text:
package com.hotf.client.view.component;

import com.google.gwt.core.client.GWT;
import com.google.gwt.uibinder.client.UiBinder;
import com.google.gwt.uibinder.client.UiField;
import com.google.gwt.user.client.ui.Composite;
import com.google.gwt.user.client.ui.HasText;
import com.google.gwt.user.client.ui.Label;
import com.google.gwt.user.client.ui.Widget;
import com.hotf.client.ClientFactory;
import com.hotf.client.Resources;
import com.hotf.client.event.MessageEvent.Level;
import com.hotf.client.view.HasVisibility;
import com.hotf.client.view.HasVisibilityImpl;

public class MessagePanelImpl extends Composite implements MessagePanel {

	private static MessagePanelImplUiBinder uiBinder = GWT.create(MessagePanelImplUiBinder.class);

	interface MessagePanelImplUiBinder extends UiBinder<Widget, MessagePanelImpl> {
	}

	@UiField(provided = true) final Resources resources;
	@UiField Label messageField;

	public MessagePanelImpl(ClientFactory clientFactory) {

		super();

		this.resources = clientFactory.getResources();

		initWidget(uiBinder.createAndBindUi(this));

		messageHidden = new HasVisibilityImpl(messageField);

	}

	@Override
	public void setPresenter(Presenter presenter) {
	}

	@Override
	public void setLevel(Level level) {
		switch (level) {
			case PAGE :
			case INFO : {
				messageField.addStyleName(resources.style().info());
				messageField.removeStyleName(resources.style().error());
				messageField.removeStyleName(resources.style().advert());
				break;
			}
			case LOADING :
			case ERROR : {
				messageField.removeStyleName(resources.style().info());
				messageField.addStyleName(resources.style().error());
				messageField.removeStyleName(resources.style().advert());
				break;
			}
		}
	}

	@Override
	public HasText getMessageField() {
		return messageField;
	}

	private HasVisibility messageHidden;

	@Override
	public HasVisibility getMessageHidden() {
		return messageHidden;
	}

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


We created this simple chore chart to motivate our toddler to learn responsibilities by starting with pint-sized chores e.g. brush teeth, pick up toys, etc.
When your tot completes a chore, award him or her with a stamp or sticker. We found stickers work the best! They love to pick out their own stickers!
Simply download, print, & tape to your fridge!


