Appearance
🎉 Your Movie Collection🥳
"The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was a regulatory agency in the United States created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The agency's original purpose was to regulate railroads (and later trucking) to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies. Congress expanded ICC authority to regulate other modes of commerce beginning in 1906. Throughout the 20th century several of ICC's authorities were transferred to other federal agencies. The ICC was abolished in 1995, and its remaining functions were transferred to the Surface Transportation Board. The Commission's five members were appointed by the President with the consent of the United States Senate. This was the first independent agency (or so-called Fourth Branch). Creation The ICC was established by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland.United States. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, . The creation of the commission was the result of widespread and longstanding anti-railroad agitation. Western farmers, specifically those of the Grange Movement, were the dominant force behind the unrest, but Westerners generally — especially those in rural areas — believed that the railroads possessed economic power that they systematically abused. A central issue was rate discrimination between similarly situated customers and communities. Other potent issues included alleged attempts by railroads to obtain influence over city and state governments and the widespread practice of granting free transportation in the form of yearly passes to opinion leaders (elected officials, newspaper editors, ministers, and so on) so as to dampen any opposition to railroad practices. Various sections of the Interstate Commerce Act banned "personal discrimination" and required shipping rates to be "just and reasonable." President Cleveland appointed Thomas M. Cooley as the first chairman of the ICC. Cooley had been Dean of the University of Michigan Law School and Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Initial implementation and legal challenges The Commission had a troubled start because the law that created it failed to give it adequate enforcement powers. Following passage of the 1887 act, the ICC proceeded to set maximum shipping rates for railroads. However, in the late 1890s several railroads challenged the agency's ratemaking authority in litigation, and the courts severely limited the ICC's powers.U.S. Supreme Court. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Co., . Expansion of ICC authority A 1914 cartoon shows railroad companies asking the ICC (depicted as Uncle Sam) for permission to raise rates, while the ghost of a horrified William Henry Vanderbilt looks on. Congress expanded the commission's powers through subsequent legislation. The 1893 Railroad Safety Appliance Act gave the ICC jurisdiction over railroad safety, removing this authority from the states, and this was followed with amendments in 1903 and 1910.Safety Appliance Act of Mar. 2, 1893, 52nd Congress, 2nd session, ch. 196, . Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1903, 57th Congress, 2nd session, ch. 976, . Safety Appliance Act of April 14, 1910, 61st Congress, 2nd session, ch. 160, . The Hepburn Act of 1906 authorized the ICC to set maximum railroad rates, and extended the agency's authority to cover bridges, terminals, ferries, sleeping cars, express companies and oil pipelines.United States. Hepburn Act of 1906, 59th Congress, Sess. 1, ch. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, approved 1906-06-29. A long-standing controversy was how to interpret language in the Act that banned long haul- short haul fare discrimination. The Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 addressed this question by strengthening ICC authority over railroad rates. This amendment also expanded the ICC's jurisdiction to include regulation of telephone, telegraph and wireless companies.Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, 61st Congress, ch. 309, 36 Stat. 539, approved 1910-06-18. The Valuation Act of 1913 required the ICC to organize a Bureau of Valuation that would assess the value of railroad property. This information would be used to set rates.Valuation Act, 62nd Congress, ch. 92, , enacted 1913-03-01. The Esch-Cummins Act of 1920 expanded the ICC's rate-setting responsibilities, and the agency in turn required updated valuation data from the railroads.Esch–Cummins Act, Pub.L. 66-152, , approved 1920-02-28. The enlarged process led to a major increase in ICC staff, and the valuations continued for almost 20 years. The valuation process turned out to be of limited use in helping the ICC set rates fairly. In 1934, Congress transferred the telecommunications authority to the new Federal Communications Commission.Communications Act of 1934, 73rd Congress, ch. 652, Public Law 416, , June 19, 1934. 