page is Copyright © Poki Mogarli. All Rights Reserved. My Web Site Page 215 is a production of Poki Mogarli and may not be reproduced electronically or graphically for commercial uses. Personal reproductions and browser or search engine caching are acceptable. |