text:
US Laws
US Jurisprudence
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 161 > GEER V. CONNECTICUT, 161 U. S. 519 (1896)
GEER V. CONNECTICUT, 161 U. S. 519 (1896)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 161 U. S. 519
Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896)
Geer v. Connecticut
Argued November 22, 1895
Decided March 2, 1896
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
The provision in the General Statutes of Connecticut (Revision of 1888, § 2546) that
"no person shall at any time kill any woodcock, rued grouse or quail for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of this State, or shall transport or have in possession, with intent to procure the transportation beyond said limits, any of such birds killed within this State"
is legislation which it is within the constitution power of the legislature of the state to enact.
The General Statutes of the State of Connecticut provide (Sec. 2530, Revision 1888):
"Every person who shall buy, sell, expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose, or who shall hunt, pursue, kill, destroy or attempt to kill any woodcock, quail, ruffled grouse, called partridge, or gray squirrel between the first day of January and the first day of October, the killing or having in possession of each bird or squirrel to be deemed a separate offense, . . . shall be fined not more than twenty-five dollars. . . ."
It is further by the statute of the same state provided (Sec. 2546):
"No person shall at any time kill any woodcock, ruffled grouse, or quail for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of the state; or shall transport or have in possession, with intention to procure the transportation beyond said limits, of any such birds killed within this state. The reception by any person within this state of any such bird or birds for shipment to a point without the state shall be prima facie evidence that said bird or birds were killed within the state for the purpose of carrying the same beyond its limits."
An information was filed against the plaintiff in error in the police court of New London, Connecticut, charging him chanrobles.com-red
Page 161 U. S. 520
with, on the 19th day of October, 1889, unlawfully receiving and having in his possession, with the wrongful and unlawful intent to procure the transportation beyond the limits of the state, certain woodcock, ruffled grouse, and quail, killed within this state after the first day of October, 1889. The trial of the charge resulted in the conviction of the defendant and the imposing of a fine upon him. Thereupon the case was taken by appeal to the criminal court of common pleas. In that court, the defendant demurred to the information on the ground, among others, that the statute upon which that prosecution was based violated the Constitution of the United States.
The demurrer being overruled and the defendant declining to answer over, he was adjudged guilty and condemned to pay a fine and costs and to stand committed until he had complied with the judgment. An appeal was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Errors of the state. The defendant on the appeal assigned the following errors:
"The court erred --"
"1st. In holding that the allegations contained in the complaint constitute an offense in law."
"2d. In holding that said complaint was insufficient in the law without an allegation that the birds therein mentioned were killed in this state for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of this state."
"3d. In refusing to hold that so much of section 2546 of the General Statutes, under which this complaint is brought, as may be construed to forbid the transportation from this state of the birds therein described, lawfully killed, and permitted by the laws of the state to become the subject of traffic and commerce, is unconstitutional and void."
"4th. In refusing to hold that so much of said section as may be construed to forbid the receiving and having in possession, with intent to procure the transportation thereof to another state, birds therein described, lawfully killed, and permitted by the laws of this state to become the subject of traffic and commerce is unconstitutional and void."
"5th. In holding that the defendant is guilty of an offense
under said section if such birds were lawfully killed in this state and were bought by the defendant in the markets of this state as articles of property, merchandise, and commerce, and had begun to move as an article of interstate commerce."
"6th. In not rendering judgment for defendant."
In the supreme court, the conviction was affirmed. The case is reported in 61 Conn. 1442. To this judgment of affirmance this writ of error is prosecuted.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court.
By the statutes of the State of Connecticut referred to in the statement of facts, the open season for the game birds mentioned therein was from the first day of October to the first day of January. The birds which the defendant was charged with unlawfully having in his possession on the 19th of October, for the purpose of unlawful transportation beyond the state, were alleged to have been killed within the state after the first day of October. They were therefore killed during the open season. There was no charge that they had been unlawfully killed for the purpose of being transported outside of the state. The offense therefore charged was the possession of game birds for the purpose of transporting them beyond the state, which birds had been lawfully killed within the state. The court of last resort of the state held, in interpreting the statute already cited, by the light afforded by previous enactments, that one of its objects was to forbid the killing of birds within the state during the open season, for the purpose of transporting them beyond the state, and also additionally as a distinct offense to punish the having in possession, for the purpose of transportation beyond the state, birds lawfully killed within the state. The court found that the information did not charge the first of these offenses, and therefore that the sole offense which it covered was the latter. chanrobles.com-red
It then decided that the state had power to make it an offense to have in possession, for the purpose of transportation beyond the state, birds which had been lawfully killed within the state during the open season, and that the statute, in creating this offense, did not violate the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The correctness of this latter ruling is the question for review. In other words, the sole issue which the case presents is was it lawful, under the Constitution of the United States (Section 8, Article I), for the State of Connecticut to allow the killing of birds within the state during a designated open season, to allow such birds, when so killed, to be used, to be sold, and to be bought for use, within the state, and yet to forbid their transportation beyond the state? Or, to state it otherwise, had the State of Connecticut the power to regulate the killing of game within her borders so as to confine its use to the limits of the state, and forbid its transmission outside of the state?
In considering this inquiry, we of course accept the interpretation affixed to the state statute by the court of last resort of the state. The solution of the question involves a consideration of the nature of the property in game and the authority which the state had a right lawfully to exercise in relation thereto.
From the earliest traditions, the right to reduce animals ferae naturae to possession has been subject to the control of the law-giving power.
The writer of a learned article in the Repertoire of the Journal du Palais mentions the fact that the law of Athens forbade the killing of game (Rep.Gen.J.P. vol. 5, p. 307), and Merlin says (Repertoire de Jurisprudence, vol. 4, p. 128) that "Solon, seeing that the Athenians gave themselves up to the chase, to the neglect of the mechanical arts, forbade the killing of game."
Among other subdivisions, things were classified by the Roman law into public and common. The latter embraced animals ferae naturae, which, having no owner, were considered as belonging in common to all the citizens of the state. After pointing out the foregoing subdivision, the Digest says: chanrobles.com-red
"There are things which we acquire the dominion of, as by the law of nature, which the light of natural reason causes every man to see, and others we acquire by the civil law -- that is to say, by methods which belong to the government. As the law of nature is more ancient, because it took birth with the human race it is proper to speak first of the latter. 1. Thus, all the animals which can be taken upon the earth, in the sea, or in the air -- that is to say, wild animals -- belong to those who take them, . . . because that which belong to nobody is acquired by the natural law by the person who first possesses it. We do not distinguish the acquisition of these wild beasts and birds by whether one has captured them on his own property or on the property of another, but he who wishes to enter into the property of another to hunt can be readily prevented if the owner knows his purpose to do so."
Dig. bk. 41, Tit. 1, De Adquir. Rer. Dom.
No restriction, it would hence seem, was placed by the Roman law upon the power of the individual to reduce game, of which he was the owner in common with other citizens, to possession, although the Institutes of Justinian recognized the right of an owner of land to forbid another from killing game on his property, as, indeed, this right was impliedly admitted by the Digest in the passage just cited. Institutes, Book 2, Tit. 1, s. 12.
This inhibition was, however, rather a recognition of the right of ownership in land than an exercise by the state of its undoubted authority to control the taking and use of that which belonged to no one in particular, but was common to all. In the feudal as well as the ancient law of the continent of Europe, in all countries, the right to acquire animals ferae naturae by possession was recognized as being subject to the governmental authority and under its power not only as a matter of regulation, but also of absolute control. Merlin, ubi supra, mentions the fact that although tradition indicates that, from the earliest day in France, every citizen had a right to reduce a part of the common property in game to ownership by possession, yet it was also true that, as early as the Salic law, that right was regulated chanrobles.com-red
in certain particulars. Pothier, in his treatise on Property, speaks as follows:
"In France, as well as in all other civilized countries of Europe, the civil law has restrained the liberty which the pure law of nature gave to everyone to capture animals who, being in naturali laxitate, belong to no person in particular. The sovereigns have reserved to themselves, and to those to whom they judge proper to transmit it, the right to hunt all game, and have forbidden hunting to other persons. Some ancient doctors have doubted if sovereigns had the right to reserve hunting to themselves, and to forbid it to their subjects. They contend that, as God has given to man dominion over the beasts, the prince had no authority to deprive all his subjects of a right which God had given them. The natural law, say they, permitted hunting to each individual. The civil law which forbids it is contrary to the natural law, and exceeds, consequently, the power of the legislator, who, being himself submitted to the natural law, can ordain nothing contrary to that law. It is easy to reply to these objections. From the fact that God has given to human kind dominion over wild beasts it does not follow that each individual of the human race should be permitted to exercise this dominion. The civil law, it is said, cannot be contrary to the natural law. This is true as regards those things which the natural law commands or which it forbids, but the civil law can restrict that which the natural law only permits. The greater part of all civil laws are nothing but restrictions on those things which the natural law would otherwise permit. It is for this reason, although, by the pure law of nature, hunting was permitted to each individual, the prince had the right to reserve it in favor of certain persons, and forbid it to others. Pothier, Traite du Droit de Propriete, Nos. 27-28."
"The right belongs to the King to hunt in his dominion. His quality of sovereign gives him the authority to take possession above all others of the things which belong to no one, such as wild animals. The lords and those who have a right to hunt hold such right but from his permission, and he can affix to this permission such restrictions and modifications as may seem to him good."
No. 32. chanrobles.com-red
In tracing the origin of the classification of animals ferae naturae as things common, Pothier moreover says:
"The first of mankind had in common all those things which God had given to the human race. This community was not a positive community of interest, like that which exists between several persons who have the ownership of a thing in which each have their particular portion. It was a community, which those who have written on this subject have called 'a negative community,' which resulted from the fact that those things which were common to all belonged no more to one than to the others, and hence no one could prevent another from taking of these common things that portion which he judged necessary in order to subserve his wants. Whilst he was using them, others could not disturb him; but when he had ceased to use them, if they were not things which were consumed by the fact of use, the things immediately reentered into the negative community, and another could use them. The human race having multiplied, men partitioned among themselves the earth and the greater part of those things which were on its surface. That which fell to each one among them commenced to belong to him in private ownership, and this process is the origin of the right of property. Some things, however, did not enter into this division, and remain therefore to this day, in the condition of the ancient and negative community."
No. 21.
Referring to those things which remain common, or in what he qualified as the negative community, this great writer says:
"These things are those which the jurisconsults called res communes. Marcien refers to several kinds -- the air, the water which runs in the rivers, the sea, and its shores. . . . As regards wild animals, ferae naturae, they have remained in the ancient state of negative community."
In both the works of Merlin and Pothier, ubi supra, will be found a full reference to the history of the varying control exercised by the law-giving power over the right of a citizen to acquire a qualified ownership in animals ferae naturae, evidenced by the regulation thereof by the Salic law, already chanrobles.com-red
referred to, exemplified by the legislation of Charlemagne and continuing through all vicissitudes of governmental authority. This unbroken line of law and precedent is summed up by the provisions of the Napoleon Code, which declares (arts. 714, 715):
"There are things which belong to no one, and the use of which is common to all. Police regulations direct the manner in which they may be enjoyed. The faculty of hunting and fishing is also regulated by special laws."
Like recognition of the fundamental principle upon which the property in game rests has led to similar history and identical results in the common law of Germany, in the law of Austria, Italy, and, indeed, it may be safely said in the law of all the countries of Europe. 1 Saint Joseph Concordance, p. 68.
The common law of England also based property in game upon the principle of common ownership, and therefore treated it as subject to governmental authority.
Blackstone, while pointing out the distinction between things private and those which are common, rests the right of an individual to reduce a part of this common property to possession, and thus acquire a qualified ownership in it, on no other or different principle from that upon which the civilians based such right. 2 Bl.Com. 1, 12.
Referring especially to the common ownership of game, he says:
"But after all, there are some few things which, notwithstanding the general introduction and continuance of property, must still unavoidably remain in common, being such wherein nothing but an usufructuary property is capable of being had, and therefore they still belong to the first occupant during the time he holds possession of them, and no longer. Such (among others) are the elements of light, air, and water, which a man may occupy by means of his windows, his gardens, his mills, and other conveniences. Such also are the generality of those animals which are said to be ferae naturae or of a wild and untamable disposition, which any man may seize upon or keep for his own use or pleasure."
2 Bl.Com. 14.
"A man may lastly have a qualified property in animals
ferae naturae -- propter privilegium; that is, he may have the privilege of hunting, taking, and killing them in exclusion of other persons. Here he has a transient property in these animals usually called 'game' so long as they continue within his liberty, and he may restrain any stranger from taking them therein; but, the instant they depart into another liberty, this qualified property ceases. . . . A man can have no absolute permanent property in these, as he may in the earth and land; since these are of a vague and fugitive nature, and therefore can only admit of a precarious and qualified ownership, which lasts so long as they are in actual use and occupation, but no longer."
2 Bl.Com. 394.
In stating the existence and scope of the royal prerogative, Blackstone further says:
"There still remains another species of prerogative property, founded upon a very different principle from any that have been mentioned before -- the property of such animals, ferae naturae, as are known by the denomination of 'game,' with the right of pursuing, taking, and destroying them, which is vested in the King alone, and from him derived to such of his subjects as have received the grants of a chase, a park, a free warren, or free fishery. . . . In the first place, then, we have already shown, and indeed it cannot be denied, that, by the law of nature, every man, from the prince to the peasant, has an equal of pursuing and taking to his own use all such creatures as are ferae naturae, and therefore the property of nobody, but liable to be seized by the first occupant, and so it was held by the imperial law as late as Justinian's time. . . . But it follows from the very end and constitution of society that this natural right, as well as many others belonging to man as an individual, may be restrained by positive laws enacted for reasons of state or for the supposed benefit of the community."