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5. In 1935, Congress passed the Motor Carrier Act, which extended ICC authority to regulate interstate bus lines and trucking as common carriers.Motor Carrier Act of 1935, , ch. 498, approved 1935-08-09. Ripley Plan to consolidate railroads into regional systems The Transportation Act of 1920 directed the Interstate Commerce Commission to prepare and adopt a plan for the consolidation of the railway properties of the United States into a limited number of systems. Between 1920 and 1923, William Z. Ripley, a professor of political economy at Harvard University, wrote up ICC's plan for the regional consolidation of the U.S. railways. His plan became known as the Ripley Plan. In 1929 the ICC published Ripley's Plan under the title Complete Plan of Consolidation. Numerous hearings were held by ICC regarding the plan under the topic "In the Matter of Consolidation of the Railways of the United States into a Limited Number of Systems".Kolsrud, Gretchen S., et al (1975). "Review of Recent Railroad Merger History." Appendix B of A Review of National Railroad Issues. Washington: U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. NTIS Document No. PB-250622. The proposed 21 regional railroads were as follows: # Boston and Maine Railroad; Maine Central Railroad; Bangor and Aroostook Railroad; Delaware and Hudson Railroad # New Haven Railroad; New York, Ontario and Western Railway; Lehigh and Hudson River Railway; Lehigh and New England Railroad # New York Central Railroad; Rutland Railroad; Virginian Railway; Chicago, Attica and Southern Railroad # Pennsylvania Railroad; Long Island Rail Road # Baltimore and Ohio Railroad; Central Railroad of New Jersey; Reading Railroad; Buffalo and Susquehanna Railroad; Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway; 50% of Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad; 50% of Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad; 50% of Monon Railroad; Chicago and Alton Railroad (Alton Railroad) # Chesapeake and Ohio-Nickel Plate Road; Hocking Valley Railway; Erie Railroad; Pere Marquette Railway; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad; Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad; Chicago and Illinois Midland Railroad; 50% of Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad # Wabash-Seaboard Air Line Railway; Lehigh Valley Railroad; Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway; Pittsburgh and West Virginia Railway; Western Maryland Railway; Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railway; Norfolk and Western Railway; 50% of Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad; Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad; Ann Arbor Railroad; 50% of Winston-Salem Southbound Railway # Atlantic Coast Line Railroad; Louisville and Nashville Railroad; Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway; Clinchfield Railroad; Atlanta, Birmingham and Coast Railroad; Mobile and Northern Railroad; New Orleans Great Northern Railroad; 25% of Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway (Monon Railway); 50% of Winston-Salem Southbound Railway # Southern Railway; Norfolk Southern Railroad; Tennessee Central Railway (east of Nashville); Florida East Coast Railway; 25% of Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway (Monon Railway) # Illinois Central Railroad; Central of Georgia Railway; Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway; Tennessee Central Railway (west of Nashville); St. Louis Southwestern Railway (Cotton Belt Railway); Atlanta and St. Andrews Bay Railroad # Chicago and North Western Railway; Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway; Litchfield and Madison Railway; Mobile and Ohio Railroad; Columbus and Greenville Railway; Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railroad # Great Northern-Northern Pacific Railway; Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway; 50% of Butte, Anaconda and Pacific Railway # Milwaukee Road; Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad; Duluth, Missabe and Northern Railway; Duluth and Iron Range Railroad; 50% of Butte, Anaconda and Pacific Railway; trackage rights on Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway to Portland, Oregon. # Burlington Route; Colorado and Southern Railway; Fort Worth and Denver Railway; Green Bay and Western Railroad; Missouri-Kansas- Texas Railroad; 50% of Trinity and Brazos Valley Railroad; Oklahoma City-Ada- Atoka Railway # Union Pacific Railroad; Kansas City Southern Railway # Southern Pacific Railroad # Santa Fe Railway; Chicago Great Western Railway; Kansas City, Mexico and Orient Railway; Missouri and North Arkansas Railway; Midland Valley Railroad; Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway # Missouri Pacific Railroad; Texas and Pacific Railway; Kansas, Oklahoma and Gulf Railway; Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad; Denver and Salt Lake Railroad; Western Pacific Railroad; Fort Smith and Western Railroad # Rock Island-Frisco Railway; Alabama, Tennessee and Northern Railroad; 50% of Trinity and Brazos Valley Railroad; Louisiana and Arkansas Railway; Meridian and Bigbee Railroad # Canadian National; Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway; Grand