The practice of the government of England from the earliest time to the present has put into execution the authority to control and regulate the taking of game.
Undoubtedly this attribute of government to control the taking of animals ferae naturae, which was thus recognized and chanrobles.com-red
enforced by the common law of England, was vested in the colonial governments, where not denied by their charters or in conflict with grants of the royal prerogative. It is also certain that the power which the colonies thus possessed passed to the states with the separation from the mother country, and remains in them at the present day insofar as its exercise may be not incompatible with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the federal government by the Constitution. Kent, in his Commentaries, states the ownership of animals ferae naturae to be only that of a qualified property. 2 Kent Com. 347. In most of the states, laws have been passed for the protection and preservation of game. We have been referred to no case where the power to so legislate has been questioned, although the books contain cases involving controversies as to the meaning of some of the statutes. Commonwealth v. Hall, 128 Mass. 410; Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 139 Penn.St. 298; People v. O'Neil, 71 Mich. 325. There are also cases where the validity of some particular method of enforcement provided in some of the statutes has been drawn in question. State v. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127; Territory v. Evans, 2 Idaho 634.
The adjudicated cases recognizing the right of the states to control and regulate the common property in game are numerous. In McCrady v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 395, the power of the State of Virginia to prohibit citizens of other states from planting oysters within the tidewaters of that state was upheld by this Court. In Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, the authority of the State of Massachusetts to control and regulate the catching of fish within the bays of that state was also maintained. See also Phelps v. Racey, 60 N.Y. 10; Magner v. People, 97 Ill. 320; American Express Co. v. People, 133 Ill. 649; State v. Northern Pacific Express Co., 58 Minn. 403; State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393; Ex Parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476; Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 270; Allen v. Wyckoff, 48 N.J.L. 93; Roth v. State, 51 Ohio St. 209; Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 415; State v. Farrell, 23 Mo.App. 176, and cases there cited; State v. Saunders, ubi supra; Territory v. Evans, ubi supra. chanrobles.com-red
While the fundamental principles upon which the common property in game rest have undergone no change, the development of free institutions had led to the recognition of the fact that the power or control lodged in the state, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good. Therefore, for the purpose of exercising this power, the state, as held by this Court in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 410, represents its people, and the ownership is that of the people in their united sovereignty. The common ownership, and its resulting responsibility in the state, is thus stated in a well considered opinion of the Supreme Court of California:
"The wild game within a state belongs to the people in their collective sovereign capacity. It is not the subject of private ownership except insofar as the people may elect to make it so, and they may, if they see fit, absolutely prohibit the taking of it or traffic and commerce in it if it is deemed necessary for the protection or preservation of the public good. Ex Parte Maier, ubi supra."
The same view has been expressed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, as follows:
"We take it to be the correct doctrine in this country that the ownership of wild animals, so far as they are capable of ownership, is in the state not as a proprietor, but in its sovereign capacity, as the representative and for the benefit of all its people in common."
State v. Rodman, supra.
The foregoing analysis of the principles upon which alone rests the right of an individual to acquire a qualified ownership in game, and the power of the state, deduced therefrom, to control such ownership for the common benefit, clearly demonstrates the validity of the statute of the State of Connecticut here in controversy. The sole consequence of the provision forbidding the transportation of game killed within the state beyond the state is to confine the use of such game to those who own it -- the people of that state. The proposition chanrobles.com-red
that the state may not forbid carrying it beyond her limits involves, therefore, the contention that a state cannot allow its own people the enjoyment of the benefits of the property belonging to them in common without at the same time permitting the citizens of other states to participate in that which they do not own. It was said in the discussion at bar, although it be conceded that the state has an absolute right to control and regulate the killing of game as its judgment deems best in the interest of its people, inasmuch as the state has here chosen to allow the people within her borders to take game, to dispose of it, and thus cause it to become an object of state commerce, as a resulting necessity such property has become the subject of interstate commerce, hence controlled by the provisions of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States. But the errors which this argument involves are manifest. It presupposes that where the killing of game and its sale within the state are allowed, it thereby becomes "commerce" in the legal meaning of that word. In view of the authority of the state to affix conditions to the killing and sale of game, predicated, as is this power, on the peculiar nature of such property and its common ownership by all the citizens of the state, it may well be doubted whether commerce is created by an authority given by a state to reduce game within its borders to possession, provided such game be not taken, when killed, without the jurisdiction of the state. The common ownership imports the right to keep the property, if the sovereign so chooses, always within its jurisdiction for every purpose. The qualification which forbids its removal from the state necessarily entered into and formed part of every transaction on the subject, and deprived the mere sale or exchange of these articles of that element of freedom of contract and of full ownership which is an essential attribute of commerce. Passing, however, as we do, the decision of this question, and granting that the dealing in game killed within the state, under the provision in question, created internal state commerce, it does not follow that such internal commerce became necessarily the subject matter of interstate commerce, and therefore under the chanrobles.com-red
control of the Constitution of the United States. The distinction between internal and external commerce and interstate commerce is marked, and has always been recognized by this Court. In Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 194, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said:
"It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a state or between different parts of the same state, and which does not extend to or affect other states. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary."
"Comprehensive as the word 'among' is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one. The phrase is not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state, because it is not an apt phrase for that purpose, and the enumeration of the particular classes of commerce to which the power was to be extended would not have been made had the intention been to extend the power to every description. The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated, and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of the state. The genius and character of the whole government seem to be that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally, but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a state, then, may be considered as reserved for the state itself."
So, again, in The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 564, this Court, speaking through MR. JUSTICE FIELD, said:
"There is undoubtedly an internal commerce which is subject to the control of the states. The power delegated to Congress is limited to commerce among the several states, with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes. This limitation
necessarily excludes from the federal control commerce not thus designated, and, of course, that commerce which is carried on entirely within the limits of a state, and does not extend to or affect other states."
The fact that internal commerce may be distinct from interstate commerce destroys the whole theory upon which the argument of the plaintiff in error proceeds. The power of the state to control the killing of and ownership in game being admitted, the commerce in game which the state law permitted was necessarily only internal commerce, since the restriction that it should not become the subject of external commerce went along with the grant, and was a part of it. All ownership in game killed within the state came under this condition, which the state had the lawful authority to impose, and no contracts made in relation to such property were exempt from the law of the state consenting that such contracts be made, provided only they were confined to internal, and did not extend to external, commerce.
The case in this respect is identical with Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1. The facts there considered were, briefly, as follows: the State of Iowa permitted the distillation of intoxicating liquors for "mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacramental purposes." The right was asserted to send out of the state intoxicating liquors made therein, on the ground that, when manufactured in the state, such liquors became the subject of interstate commerce, and were thus protected by the Constitution of the United States; but this Court, through Mr. Justice Lamar, pointed out the vice in the reasoning, which consisted in presupposing that the state had authorized the manufacture of intoxicants, thereby overlooking the exceptional purpose for which alone such manufacture was permitted. So here, the argument of the plaintiff in error substantially asserts that the state statute gives an unqualified right to kill game, when in fact it is only given upon the condition that the game killed be not transported beyond the state limits. It was upon this power of the state to qualify and restrict the ownership in game killed within its limits that the court below rested its conclusion, and similar views chanrobles.com-red
have been expressed by the courts of last resort of several of the states. In State v. Rodman, ubi supra, the Supreme Court of Minnesota said:
"The preservation of such animals as are adapted to consumption as food or to any other useful purpose is a matter of public interest, and it is within the police power of the state, as the representative of the people in their united sovereignty, to make such laws as will best preserve such game, and secure its beneficial use in the future to the citizens, and to that end it may adopt any reasonable regulations not only as to time and manner in which such game may be taken and killed, but also imposing limitations upon the right of property in such game after it has been reduced to possession, which limitations deprive no person of his property, because he who takes or kills game had no previous right to property in it, and, when he acquires such right by reducing it to possession, he does so subject to such conditions and limitations as the legislature has seen fit to impose."
See also State v. Northern Pacific Express Co., supra.
So, also, in Magner v. People, 97 Ill. 320, 333, the Supreme Court of Illinois said:
"So far as we are aware, it has never been judicially denied that the government, under its police powers, may make regulations for the preservation of game and fish, restricting their taking and molestation to certain seasons of the year, although laws to this effect, it is believed, have been in force in many of the older states since the organization of the federal government. . . . The ownership being in the people of the state, the repository of the sovereign authority, and no individual having any property rights to be affected, it necessarily results that the legislature, as the representative of the people of the state, may withhold or grant to individuals the right to hunt and kill game, or qualify or restrict, as in the opinions of its members will best subserve the public welfare. Stated in other language, to hunt and kill game is a boon or privilege, granted either expressly or impliedly by the sovereign authority, not a right inherent in each individual, and consequently nothing is taken away from the individual when
he is denied the privilege, at stated seasons, of hunting and killing game. It is perhaps accurate to say that the ownership of the sovereign authority is in trust for all the people of the state, and hence, by implication, it is the duty of the legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state. But, in any view, the question of individual enjoyment is one of public policy, and not of private right."
See also Ex Parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476; Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 270. It is indeed true that, in State v. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127, and Territory v. Evans, 2 Idaho 634, it was held that a state law prohibiting the shipment outside of the state of game killed therein violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, but the reasoning which controlled the decision of these cases is, we think, inconclusive, from the fact that it did not consider the fundamental distinction between the qualified ownership in game and the perfect nature of ownership in other property, and thus overlooked the authority of the state over property in game killed within its confines, and the consequent power of the state to follow such property into whatever hands it might pass, with the conditions and restrictions deemed necessary for the public interest.
Aside from the authority of the state, derived from the common ownership of game, and the trust for the benefit of its people which the state exercises in relation thereto, there is another view of the power of the state in regard to the property in game which is equally conclusive. The right to preserve game flows from the undoubted existence in the state of a police power to that end, which may be nonetheless efficiently called into play, because, by doing so, interstate commerce may be remotely and indirectly affected. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1; Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 93 U. S. 103; @ 22 U. S. 473. The power of a state to protect, by adequate police regulation, its people against the adulteration of articles of food (which was in that case maintained), although, in doing so, commerce might be remotely affected, necessarily carries with it the existence of a like power to preserve a food supply which belongs in common to all the people of the state, which can only become the subject of ownership in a qualified way, and which can never be the object of commerce except with the consent of the state, and subject to the conditions which it may deem best to impose for the public good.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD, dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the majority of my associates in the affirmance of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut in this case, and I will state briefly the grounds of my disagreement.
Section 2546 of the states of Connecticut, contained in the revision of 1888, enacts that
"no person shall at any time kill any woodcock, ruffled grouse, or quail for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of this state, or shall transport, or have in possession with intent to procure the transportation beyond said limits, any of such birds killed within this state,"
and it adds in substance that the reception by any person within the state of any such bird or birds for shipment to a point without the state shall be prima facie evidence that the bird or birds were killed within the state for the purpose of carrying the same beyond its limits.
Section 2530 of the statutes provides that every person who shall kill, destroy, or attempt to kill, any woodcock, quail, ruffled grouse, called partridge, or gray squirrel between the first day of January and the first day of October shall be fined in a sum not exceeding twenty-five dollars.
The present proceeding was commenced by an information chanrobles.com-red
presented by the Assistant District Attorney of the City of New London, Connecticut against the defendant, Edgar M. Geer, in the police court of that city, charging that he did, on the 19th of October, 1889, unlawfully receive and have in his possession certain woodcock, ruffled grouse, and quail killed within the state after the first day of October, 1889, with the wrongful and unlawful intention to procure their transportation without the limits of the state.
Upon the information, the judge of the police court issued to the sheriff of the county, and to his deputies, a warrant for the arrest of the defendant, and to have him before that court to answer the complaint. The defendant, being brought before the court, pleaded to the complaint that he was not guilty, but, as it is alleged, the court, having inquired into the matter, adjudged him to be guilty, and that he pay a fine of a specified amount, together with the costs of the prosecution, and stand committed until the judgment be complied with. From that decision the accused appealed to the next session of the criminal court of common pleas to be held for New London County, on the second Tuesday of December, 1889. At that court and term, he appeared, and demurred to the complaint on the ground first that the matters contained therein did not constitute an offense, second, on the ground that it did not allege that the birds were killed for the purpose of being conveyed beyond the limits of the state, third, on the ground that section 2546 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, under which the complaint was brought, was void and unconstitutional, so far as it could be construed to forbid the transportation of the birds killed from the state, or having possession of them with intent to procure their transportation to another state, averring that the birds had been sold to parties in such other state, and had begun to move as an article of interstate commerce, fourth, on the ground that it appeared in the complaint that the defendant was not guilty under the section if the birds were bought by him in the markets of the state as merchandise, and had begun to move to another state as an article of interstate commerce, such facts being averred in the complaint to exist. chanrobles.com-red
The criminal court of common pleas overruled the demurrer, and found that the complaint was sufficient, and, the accused having declined to answer over, it was held that he was guilty of the offense charged, and he was accordingly sentenced to pay a fine of $25 and the costs of the prosecution, and to stand committed until the judgment was complied with. The defendant thereupon appealed from the judgment rendered by the criminal court of common pleas to the Supreme Court of Errors of the state for the Second Judicial District, to be held at Norwich on the last Tuesday of May, 1891. On that day, the Supreme Court of Errors found that there was no error apparent in the judgment of the criminal court of common pleas, and accordingly affirmed it. An appeal was then taken from the decision of the Supreme Court of Errors to the Supreme Court of the United States, in which latter court the plaintiff in error assigns the following as grounds of error in the lower court:
"1st. In refusing to hold that so much of section 2546 of the General Statutes, under which the complaint was brought, as might be construed to forbid the transportation from the State of the birds described, lawfully killed, and permitted by the laws of the state to become the subject of traffic and commerce, was unconstitutional and void."
"2d. In refusing to hold that so much of the section as might be construed to forbid the receiving and having in possession, with intent to procure the transportation thereof to another state, the birds described, lawfully killed, and permitted by the laws of the state to become the subject of traffic and commerce, was unconstitutional and void."
"3d. In holding that the defendant was guilty of an offense under the section if the birds were lawfully killed in the state, and were bought by the defendant in the market of the state as merchandise, and had begun to move as an article of interstate commerce."
And this Court, notwithstanding the errors assigned, affirms the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
The record sent to it from the Supreme Court of Errors of the state presents the questions, supposed to be involved, in chanrobles.com-red
a very confused and indistinct manner. Disentangling them from the mass of words used, it appears that the Supreme Court of Errors held that it was an offense against the statute upon which the information was filed in the Police Court of New London for the accused to have in his possession any of the birds mentioned, killed in the state within the period designated, for the purpose of transporting them without the state, and that it was to be inferred under the law that the birds were killed within the state for that purpose. But if that constitutes the offense at which the statute aimed, the information is defective in not alleging that the birds were killed for the purpose stated -- that is, of conveying the beyond the limits of the state -- and thus that they were unlawfully killed.
The transportation of birds described to another state which were lawfully killed does not constitute an offense under the statute. The transportation against which the statute was levied was that of birds unlawfully killed, the evident object of the law being to prevent birds unlawfully killed from being transported to the markets of another state. The law was directed against the killing of the birds within certain designated months of the year, and, in furtherance of that law, the transportation of them to another state was declared to be unlawful. The Supreme Court of Errors held that it was not unconstitutional for the state to enact that birds might be killed and sold or held for domestic consumption only, and that, although the birds became a lawful subject of property when killed within the state for the purpose of food, it was competent for the state to limit their sale for that purpose to the needs of domestic consumption. And this Court, in affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors, appears to sanction that doctrine; but to its soundness I cannot yield assent.
When any animal, whether living in the waters of the state or in the air above, is lawfully killed for the purposes of food or other uses of man, it becomes an article of commerce, and its use cannot be limited to the citizens of one state to the exclusion of citizens of another state. Although chanrobles.com-red
there are declarations of some courts that the state possesses a property in its wild game, and, when it authorizes the game to be killed and sold as an article of food, it may limit the sale only for domestic consumption, and the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, in deciding the present case, appears to have held that doctrine, I am unable to assent to its soundness where the state has never had the game in its possession or under its control or use. I do not admit that in such case there is any specific property held by the state by which in the exercise of its rightful authority, it can lawfully limit the control and use of the animals killed to particular classes of persons or citizens, or to citizens of particular places or states. But on the contrary, I hold that where animals within a state, whether living in its waters or in the air above, are at the time beyond the reach or control of man, so that they cannot be subjected to his use or that of the state in any respect, they are not the property of the state or of anyone in a proper sense. I hold that until they are brought into subjection or use by the labor or skill of man, they are not the property of anyone, and that they only become the property of man according to the extent to which they are subjected by his labor or skill to his use and benefit. When man, by his labor or skill, brings any such animals under his control and subject to his use, he acquires to that extent a right of property in them, and the ownership of others in the animals is limited by the extent and right thus acquired. This is a generally recognized doctrine, acknowledged by all states of Christendom. It is the doctrine of law, both natural and positive. The Roman law, as stated in the Digest, cited in the opinion of the majority, expresses it as follows: "That which belongs to nobody is acquired by the natural law by the person who first possesses it." A bird may fly at such height as to be beyond the reach of man or his skill, and no one can then assert any right of property in such bird; it cannot, then, be said to belong to anyone. But when, from any cause, the bird is brought within the reach and control or use of man, it becomes at that instant his property, and may be an article of commerce between him and citizens of the same or of other states. chanrobles.com-red
In an opinion written by me some years since, I had occasion to speak of this rule of law. I there said that it was a general principle of law, both natural and positive, that where a subject, animate or inanimate, which otherwise could not be brought under the control or use of man is reduced to such control or use by his individual labor or skill, a right of property in it is acquired. The wild bird in the air belongs to no one, but when the fowler brings it to the earth and takes it into his possession, it is his property. He has reduced it to his control by his own labor, and the law of nature and the law of society recognize his exclusive right to it. The pearl at the bottom of the sea belongs to no one, but the diver who enters the water and brings it to light has property in the gem. He has by his own labor reduced it to possession, and, in all communities and by all law, his right to it is recognized. So the trapper on the plains and the hunter in the North have a property in the furs they have gathered, though the animals from which they were taken roamed at large and belonged to no one. They have added by their labor to the uses of man an article promoting his comfort, which, without that labor, would have been lost to him. They have a right, therefore, to the furs, and every court in Christendom would maintain it. So, when the fisherman drags by his net fish from the sea, he has a property in them of which no one is permitted to despoil him. Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 374.
In State v. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127, the defendant was charged, as the agent of the Adams Express Company, with receiving at Columbus, Kansas, "certain prairie chickens, which had been recently killed as game," and shipping them to the City of Chicago, in the State of Illinois. The statute under which he was prosecuted made it unlawful for any person to transport or to ship any animals or birds mentioned, among which were prairie chickens, out of the State of Kansas, and subjected him, on conviction thereof, to a fine of not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars. The defendant admitted the facts as alleged, but contended that such acts constituted no offense, claiming that the statute of the state chanrobles.com-red
under which the proceedings against him were commenced was unconstitutional and void. The district court held the statute valid and found the defendant guilty, and sentenced him to pay a fine of ten dollars and costs of prosecution. From the conviction and sentence he appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas, which reversed the judgment of the district court, holding
"that no state can pass a law (whether Congress has already acted upon the subject or not) which will directly interfere with the free transportation from one state to another, or through a state, of anything which is or may be a subject of interstate commerce,"
and referred to the case of Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 91 U. S. 282, where it was held by this Court that
"the fact that Congress has not seen fit to prescribe any specific rules to govern interstate commerce does not affect the question. Its inaction on this subject, when considered with reference to its legislation with respect to foreign commerce, is equivalent to a declaration that interstate commerce shall be free and untrammeled."
I do not doubt the right of the state, by its legislation, to provide for the protection of wild game so far as such protection is necessary for their preservation or for the comfort, health, or security of its citizens and does not contravene the power of Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce. But I do deny the authority of the state, in its legislation for the protection and preservation of game, to interfere in any respect with the paramount control of Congress in prescribing the terms by which its transportation to another state, when killed, shall be restricted to such conditions as the state may impose. The absolute control of Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce, unimpeded by any state authority, is of much greater consequence that any regulation the state may prescribe with reference to the place where its wild game, when killed, may be consumed.
When property like the game birds in this case is reduced to possession, it becomes an article of commerce, and may be the subject of sale to the citizens of one state or community, or to the citizens of several. The decision of the Court, however, would limit the right of sale of such property, however chanrobles.com-red
valuable it may become and whether living or killed, to the directions of the state or community in which the property is found, and would convert it from the freedom of use which belongs to property in general to the limited use of the persons or communities where found, or to a particular class to which only property possessed of special ingredients or qualities is limited. I do not think that it lies within the province of any state to confine the excellencies of any articles of food within its borders to its own fortunate inhabitants to the exclusion of others, and that it may lawfully require that game killed within its borders shall only be eaten in such parts of the country as it may prescribe.
By the Constitution of the United States, it has been adjudged that commerce between the states is under the absolute regulation of Congress, and that, whenever an article of property begins to move from one state to another, commerce between the states has commenced, and that with its control or regulation no state can interfere. Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275; Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99.
I therefore dissent from the conclusion of the majority of my associates in affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.
The statutes of Connecticut declare that:
"Every person who shall buy, sell, expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose, or who shall hunt, pursue, kill, destroy or attempt to kill any woodcock, quail, ruffled grouse, called partridge, or gray squirrel between the first day of January and the first day of October, the killing or having in possession of each bird or squirrel to be deemed a separate offense, . . . shall be fined not more than $30."
They also provide that:
"No person shall at any time kill any woodcock, ruffled grouse or quail for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of the state, or shall transport or have in his possession,
with intention to procure the transportation beyond said limits, any such birds killed within this state. The reception by any person within this state of any such bird or birds for shipment to a point without the state shall be prima facie evidence that said bird or birds were killed within the state for the purpose of carrying the same beyond its limits."
The plaintiff in error was not charged with having in his possession game that had been killed "for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of the state." It is admitted that the game in question was lawfully killed -- that is, was killed during what is called the "open season." But the charge was that the defendant unlawfully received and had in his possession, with the wrongful and unlawful intent to procure the transportation of the same beyond the limits of the state, certain woodcock, ruffled grouse, and quail killed within the state after the first day of October.
I do not question the power of the state to prescribe a period during which wild game within its limits may not be lawfully killed. The state, as we have seen, does not prohibit the killing of game altogether, but permits hunting and killing of woodcock, quail, ruffled grouse, and gray squirrels between the first day of October and the first day of January. The game in question having been lawfully killed, the person who killed it and took it into his possession became the rightful owner thereof. This, I take it, will not be questioned. As such owner, he could dispose of it by gift or sale at his discretion. So long as it was fit for use as food, the state could not interfere with his disposition of it any more than it could interfere with the disposition by the owner of other personal property that was not noxious in its character. To hold that the person receiving personal property from the owner may not receive it with the intent to send it out of the state is to recognize an arbitrary power in the government which is inconsistent with the liberty belonging to every man, as well as with the rights which inhere in the ownership of property. Such a holding would also be inconsistent with the freedom of interstate commerce which has been established by the Constitution of the United States. If the chanrobles.com-red
majority had not held differently in the present case, I should have said that discussion was unnecessary to show the soundness of the propositions just stated. But it seems that if the citizen, whether residing in Connecticut or elsewhere, finds in the markets of one of the cities or towns of that state game, fit for food, that has been lawfully killed, and is lawfully in the possession of the keeper of such market, he may, without becoming a criminal, buy such game and take it into his possession, provided his intention be to eat it, or to have it eaten, in Connecticut. But he will subject himself to a fine, as well as to imprisonment upon his failing to pay such fine, if he buy and take possession of such lawfully killed game with intent to send it to a friend in an adjoining state.
The court cites McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 395, in which it was held that Virginia could restrict to its own citizens the privilege of planting oysters in the streams of that state, the soil under which was owned by it. But I cannot believe that it would hold that oysters which had been lawfully taken out of such streams, and which had been lawfully planted, could not be purchased in Virginia with the intent to ship them to another state. This Court, in Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461 -- another of the cases cited by the majority -- sustained as valid a statute of Massachusetts enacted to prevent deception in the manufacture and sale in that state of imitation butter, and which prohibited the sale of oleomargarine artificially colored so as to cause it to look like genuine yellow butter. But I cannot suppose that this Court will ever hold that a state could make it a crime to purchase, with the intent to send it to another state, oleomargarine or genuine yellow butter that had been lawfully manufactured within its limits.
Believing that the statute of Connecticut, in its application to the present case, is not consistent with the liberty of the citizen or with the freedom of interstate commerce, I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, not having heard the argument, took no part in the decision of this cause.
ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
ChanRobles CPA Review Online
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series
Copyright © ReDiaz