Trunk Western Railway # Canadian Pacific; Soo Line; Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Railway; Mineral Range Railroad Terminal railroads proposed There were 100 terminal railroads that were also proposed. Below is a sample: # Toledo Terminal Railroad; Detroit Terminal Railroad; Kankakee & Seneca Railroad # Indianapolis Union Railway; Boston Terminal; Ft. Wayne Union Railway; Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad # Toledo, Angola & Western Railway # Akron and Barberton Belt Railroad; Canton Railroad; Muskegon Railway & Navigation # Philadelphia Belt Line Railroad; Fort Street Union Depot; Detroit Union Railroad Depot & Station; 15 other properties throughout the United States # St. Louis & O'Fallon Railway; Detroit & Western Railway; Flint Belt Railroad; 63 other properties throughout the United States # Youngstown & Northern Railroad; Delray Connecting Railroad; Wyandotte Southern Railroad; Wyandotte Terminal Railroad; South Brooklyn Railway Plan rejected Many small railroads failed during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Of those lines that survived, the stronger ones were not interested in supporting the weaker ones. Congress repudiated Ripley's Plan with the Transportation Act of 1940, and the consolidation idea was scrapped.Transportation Act of 1940, Sept. 18, 1940, ch. 722, . Racial integration of transport Although racial discrimination was never a major focus of its efforts, the ICC had to address civil rights issues when passengers filed complaints. History * April 28, 1941 - In Mitchell v. United States, the United States Supreme Court rules that discrimination in which a colored man who had paid a first class fare for an interstate journey was compelled to leave that car and ride in a second class car was essentially unjust, and violated the Interstate Commerce Act.Mitchell v. United States, . The court thus overturns an ICC order dismissing a complaint against an interstate carrier. *June 3, 1946 - In Morgan v. Virginia, the Supreme Court invalidates provisions of the Virginia Code which require the separation of white and colored passengers where applied to interstate bus transport. The state law is unconstitutional insofar as it is burdening interstate commerce, an area of federal jurisdiction.Morgan v. Virginia, * June 5, 1950 - In Henderson v. United States, the Supreme Court rules to abolish segregation of reserved tables in railroad dining cars.Henderson v. United States, . The Southern Railway had reserved tables in such a way as to allocate one table conditionally for blacks and multiple tables for whites; a black passenger traveling first-class was not served in the dining car as the one reserved table was in use. The ICC ruled the discrimination to be an error in judgement on the part of an individual dining car steward; both the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and the Supreme Court disagreed, finding the published policies of the railroad itself to be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act. * September 1, 1953 - In Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, Women's Army Corps private Sarah Keys, represented by civil rights lawyer Dovey Johnson Roundtree, becomes the first black to challenge the "separate but equal" doctrine in bus segregation before the ICC. While the initial ICC reviewing commissioner declined to accept the case, claiming Brown v. Board of Education (1954) "did not preclude segregation in a private business such as a bus company," Roundtree ultimately prevailed in obtaining a review by the full eleven-person commission.Challenging the System: Two Army Women Fight for Equality , Judith Bellafaire Ph.D., Curator, Women In Military Service For America Memorial Foundation * November 7, 1955 – ICC bans bus segregation in interstate travel in Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company.Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, 64 MCC 769 (1955). This extends the logic of Brown v. Board of Education, a precedent ending the use of "separate but equal" as a defence against discrimination claims in education, to bus travel across state lines. * December 5, 1960 - In Boynton v. Virginia, the Supreme Court holds that racial segregation in bus terminals is illegal because such segregation violates the Interstate Commerce Act.Boynton v. Virginia, . This ruling, in combination with the ICC's 1955 decision in Keys v. Carolina Coach, effectively outlaws segregation on interstate buses and at the terminals servicing such buses. * September 23, 1961 - The ICC, at Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's insistence, issues new rules ending discrimination in interstate travel. Effective November 1, 1961, six years after the commission's own ruling in Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, all interstate buses required to display a certificate that reads: "Seating aboard this vehicle is without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin, by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission." Relationship between regulatory body and the regulated A friendly relationship between the regulators and the regulated is evident in several early civil rights cases. Throughout the South, railroads had established segregated facilities for sleeping cars, coaches and dining cars. At the same time, the plain language of the Act (forbidding "undue or unreasonable preference" as well as "personal discrimination") could be read as an implied invitation for activist regulators to chip away at racial discrimination. In at least two landmark cases, however, the Commission sided with the railroads rather than with the African-American passengers who had filed complaints. In both Mitchell v. United States (1941) and Henderson v. United States, the Supreme Court took a more expansive view of the Act than the Commission. In 1962, the ICC banned racial discrimination in buses and bus stations, but it did not do so until several months after a binding pro-integration Supreme Court decision Boynton v. Virginia and the Freedom Rides (in which activists engaged in civil disobedience to desegregate interstate buses). Criticism A Puck magazine cartoon from 1907 depicting two large bears named "Interstate Commerce Commission" and "Federal Courts" attacking Wall Street. The limitation on railroad rates in 1906-07 depreciated the value of railroad securities, a factor in causing the panic of 1907. Some economists and historians, such as Milton Friedman assert that existing railroad interests took advantage of ICC regulations to strengthen their control of the industry and prevent competition, constituting regulatory capture. Economist David D. Friedman argues that the ICC always served the railroads as a cartelizing agent and used its authority over other forms of transportation to prevent them, where possible, from undercutting the railroads. In March 1920, the ICC had Eben Moody Boynton, the inventor of the Boynton Bicycle Railroad, committed as a lunatic to an institution in Washington, D.C. Boynton's monorail electric light rail system, it was reported, had the potential to revolutionize transportation, superseding then-current train travel. ICC officials said that they had Boynton committed because he was "worrying them to death" in his promotion of the bicycle railroad. Based on his own testimony and that of a Massachusetts congressman, Boynton won release on May 28, 1920, overcoming testimony of the ICC's chief clerk that Boynton was virtually a daily visitor at ICC offices, seeking Commission adoption of his proposal to revolutionize the railroad industry. Abolition Congress passed various deregulation measures in the 1970s and early 1980s which diminished ICC authority, including the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 ("4R Act"), the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 and the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Senator Fred R. Harris of Oklahoma strongly advocated the abolition of the Commission. In December 1995, when most of the ICC's powers had been eliminated or repealed, Congress finally abolished the agency with the ICC Termination Act of 1995.ICC Termination Act of 1995, . Final Chair Gail McDonald oversaw transferring its remaining functions to a new agency, the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB), which reviews mergers and acquisitions, rail line abandonments and railroad corporate filings. ICC jurisdiction on rail safety (hours of service rules, equipment and inspection standards) was transferred to the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970.United States. Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970. Approved 1970-10-16. Motor carriers (bus lines, trucking companies) are now regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Prior to its abolition, the ICC gave identification numbers to motor carriers for which it issued licenses. The identification numbers were generally in the form of "ICC MC-000000". When the ICC was dissolved, the function of licensing interstate motor carriers was transferred to FMCSA. All motor carriers with federal licenses now have a USDOT number, such as "USDOT 000000". Legacy The ICC served as a model for later regulatory efforts. Unlike, for example, state medical boards (historically administered by the doctors themselves), the seven Interstate Commerce Commissioners and their staffs were full-time regulators who could have no economic ties to the industries they regulated. Since 1887, some state and other federal agencies adopted this structure. And, like the ICC, later agencies tended to be organized as multi-headed independent commissions with staggered terms for the commissioners. At the federal level, agencies patterned after the ICC included the Federal Trade Commission (1914), the Federal Communications Commission (1934), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (1934), the National Labor Relations Board (1935), the Civil Aeronautics Board (1940), Postal Regulatory Commission (1970) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (1975). In recent decades, this regulatory