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Peter Oundjian leads the Yale Philharmonia in Gershwin, Barber, and more Nov. 7
The Yale School of Music presents the Philharmonia Orchestra of Yale with guest conductor Peter Oundjian in concert Friday, November 7, 2014 at 7:30 pm. The program features music from the first half of the twentieth century by Gershwin, Barber, Elgar, and Hindemith.
The concert opens with Gershwin's An American in Paris. Originally composed in 1928, the piece would later inspire the 1951 musical film of the same title starring Gene Kelly. Gershwin's audience favorite is followed by the Symphonic Metamorphosis (based on themes by Carl Maria von Weber) by Paul Hindemith, a German composer who spent several years in the U.S. and was a member of the Yale School of Music faculty. MORE
Mezzo-soprano Janna Baty and guests perform Poulenc, Granados, and more Nov. 11
The Yale School of Music's Faculty Artist Series presents a recital by mezzo-soprano Janna Baty on Tuesday, November 11 at 7:30 pm. Baty, joined by pianist Daniel Hobbs and violinist Jacob Joyce, will perform music by Gioachino Rossini, Francis Poulenc, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Claude Debussy, and Enrique Granados.
The program opens with selections from Rossini's lyric drama Giovanna d'Arco (Joan of Arc), followed by Poulenc's Quatre Poèmes de Guillaume Apollinaire, four songs written in 1931 to texts by Poulenc's compatriot Apollinaire. MORE
[ faculty ]
First directorial effort from YSM faculty member Janna Baty wins award
A rehearsal with Opera Theatre of Yale College
The Opera Theatre of Yale College (OTYC) has been named the second-place winner in the 2014 American Prize in Opera Performance, university division.
Their winning production of Le Nozze di Figaro was directed by YSM faculty member Janna Baty, the faculty adviser for OTYC. MORE
[ concert ]
Faculty violinist Wendy Sharp performs music from Telemann to today Nov. 9
The Yale School of Music presents a recital by violinist Wendy Sharp on Sunday, November 9 at 4 pm. The event is part of the Faculty Artist Series, which features the School's prestigious faculty in concerts that are free and open to the public. The concert takes place in Morse Recital Hall, located in Sprague Hall at 470 College Street.
Wendy Sharp, the winner of numerous competitions, is the coordinator of chamber music at YSM. Sharp will play with pianist Joel Wizansky, who has been praised by the Washington Post for his "emotional and rich performance, sparkling runs, beautiful phrasing, and dramatic interpretation." MORE
Hollywood film composer Thomas Newman releases collaborative album with Rick Cox
Thomas Newman, composer
Thomas Newman '77BA, '78MM and Rick Cox released the album 35 Whirlpools Below Sound on Cold Blue Music in October. This jointly composed and performed collection of 19 electro-acoustic works has been slowly developing over time. Newman, a 12-time Oscar nominee and six-time Grammy winner, and noted new-music composer/performer Rick Cox have been collaborating for 25 years.
The music has been called both enigmatic and eclectic, exploring a somewhat improvisational world through its series of sometimes interlinked, sometimes contrasting pieces built of often mysterious and fantastical juxtapositions of sounds.
Newman is a highly regarded film-music composer (WALL-E, The Shawshank Redemption, American Beauty) who has also written non-film-related works for such ensembles as the Kronos Quartet and the Los Angeles Philharmonic. While at Yale, Newman studied with Jacob Druckman, Bruce MacCombie, and Robert Moore. MORE
[ events ]
Whitney Humanities Center to host new Music Talks program
Yue Chu
Music Talks at the Whitney, a new program sponsored by the Whitney Humanities Center (WHC), will feature noted artists from the Yale School of Music in concert and conversation. A distinguished member of the Yale College faculty will introduce each concert.
The inaugural talk for the series will celebrate the music of Franz Schubert and will feature Yue Chu performing Piano Sonata in A Major. It will take place at 4 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 13 in the WHC auditorium. Leon Plantinga, the Henry L. and Lucy G. Moses Professor Emeritus of Music, will deliver introductory remarks. Following the concert, there will be a question-and-answer session with Chu and Plantinga. MORE
Cellist Jaques Lee Wood to give DMA recital November 6
Jaques Lee Wood, cello
The presents a recital by cellist Jacques Lee Wood on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 7:30 pm. Mr. Wood's recital is the culmination of his studies toward the Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) degree. Esther Park will accompany on piano. LIVESTREAM
The program will begin with Beethoven's Seven Variations on "Bei Mannern, welche Liebe fuhlen" from Mozart's The Magic Flute. Next will be a 2010 composition by contemporary American composer Jacob Cooper '14DMA entitled Arches. Cooper has been lauded by The New Yorker as "a maverick electronic song composer." The first half of the concert will end with Bach's Sonata in G major, BWV 1027. MORE
Panel on "The Musical Impulse" helps open new Yale Center Beijing
Maestro Yu Long
Yale University will inaugurate the Yale Center Beijing with a major conference on October 27 and 28, 2014. The conference features conversations on important societal issues in China, the United States, and the world.
The center will be a venue for ongoing conversations on these and other critical topics, and the School of Music is planning activities for the spring of 2015.
For the opening conference, the School of Music has convened a panel on "The Musical Impulse: Unlocking Creativity for the Individual, the Culture, and the Economy." The discussion will be moderated by Robert Blocker, Dean of the School. The panelists are:
Madame Gao Jianjin, President of the Institute of Music Education at the Central Conservatory of Music (Beijing, China); MORE
Arthur Bloom: How the healing power of music helps wounded warriors
Musicorps musicians perform
CNN | By Marissa Calhoun
Bethesda, Maryland (CNN) — When Capt. Greg Galeazzi joined the Army seven years ago, he was well aware of the risks he would face. "Of course you accept that injuries or death is a possibility," Galeazzi said. "This is what happens to soldiers who fight wars."
In 2011, that possibility became Galeazzi's reality. While leading his platoon on a routine morning patrol, an improvised explosive device detonated beneath him. "It felt like I got hit by a wrecking ball," he said.
Though Galeazzi survived the blast, life as he knew it did not. Suddenly, he was a double, above the knee amputee and had a severely wounded right arm. MORE
Angélique Kidjo to perform benefit concert at Yale Dec. 6
The Yale School of Music, in partnership with the International Festival of Arts & Ideas, will present Afro-pop star ANGÉLIQUE KIDJO in a special benefit concert on Saturday, December 6, 2014. The Grammy Award-winning singer and songwriter, hailed by National Public Radio as "Africa's greatest living diva," will perform with ensembles including Shades, the Yale Percussion Group, and members of the Yale Concert Band.
Ms. Kidjo, a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador since 2002, is a passionate advocate for girls' education and humanitarian causes. "Being Africa's premier diva is not a crown that Kidjo wears lightly," notes Time Magazine. "As an African, she says, she comes from a place with problems. But as a musician, she argues, she can solve them."
Proceeds from this collaborative concert will benefit the Yale Africa Initiative Student Scholarships. The concert takes place at 3:00 pm in Woolsey Hall (500 College Street, New Haven). MORE