structure of independent federal agencies has gone out of fashion. The agencies created after the 1970s generally have single heads appointed by the President and are divisions inside executive Cabinet Departments (e.g., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1970) or the Transportation Security Administration (2002)). The trend is the same at the state level, though it is probably less pronounced. International influence The Interstate Commerce Commission had a strong influence on the founders of Australia. The Constitution of Australia provides (§§ 101-104; also § 73) for the establishment of an Inter-State Commission, modeled after the United States' Interstate Commerce Commission. However, these provisions have largely not been put into practice; the Commission existed between 1913–1920, and 1975–1989, but never assumed the role which Australia's founders had intended for it. See also * : Interstate Commerce Commission litigation * : People of the Interstate Commerce Commission * Civil Aeronautics Board, a comparable body regulating American air travel Airline deregulation in the United States, an overview of the CAB's rise and fall * History of rail transport in the United States * United States administrative law References Sources * External links * Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). "People & Events: Interstate Commerce Commission." (Notes for the television program The American Experience: Streamliners.) * Historic technical reports from the Interstate Commerce Commission (and other Federal agencies) are available in the Technical Reports Archive and Image Library (TRAIL) *Records of the Interstate Commerce Commission and Surface Transportation Board in the National Archives (Record Group 134) * Government agencies established in 1887 1995 disestablishments in the United States United States administrative law Rail accident investigators 1887 establishments in the United States "
"Cungagnaq (; date of birth unknown - d. 1815) is venerated as a martyr and saint (as Peter the Aleut; ) by some jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He was allegedly a native of Kodiak Island (Alutiiq or Sugpiaq), and is said to have received the Christian name of Peter when he was baptized into the Orthodox faith by the monks of St Herman's missionaries operating in the north.All Saints of North America, an Orthodox Church in Virginia, USA He is purported to have been captured by Spanish soldiers near "San Pedro" and tortured and killed at the instigation of Roman Catholic priests either there or at a nearby location. At the time identified for his death, California was Spanish territory, and Spain was worried about Russian advances southwards from Alaska.Saint Peter the Aleut, Oct 22 1999, University of Michigan Hubert Howe Bancroft, in his multi-volume History of California, only notes that, in connection with an incident wherein a Russian fur-hunting expedition was taken into custody after declining to leave San Pedro; one Russian source accused "the Spaniards of cruelty to the captives, stating that according to Kuskof’sIvan Kuskof was a sailor and official associated with the Russian- American Company report one Aleut who refused to become a Catholic died from ill-treatment received from the padre at San Francisco."Bancroft, p. 308, see footnote referencing "Barânof, Shizneopissanie, 135-6; Khébnikof, Zapiski, 11; Tikhmenef, Istor. Obosranie, i. 213, 216." Martyrdom According to the most fully developed version of the story, in 1815 a group of Russian employees of the Russian American Company and their Aleut seal and otter hunters, including Peter, was captured by Spanish soldiers, while hunting illicitly for seals near San Pedro, (which has variably been interpreted as either San Pedro, Los AngelesNamee, Matthew (et al, for comments following main article). "Primary Sources on St. Peter the Aleut" OrthodoxHistory.org (see both main article and following comments) or as San Pedro y San Pablo Asistencia (in Pacifica, California). According to the original account, the soldiers took them to "the mission in Saint-Pedro" for interrogation.Namee, Matthew. "Peter the Aleut: the original martyrdom account", OrthodoxHistory.org One Russian source states that after being taken prisoner near modern Los Angeles, the captives were taken to Mission Dolores—that is, modern San Francisco.McNichols Icon: St. Peter the Aleut and St. Andrew Bobola, SJ, Creighton University With threats of torture, the Roman Catholic priests attempted to force the Aleuts to deny their Orthodox faith and to convert to Roman Catholicism. When the Aleuts refused, the priest had a toe severed from each of Peter's feet. Peter still refused to renounce his faith and the Spanish priest ordered a group of Native Americans, indigenous to California, to cut off each finger of Peter's hands, one joint at a time, finally removing both his hands. They eventually disemboweled him, making him a martyr to the Eastern Orthodox faith. The Spanish captors were about to torture the next Aleut when orders were received to release the other Russian and Native Alaskan prisoners. Historicity An account of the martyrdom of Peter the Aleut is contained in a lengthy letter written on November 22, 1865, by Semyon Yanovsky to Damascene, abbot of the Valaam Monastery in Finland.Text of Yanofsky's account of the martyrdom of Peter the Aleut, contained in his letter to Abbot Damascene (at Orthodox Church in America website)For a translation of the letter, see The Russian Orthodox Religious Mission in America, 1794-1837, pp. 80-89. Yanovsky (1789–1876), who is also one of the chief sources of information about St. Herman of Alaska, was chief manager of the Russian colonies from 1818–1820. In the letter he was reporting on an incident that he had heard from a supposed eyewitness, and that had taken place fifty years earlier in 1815. The letter contains the description of Peter being tortured by "Jesuits" but this would have been virtually impossible, as the Jesuit order had been expelled from all Spanish territories in 1767,Moses, Bernard. "Charles III: Expulsion of the Jesuits (1767)", Spain's Declining Power in South America, 1730-1806 (Berkeley, Calif., 1919), pp. 104-106 suppressed generally in 1773,Pollen, John Hungerford. "The Suppression of the Jesuits (1750-1773)." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 25 Aug. 2014 and had only been reconstituted in 1814 (one year before Peter's alleged death). In 1815 there were no Jesuits within several thousand miles of California, as the reconstitution of the Jesuits in New Spain (that is, Mexico) would not take place until 1816.Pollen, John Hungerford. "The Jesuits After the Restoration (1814-1912)." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 25 Aug. 2014 There were only Franciscans in California at the time, and it would be highly unlikely that anyone could confuse members of the two well-known and very dissimilar orders. Yanovsky adds, "At the time I reported all this to the Head Office in St. Petersburg." And indeed, this earlier communication, his official dispatch to the company's main office—dated Feb. 15, 1820, five years after the event—also relates the story of St. Peter's martyrdom, albeit with different details.See The Russian Orthodox Religious Mission in America, 1794-1837, cited below, p. 177. The most significant difference is that Yanovsky's original brief letter of 1820 accompanied a Russian translation of an account given in 1819 by a Kodiak Islander with the Russian name "Ivan Kiglay". This is the only account that purports to be from a witness, and any differences found in other accounts (including in those of Yanovsky himself) are additions or embroideries that lack foundation or support. Kiglay's account describes the capture of Russian- led fur poachers by Spanish soldiers in the vicinity of San Pedro Bay (the modern Port of Los Angeles) and taken to "the mission in Saint-Pedro". (As there was no mission or settlement at San Pedro, it is unclear where the party was supposed to have been taken; the nearest mission would have been San Gabriel, although the non-mission village of Los Angeles would have been closer.) While the rest of the prisoners are removed to Mission Santa Barbara, Kiglay and another Kodiak Islander named Chukagnak—who had been wounded in a battle with the soldiers—are imprisoned separately at "the mission at Saint- Pedro", and the next day Indians acting at the behest of a Spaniard torture and kill Chukagnak. Kiglay is apparently going to receive the same treatment, until the Spaniard receives a letter that apparently gives other directions. Kiglay is reimprisoned, and eventually escapes to Fort Ross, where he gives his testimony. There is nothing in the account that links the execution of Chucagnak to a refusal on his part to abandon Orthodoxy. Instead, the eyewitness account states that the Kodiak islanders were all previously offered the opportunity to become Catholics, that they had all declined because they were already Christians, and then with the exceptions of Kiglay and Chukagnak were all transferred to Santa Barbara with no further mention of, or demand for, conversion. Location of martyrdom and "San Pedro" Peter the Aleut has been referred to as a "martyr of San Francisco".Valadez, John. "Saint Peter: The First American Born Martyr". Death to the World. February 8, 2013 Additionally, many modern descriptions of the martyrdom of Peter the Aleut often describe the event as occurring "in San Francisco","Holy New Martyr Peter the Aleut" Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of AmericaPodmoshensky, (Abbot) Herman. "America’s New Saints - Protomartyrs Juvenal and Peter the Aleut" Orthodox America and others describe the Native Alaskan traders as being brought "to San Francisco". Other sources can be found describing the event as occurring near Los Angeles or in Southern California. These varying descriptions of the location may be based on varying oral traditions, varying understandings of the relationship of the location of the martyrdom and Fort Ross, and also on varying interpretations of references to "San Pedro" in the original historical