text: You are NOT logged in


text:
Home » Small Business Spotlight: Bodega 38 Is an Etsy for Denver's Small Businesses
Small Business Spotlight: Bodega 38 Is an Etsy for Denver's Small Businesses
On a cold Denver day, the thought of getting outside shop at all the small businesses around town isn't quite appealing. And that's where Bodega 38 comes in. The online marketplace, which launched in October, brings thirty of Denver's small businesses right to people's homes.
Bodega 38 partners with local businesses to sell their products online, and give them a better platform for people to find their products. People can search products that local businesses sell, or order themed boxes of products to get a taste of what's being sold from a variety of spots. It's a way for small businesses to have space in the online shopping world, without having to use big sites such as Etsy. Businesses on Bodega 38 include The Beer Spa, Queen City Collective Coffee, the Wrightwood Candle Company and more.
We spoke with Bodega 38 co-founder Josh Davis, who came up with the idea during the pandemic and reached out to his friend Andrew Linenfelser to help him design the site. The two now run the business together, even hand-making and delivering boxes that are ordered.
Westword: How did you get the idea for Bodega 38?
Josh Davis: At the time, it was prime pandemic and I was living out in California with my wife. I walked into my garage and I saw a mountain of Amazon boxes. I thought to myself, "This is kind of gross." I would Google, "buy shoes locally" and it would navigate me everywhere I didn't want to go. It felt like there wasn't a one-stop-shop to shop local; this was the middle of 2020. It moved into action when we moved back to Denver — the passion became stronger when I was back in my community. I created an Instagram page and contacted as many local businesses as I could. Without having anything other than an idea, ten people wanted to work with us. We've been working on the concept for about a year and a half now, and back in October we launched.
How does the marketplace work?
What we do is we aggregate products from locally owned businesses and we sell to local consumers. We onboard local businesses either by word of mouth or someone will contact us, and I create their Bodega page for them. Basically when we sign on a new partner to be a local business…we'll get an order on our platform, and they'll get an email notification saying, "You have an order." They're shipping it from their own inventory. The other model of our business that's been really successful is our curated gift boxes. These boxes are a sample of products we sell on the marketplace. So far since our launch we sold forty of our Taste of Denver boxes, and twenty of our relaxation boxes. We hand-select a couple different partners that we think make sense for the theme of the box.
What is the benefit of having Bodega 38 as the middle-man between consumers and local businesses?
If you and I were to go online and individually find these businesses by Googling "local" and the type of product, it really navigates you to all over the place. Managing your own individual website and doing your own individual marketing — it's a lot. It's really convenient to be one of the five jams on Bodega, where if you work with Etsy or something, you're one jam out of thousands.
Our typical wait time is two to four business days. All of that depends on where you live. We do standardized shipment of two days, especially if there is food you want to get it to customers as soon as possible and we process those orders immediately as they come through.
What do you think the biggest challenge facing small businesses today is and how does Bodega 38 help with that?
I think of the biggest challenges that some of our partners face is marketing for sure. I think just in regards to getting our brand out there, most of our partners have their own footprint at local farmers markets and stuff like that and they get their name known through that type. Most of the businesses we work with have little sales when it comes to their own e commerce platform. We come in as that supplemental revenue that they can rely on. I think that's definitely an area where we currently help them.
What's in the Taste of Denver box?
It hits home to a lot of staples people use in their house. We have a hot sauce from Sauce Leopard that's a fan favorite for a lot of people. We work with Queen City Coffee, and they're a staple as well. We have jam from Yummy Lotus, the first business we ever worked with. We have George's Pound Cake; it's a nice treat in there, and we have nutrition bars from Three Club Nutrition. They're a father-daughter business, where they were kind of tired of eating Cliff Bars and stuff loaded with sugar.
What boxes will be coming out in the future?
We're thinking in the springtime we're gonna be launching a boozy box. That's gonna be not physically putting alcohol in it, but giving you the ingredients to make cocktails. We have a few discussions going on with other local businesses. We're also thinking about a doggy box. We're gonna be onboarding a couple local pet companies and throwing their product in that box; I think the running joke in Denver is that everyone has a dog.
To learn more, visit Bodega 38.com/denver.
More than 55,000 global tech workers laid off in the first few weeks of 2023, says layoff tracking site
Save $600 On This Refurbished MacBook Air
Tags: Andrew LinenfelserBodega 38Denver businessesGeorge's Gourmet Pound CakesJosh Davislocal businesses in DenverQueen City Collective CoffeeYummy Lotus
The Secret to Implementing Zero Trust? Developing a Business Case
Costas, Inc. Year in Review (2022) and 2023 Business Strategy Report | BioSpace


text:
Simec Atlantis provides update on ocean-powered data centre project
Written by James Orme	Tue 28 Jan 2020
Design underway for connection to Celtic Norse subsea cable
Green developer Simec Atlantis Energy has provided an update on its plans to hook a tidal stream power array to a data centre.
The company intends to design and build the world's first ocean-powered data centre near the MeyGen development in Scotland, an offshore tidal energy project Atlantis launched in 2010.
In a project update, Atlantis revealed a concept study had been concluded and that it was working on the design of a connection to the Celtic Norse subsea fibre optic cable that is currently in development. Connections to other international fibre optic cables are being explored, the company added.
Tim Cornelius, CEO of Atlantis, commented:
"MeyGen holds a 398MW seabed lease and our data centre expansion project is world leading for a number of reasons. The cost of tidal power continues to reduce and this is being assisted by the sustained pressure the offshore wind market places on the supply chain domestically and abroad."
Cornelius added: "The world's most valuable resource is no longer oil but data, and by combining tidal power with stranded onshore wind farms in close proximity to MeyGen, we can create a virtual power plant to provide sustainable power to a data centre in Scotland, creating important new fibre connections for Scotland and the UK in the process."
Meanwhile, Atlantis provided an update on the performance of the MeyGen development, which is currently the world's largest operational tidal stream array.
MeyGen exported over 13.8GWh in 2019, smashing the record for the longest period of uninterrupted generation achieved by a multi-megawatt tidal turbine.
The energy exported is equivalent to the average annual electricity consumption of around 3800 typical UK homes, generating the company a revenue of £3.9m. In total, the turbine array has exported 24.7GWh of 'predictable' renewable electricity to the national grid.
Although the site currently generates 6MW of capacity, last year Atlantis announced plans to develop the next phase of the project, which will see an extra 80MW capacity added to the development.
"I am delighted to report that MeyGen has now exported a remarkable 24.7GWh of predictable renewable energy. Not only is this world-renowned project helping the UK meet its Net Zero ambitions, but it is also providing valuable performance data which can be used to inform future projects, demonstrating MeyGen's importance as a global prototype," Cornelius said.
Written by James Orme Tue 28 Jan 2020
energy scotland
Data Centre Tue 28 Jan 2020
'World's first' ocean-powered data ce...
'Cyclone-proof' data centre opens in Australia
NHSX deploys machine learning to improve coronavirus treatment
Gap between US cloud giants and European IT providers widens
Telefonica flogs 30,000 masts to American Tower in €7.7 billion deal
Pat Gelsinger leaves VMware to replace Intel CEO Bob Swan
5G trial to beam holographic Sir David Attenborough


There is still a lot of uncertainty with BlackBerry, despite the new BlackBerry Z10 seeing strong sales. Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, who was the technology expert behind the Apple 1 and Apple II computers, and currently the chief scientist at Fusion-io Inc., gave his two cents on the future of BlackBerry.
Steve Wozniak says he thinks BlackBerry will ultimately switch to Android for use on their devices. I don't believe Wozniak is talking about the Android JVM that's already bundled into BlackBerry 10. Wozniak must be alluding to full on Android operating system.
Why would BlackBerry make the switch when Android apps can run near seamlessly on BlackBerry 10? BlackBerry has also stated they chose against using Android due to it being naturally flawed.


text:
Q: reading data from usb serial port in Android I use prolifit PL23023 chip for send and receive data to my android app. I Handled driver thing about pl2303 and I can write and read data over serial. but the problem is when for example I receive a 15 byte data,its read in a 11byte data and a 4byte data. no data loss,its give me all data but in a 11byte packets.
I controlled every thing about buffer size and it seems no problem.
This is method that reads data:
    @Override
    public int read(byte[] dest, int timeoutMillis) throws IOException {
      //  synchronized (mReadBufferLock) {
            int readAmt = Math.min(dest.length, mReadBuffer.length);

            int numBytesRead = mConnection.bulkTransfer(mReadEndpoint, mReadBuffer,
                    readAmt, timeoutMillis);
            if (numBytesRead < 0) {
                return 0;
            }
            System.arraycopy(mReadBuffer, 0, dest, 0, numBytesRead);
            return numBytesRead;
        //}
    }

and bulkTransfer() method finally executed in native methods and we do not know about what is going in bulkTransfer().
and interesting thing about this functionality is that when I put a break point in first of this line.
   int numBytesRead = mConnection.bulkTransfer(mReadEndpoint, mReadBuffer,
                    readAmt, timeoutMillis);

and run the program in Debug mode, the value of numBytesRead in 15 byte example sets to 15 and every thing is ok! I dont know what is happening. in debug mode I can get more than 11 byte packets but in normal mode I can get only 11 byte packets.