documents. The earliest historical sources about the death of Peter the Aleut describe the event as taking place in or near "the mission of San Pedro".Bucko, Raymond A., S.J. St. Peter the Aleut:Sacred Icon and the Iconography of Violence Creighton University Some have taken this to refer to San Pedro y San Pablo Asistencia, a "sub-mission" of Mission San Francisco de Asís (also known as Mission Dolores). San Pedro y San Pablo Asistencia was located on the site of the modern-day Sánchez Adobe Park in modern-day Pacifica, California. Others have interpreted the historical description to refer to the dock in San Pedro, Los Angeles (now located in modern-day Los Angeles), which was used at the time as a trading post by Spanish missionary friars from Mission San Gabriel Arcángel."History" The Port of Los Angeles Such an interpretation of "San Pedro" fits well with other references to geographical locations in the historical documents, including an island named Santa Rosa (interpreted to refer to Santa Rosa Island) an island named "Climant" (interpreted to refer to San Clemente Island) and an island named Ekaterina, (interpreted by some to refer to Catalina Island). These documents also describe the captured Native Alaskan traders as transferred to Fort Ross, by way of sequential stops in Santa Barbara and Monterey. This interpretation of a Southern Californian location for the martyrdom is further supported by a letter contemporaneous to the alleged martyrdom event from Franciscan Fr. José Señan dated June 19, 1816 (but which runs counter to the story of forced conversion and violence against the Native hunters from Alaska), which describes the capture and transfer of "Russian Indians" to the Santa Barbara Presidio from Mission San Buenaventura (in modern-day Ventura, California). Veneration According to Yanovsky's 1865 letter, upon receiving the report of Peter's death, St. Herman on Kodiak Island was moved to cry out, "Holy new- martyr Peter, pray to God for us!" Peter the Aleut was glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and locally glorified by the Diocese of Alaska of the Orthodox Church in America as the "Martyr of San Francisco" in 1980. His feast day is celebrated on September 24 or December 12. There are a number of churches dedicated to him in North America: for example, the church at Lake Havasu City, Arizona;St. Peter the Aleut Orthodox Christian Church, Lake Havasu City, Ariz. Minot, North Dakota;St. Peter the Aleut Church, Minot, ND Calgary;Holy Martyr Peter the Aleut Church, Calgary, AB and Abita Springs, Louisiana.Saint Peter the Aleut Orthodox Mission, Southeast Louisiana Notes Sources * (Google Play Books link) *Farris, Glenn, "The Strange Tale of Saint Peter, the Aleut: A Russian Orthodox Martyr on the California Frontier". A paper presented at "The Spanish Missions and California Indians Symposium," D-Q University, 3 March 1990. *Ogden, Adele, The California Sea Otter Trade 1784-1848. (University of California Publications in History, 26). (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1941). *The Russian Orthodox Religious Mission in America, 1794–1837, with Materials Concerning the Life and Works of the Monk German, and Ethnographic Notes by the Hieromonk Gedeon. Originally published in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1894. Translated from the Russian by Colin Bearne; ed. by Richard A. Pierce (Kingston, Ont., Canada: Limestone Press, 1978). *Tarakanoff, Vassili Petrovitch, Statement of My Captivity Among the Californians (Los Angeles: Glen Dawson Press, 1953). *Tikhmenev, P. A, A History of the Russian-American Company. Translated and edited by Richard Pierce and Alton Donnelly. (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1978). External links * Full text of Yanofsky's account of the martyrdom of Peter (Orthodox Church in America website) * Namee, Matthew. "Is the St. Peter the Aleut story true?", OrthodoxHistory.org, January 31, 2011 18th-century births 1815 deaths 19th-century Christian saints 19th-century Eastern Orthodox martyrs 19th-century executions of American people Alaska Native people American saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church American people of Aleut descent American people of Russian descent American Orthodox child saints Christians from Alaska Eastern Orthodoxy in Alaska Eastern Orthodoxy in California Executed people from Alaska People executed by dismemberment People executed by New Spain People from Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska People of Russian America Russian saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church Religious leaders from California Religious leaders from Alaska "
"The 1310s BC is a decade which lasted from 1319 BC to 1310 BC. Events * The Bhagavad Gita is written, according to Hindu traditions. * 1319 BC (or 1306 BC)—Horemheb assumes the throne of Ancient Egypt. * 1317 BC—Enlil-nirari succeeds his father as king of Assyria. * June 24 1312 BC (or April 13 1308 BC) - Mursili II launches a campaign against the Kingdom of Azzi-Hayasa.Trevor Bryce (1998) References "