A: Nothing is wrong with the system, only with the expectations.  This is the nature of serial ports - data arrives at the timing with which the source sends it, which could be timing that keeps the line fully busy, or potentially years between characters.
Independently of that, your USB implementation queries the USB converter chip for any data it has received, and it will give you whatever it has up to that time.  It cannot know if more is on the way from the source, so it merely gives you what it has up to that time.
If you want to reliably obtain complete "messages" you will need to keep reading and concatenating the results until you reach whatever condition defines the end of a "message" for you - for example, a newline character.  (It is possible this will mean that one read contains the end of one message and the start of a next.)  As you have seen, slowing your program down can increase the chances that a full "message" has been received at the converter by the time you do the first read, but that isn't reliable (also keep in mind that the maximum data size for one USB read in this mode is fairly small).
Normally you could do this reading in a loop, but beware on Android that you must not execute blocking operations on the UI thread, so you will probably need to do this collection in a background thread.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Surf's Up 2: WaveMania
: Surf's Up 2: WaveMania
: Animation, Comedy
An animated comedy that features WWE Superstars, providing their own voices while matching up against talking animals.
Cam Clarke,
John Cena, Jon Heder, Diedrich Bader, Jeremy Shada,
Hdmovie14 Hdmoviespoint Primewire Surf's Up 2: WaveMania english yts subtitles Surf's Up 2: WaveMania full movie download Surf's Up 2: WaveMania full movie download hd 1080p Surf's Up 2: WaveMania full movie torrent Surf's Up 2: WaveMania movie subtitles Surf's Up 2: WaveMania torrent Surf's Up 2: WaveMania yts Surf's Up 2: WaveMania yts movie Surf's Up 2: WaveMania yts movies Surf's Up 2: WaveMania yts movies official Surf's Up 2: WaveMania yts subtitles Surf's Up 2: WaveMania yts torrent
Heavens Warriors
The Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Rock 'n Roll Musical
Get Out of My Room
Impractical Jokers: The Movie


China Wall Panel, China Wall Panel Suppliers and Manufacturers Directory - Source a Large Selection of Wall Panel ... Shanghai Foxygen Industrial Co., Ltd.
China Supplier Modern Decorative 3D leather Wall Panels. Add to Compare ... Effect PU Leather Wall Panel · Shanghai Ouyi Industrial Development Co., Ltd.
... 3D Wall Panel · Shanghai Foxygen Industrial Co., Ltd. ... decorative 3d wall panels/mdf wall pannel in China ... Shanghai Ouyi Industrial Development Co., Ltd.
114658 products ... China Wall Panel manufacturers - Select 2017 high quality Wall ... Industrial Co., Ltd are a leading manufacturer of aluminum panel, composite .
33597 products ... Feature: Environmental, Fireproof, Light Weight, Metal Panel, .... High Quality Color Steel Insulated EPS Sandwich Wall Panel for Wall and Roof.
Pvc Wall Panel Ceiling Pvc Laminated Pvc Panels In China Haining Factory - Buy Ceiling Pvc ..... Industrial Pipe and Walnut L-Shaped Desk with Shelves.
HUBEI BOYUEJIA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD is a modernized new high-tech enterprise, mainly R&D and ... Sandwich wall panel | Collect Us | Chinese | English.
Structural Insulated Lightweight Interior Wall Panels / Industrial Partition Walls ... Wall Panels, Hollow Core Wall Panels and MgO Wall Panels from China.


The river of life (and water) runs through Cite Soleil.
Bright smiles beamed on dark faces, hair beads swung left and right, and little fingers clasped both of my hands. The sun shone brightly in the city of "Cite Soleil" while Haitians fished with their nets and children played in the ocean. Innocent stares came from the left and right side of the dock, and after a while I realized it was because we were a group of Americans deep in the heart of Haiti where even some Haitians refuse to go.
After the ride we arrived at the water filling station, waited for our water truck to get filled and then headed to the first area to deliver water! Adorable kids flocked to see us and hold our hands as we hopped out of the Tap Tap. Kids, both big and small, walked us to the area where we would fill up their containers with water. People lined up with their buckets waiting for the water to start running. The water truck holds 3,000 gallons of water! Children ran around trying to collect water in buckets. Even buckets as small as old pop bottles were seen but they were determined and adorable!
As we held the water hose, little kids would come up to us and tug on our shorts. Their bright smiles beamed up at us from 3 feet below as we turned around. Their gentle hands would reach up and pull on our fingers, or gesture asking us to hold them. The girls were fascinated with my long nails (Madi). And as we held the little boys and girls, we realized all they wanted was to be loved.
I learned today that those kids gave us more then we would ever give them. All they wanted was to be held or stand by us and hold the side of our leg. All we were giving them was water. They had close to nothing in the way of possessions. Some of them didn't even have clothing. But they were still happy! The women would gesture at their 5 gallon buckets full of water and the point to their heads. At first I was confused, but then I realized they wanted me to put the buckets on their heads! I watched my mom, and everyone on the team help place these heavy buckets (filled to the brim) right on the tip top of their heads! Young and old alike walked away balancing their heavy buckets on their heads with smiles beaming from their faces. All and all, it was an amazing day.
At the end of the day, the leaders asked everyone for one word or phrase that would describe their day. One person said their word of the day was love. Another said it was a bit overwhelming. One person said wonderful and one really good word was this was their reality. It was a reality check to us, seeing that they have nothing and that we have everything we could ever imagine. Those kids probably haven't ever heard of Apple, or Mount Rushmore, but it didn't matter to them. They had nothing, yet they were happy to receive water. We have everything, yet we complain about the smallest things like matching clothes, or Christmas gifts. A few other words were hope, trust, smiles, family, enjoyment, and unconditional love.
Through the whole day, we learned the meaning of being the hands and feet of Jesus. We learned that no matter what, God is protecting us and He loves us just like He loves the Haitians. And we learned that when we served the least of these, we are serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We are serving Jesus.


text:
<?php
/**
 * Created by PhpStorm.
 * User: kifkif
 * Date: 24/07/2017
 * Time: 17:10
 */

namespace Troopers\MangopayBundle\Entity;

use MangoPay\Address;

interface UserLegalInterface extends UserInterface
{
    const LEGAL_TYPE_BUSINESS = 'BUSINESS';
    const LEGAL_TYPE_ORGANIZATION = 'ORGANIZATION';
    const LEGAL_TYPE_SOLETRADER = 'SOLETRADER';

    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getEmail();

    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getName();

    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getLegalPersonType();

    /**
     * @return Address|AddressInterface
     */
    public function getHeadquartersAddress();

    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getLegalRepresentativeFirstName();

    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getLegalRepresentativeLastName();

    /**
     * @return Address|AddressInterface
     */
    public function getLegalRepresentativeAddress();

    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getLegalRepresentativeEmail();

    /**
     * @return \DateTime
     * timestamp
     */
    public function getLegalRepresentativeBirthday();

    /**
     * @return string|CountryInterface
     */
    public function getLegalRepresentativeNationality();

    /**
     * @return string|CountryInterface
     */
    public function getLegalRepresentativeCountryOfResidence();
}


Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by azbill, Aug 8, 2009.
Is there a big price difference in Japan for Nikon gear compared to US prices?
With the 200-400VR going for $6200 or so US, I was wondering what the price is in Japan?
Planning to go to Japan?
No, but my cousin goes often.
Wouldn't it be better to buy the lens off ebay for a lower price than us retail? its not like you will have the warranty anyway, assuming you are from AZ like your location says.
Significantly higher, believe it or not.
It's because Japan has so many middlemen for domestic consumer goods. I've never found anything cheaper in Japan than the US internet.
chicagozer, varmint...thank you for you replies.
I would've bet it was at least a little cheaper over there.
I hear Korea has some good deals.
you might have your friend go to Akihabara in Tokyo and look for a used lens shop. Or try Map Camera in Shinjuku, also a used shop.
The prices on bodies are similar if you barter with them. Lenses are more but occasianly you can bargan or say such and such store sells it for x amount and they will beat it. But remotes and bags seem to be cheaper.
I just got back two weeks ago. Was there for a month.
Actually I should have bought the d300 with 18-200. I found a place that had it on sale for 130000¥ taxes in. Oh and most of the time the price they show is tax inclusive.
Varmint, pgdsm thanks for the useful info!
I heard that most of the new lenses are much more expensive, but there're some good deals on the used lenses.
Not Sure about the Lenses but My brother was over there a few weeks ago and I had him check out the Price on the SB-900 Flash and it was almost Double what I can find it for in Canada.
You have to know where to shop, but in general lens prices are higher in Japan than in the U.S.
Map Camera as described above is great not only for used equipment, but it has some of the best prices for new equipment among "real" camera shops.
However, if you really want to find a good deal, you have to do a little searching. http://kakaku.com is similar to pricegrabber.com or shopping.com and the best price for a D3x there is currently about 670,000 yen. This is over 100,000 cheaper than the current price at Map Camera.
The problem with the 200-400 and other exotics is that they are often out of stock, so they aren't listed at kakaku.com. In fact, it is hard enough to find them at Map Camera, Yodobashi Camera or any of the other big camera stores, so you can't expect to find them for a bargain.
Well, quick check on Amazon's Japan site and they have the 200-400mm listed for about 995,000 Yen, which at today's conversion rate is about $10,200USD!
Which is actually a little lower than the MSRP (including tax as does the Amazon Japan price) at ¥1,029,000, but it's still price gouging because nobody with half a brain buys lenses at the MSRP in Japan.
My son is a forum member and lives outside of Tokyo.. I asked him to post a reply from real time.
If you hit the small used shops, Nikon house, Map, and other unknowns in Akihabara, shinjuku, and ginza you can find deals like 17mm tokina F4 for $120 like new. 300mm 2.8 Nikon for about $800. The deals are really only on the AI and AIS lenses. The new lenses are rediculous in Akihabara. You can expect to show up and spend an additional 15-20%. but the used market is great. I picked up a 180mm 2.8 for $130 and it works like new. The built in lens hood is a little beat up, but the photos comeing out are pristine.
I cant afford the new lenses, but these AI/AIS lenses aer cheap. I can afford really nice older glass for pennies on the dollar.
Question to those familiar with Japan:- If you buy in Japan in person say as a visiting tourist do you get sale tax refund when leaving the country?
Question to those familiar with Far East and Hong Kong in particular: - How does HK compare price wise with other main markets Japan/US/West Europe.
I don't think so, but tax is only 3% if I remember anyway. You can buy duty free goods, but unfortunately it's only export models, and deals aren't usually good.


text:
"""Support for MQTT locks."""
import functools

import voluptuous as vol

from homeassistant.components import lock
from homeassistant.components.lock import LockEntity
from homeassistant.const import CONF_NAME, CONF_OPTIMISTIC, CONF_VALUE_TEMPLATE
from homeassistant.core import HomeAssistant, callback
import homeassistant.helpers.config_validation as cv
from homeassistant.helpers.reload import async_setup_reload_service
from homeassistant.helpers.typing import ConfigType

from . import PLATFORMS, subscription
from .. import mqtt
from .const import CONF_COMMAND_TOPIC, CONF_QOS, CONF_RETAIN, CONF_STATE_TOPIC, DOMAIN
from .debug_info import log_messages
from .mixins import MQTT_ENTITY_COMMON_SCHEMA, MqttEntity, async_setup_entry_helper

CONF_PAYLOAD_LOCK = "payload_lock"
CONF_PAYLOAD_UNLOCK = "payload_unlock"

CONF_STATE_LOCKED = "state_locked"
CONF_STATE_UNLOCKED = "state_unlocked"

DEFAULT_NAME = "MQTT Lock"
DEFAULT_OPTIMISTIC = False
DEFAULT_PAYLOAD_LOCK = "LOCK"
DEFAULT_PAYLOAD_UNLOCK = "UNLOCK"
DEFAULT_STATE_LOCKED = "LOCKED"
DEFAULT_STATE_UNLOCKED = "UNLOCKED"

MQTT_LOCK_ATTRIBUTES_BLOCKED = frozenset(
    {
        lock.ATTR_CHANGED_BY,
        lock.ATTR_CODE_FORMAT,
    }
)

PLATFORM_SCHEMA = mqtt.MQTT_RW_PLATFORM_SCHEMA.extend(
    {
        vol.Optional(CONF_NAME, default=DEFAULT_NAME): cv.string,
        vol.Optional(CONF_OPTIMISTIC, default=DEFAULT_OPTIMISTIC): cv.boolean,
        vol.Optional(CONF_PAYLOAD_LOCK, default=DEFAULT_PAYLOAD_LOCK): cv.string,
        vol.Optional(CONF_PAYLOAD_UNLOCK, default=DEFAULT_PAYLOAD_UNLOCK): cv.string,
        vol.Optional(CONF_STATE_LOCKED, default=DEFAULT_STATE_LOCKED): cv.string,
        vol.Optional(CONF_STATE_UNLOCKED, default=DEFAULT_STATE_UNLOCKED): cv.string,
        vol.Optional(CONF_VALUE_TEMPLATE): cv.template,
    }
).extend(MQTT_ENTITY_COMMON_SCHEMA.schema)

DISCOVERY_SCHEMA = PLATFORM_SCHEMA.extend({}, extra=vol.REMOVE_EXTRA)

async def async_setup_platform(
    hass: HomeAssistant, config: ConfigType, async_add_entities, discovery_info=None
):
    """Set up MQTT lock panel through configuration.yaml."""
    await async_setup_reload_service(hass, DOMAIN, PLATFORMS)
    await _async_setup_entity(hass, async_add_entities, config)

async def async_setup_entry(hass, config_entry, async_add_entities):
    """Set up MQTT lock dynamically through MQTT discovery."""
    setup = functools.partial(
        _async_setup_entity, hass, async_add_entities, config_entry=config_entry
    )
    await async_setup_entry_helper(hass, lock.DOMAIN, setup, DISCOVERY_SCHEMA)

async def _async_setup_entity(
    hass, async_add_entities, config, config_entry=None, discovery_data=None
):
    """Set up the MQTT Lock platform."""
    async_add_entities([MqttLock(hass, config, config_entry, discovery_data)])

class MqttLock(MqttEntity, LockEntity):
    """Representation of a lock that can be toggled using MQTT."""

    _attributes_extra_blocked = MQTT_LOCK_ATTRIBUTES_BLOCKED

    def __init__(self, hass, config, config_entry, discovery_data):
        """Initialize the lock."""
        self._state = False
        self._optimistic = False

        MqttEntity.__init__(self, hass, config, config_entry, discovery_data)

    @staticmethod
    def config_schema():
        """Return the config schema."""
        return DISCOVERY_SCHEMA

    def _setup_from_config(self, config):
        """(Re)Setup the entity."""
        self._optimistic = config[CONF_OPTIMISTIC]

        value_template = self._config.get(CONF_VALUE_TEMPLATE)
        if value_template is not None:
            value_template.hass = self.hass

    async def _subscribe_topics(self):
        """(Re)Subscribe to topics."""

        @callback
        @log_messages(self.hass, self.entity_id)
        def message_received(msg):
            """Handle new MQTT messages."""
            payload = msg.payload
            value_template = self._config.get(CONF_VALUE_TEMPLATE)
            if value_template is not None:
                payload = value_template.async_render_with_possible_json_value(payload)
            if payload == self._config[CONF_STATE_LOCKED]:
                self._state = True
            elif payload == self._config[CONF_STATE_UNLOCKED]:
                self._state = False

            self.async_write_ha_state()

        if self._config.get(CONF_STATE_TOPIC) is None:
            # Force into optimistic mode.
            self._optimistic = True
        else:
            self._sub_state = await subscription.async_subscribe_topics(
                self.hass,
                self._sub_state,
                {
                    "state_topic": {
                        "topic": self._config.get(CONF_STATE_TOPIC),
                        "msg_callback": message_received,
                        "qos": self._config[CONF_QOS],
                    }
                },
            )

    @property
    def is_locked(self):
        """Return true if lock is locked."""
        return self._state

    @property
    def assumed_state(self):
        """Return true if we do optimistic updates."""
        return self._optimistic

    async def async_lock(self, **kwargs):
        """Lock the device.

        This method is a coroutine.
        """
        mqtt.async_publish(
            self.hass,
            self._config[CONF_COMMAND_TOPIC],
            self._config[CONF_PAYLOAD_LOCK],
            self._config[CONF_QOS],
            self._config[CONF_RETAIN],
        )
        if self._optimistic:
            # Optimistically assume that the lock has changed state.
            self._state = True
            self.async_write_ha_state()

    async def async_unlock(self, **kwargs):
        """Unlock the device.

        This method is a coroutine.
        """
        mqtt.async_publish(
            self.hass,
            self._config[CONF_COMMAND_TOPIC],
            self._config[CONF_PAYLOAD_UNLOCK],
            self._config[CONF_QOS],
            self._config[CONF_RETAIN],
        )
        if self._optimistic:
            # Optimistically assume that the lock has changed state.
            self._state = False
            self.async_write_ha_state()


Please note that all Custom Installations One-Click Installs require that the domain they are being installed onto are set to Fully Hosted under the domain settings.
In my domain settings I am displaying as full hosted. What have I done wrong?
When I access your account I was only able to find the 1 active domain, which is currently fully hosted with us If you are having any issues on a different account if you could supply a support ticket# or the domain name I'd be happy to look into the status for you right away.