Vickipedia

POLL-ACT, a sanguinary act, passed at Trim in Ireland, by the Junto of the Pale, in 1465, under the Earl of Desmond, deputy. It ordained ‘ that it shall be lawful to all manner of men that find any theeves robbing by day or night, or going or coming/fo rob or steal, or any persons going or coining, having no faithful man of good name and fame in their company in English apparel, that it shall be lawful to take and kill those, and to cut off their heads, without any impeachment, of our sovereign lord the king. And of any head so cut off in the county of Meath, that the cutter and his ayders there to him cause the saed head so cut off to be brought to the portreffe to put it upon a stake or spear, upon the Castle of Trim, and that the saed portreffe shall testify the bringing of the same to him. And that it shall be lawful for the saed bringer of the saed head to distrain and levy by his hand (as his reward) of every man having one ploughland in the barony, two pence; and of every man having half a ploughland, one penny ; and of every man having an house and goods, value forty shillings, one penny; and of every cottier having one house and smoak, one half-penny.’ Much slaughter is said to have been committed under this remarkable act.

WEA’NING, and FEEDING IN INFANCY. The propriety of mothers nursing their own children is now so universally acknowledged, that it is the duty of the physician less frequently to urge maternal nursing than to indicate those cases in which it becomes necessary to substitute another mode of rearing the infant. ‘ Women,’ says Dr. Maunsell, ‘who labor under any mortal or weakening disease—as phthisis, hæmorrhages, epilepsy—are obviously disqualified from the office of nurse. Some who are in other respects healthy, have breasts incapable of secreting a sufficient supply of milk. In other instances, the breast may perform its functions well, but the nipple may be naturally so small, or may be so completely obliterated by the pressure of tight stays, as not to admit of its being laid hold of by the child. These are actual physical hindrances to nursing. Again, women may, and, in the higher classes, frequently do, possess such extremely sensitive and excitable temperaments, as will render it imprudent for them to suckle their own children. Frightened and excited by every accidental change in the infant’s countenance, and inordinately moved by the common agitations of life, such persons are kept in a state of continual fever, which materially interferes with the formation of milk both as to quantity and quality. Women, also, who become mothers for the first time at a late period of life, have seldom the flexibility of disposition or the physical aptitude for the secretion of milk, required to constitute a good nurse.’—A Treatise on the Management and Diseases of Children, 4th ed., 1842, pp. 39. 40.

In ordinary cases, the child should be put to the breast as soon as the latter begins to contain anything; and when the secretion of milk lias fairly commenced, it will require no other food until the seventh or eighth month, provided the mother be a good nurse. During the first five or six months, the infant should be put to the breast at regular intervals of about four hours; afterwards, when the teeth are beginning to appear, the child need not suck more than four times in the twenty-four hours, some artificial food being given to it twice during the same period. This at first may consist of soft bread steeped in hot water, with the addition of sugar and cow’s milk; and subsequently a little broth, free from salt and vegetables, may be given once a day. The spoon is now the best medium o£ feeding, as the food should be more solid than could be drawn through the sucking-bottle. The time of weaning should be that indicated by nature, when, by providing the child with teeth, she furnishes it with the means of obtaining its nourishment from substances more solid than milk. If the infant has been gradually accustomed to a diminished supply of maternal and an increase of artificial food, weaning will be a comparatively easy process; and much of that suffering both to parent and child will be spared, which commonly ensues when a sudden change is made. In ordinary cases, the period of weaning varies from the seventh to the twelfth month; sometimes the child is kept at the breast for a much longer period, from the popular idea that lactation prevents pregnancy, but such unnaturally prolonged lactation is usually injurious to both mother and child.

In those cases in which it is inexpedient or impossible for a mother to suckle her own child, the choice of a wet-nurse becomes a subject of much importance. Upon this subject, Dr. Maunsell lays down the following important practical rules: ‘The great thing we have to look to is to ascertain that both the woman and her child are in good health; and of this we must endeavor to judge by the following signs: The woman’s general appearance and form should be observed, and they ought to be such as betoken a sound constitution. Her skin should be free from eruptions; her tongue clean, and indicating a healthy digestion; her gums and teeth sound and perfect; the breasts should be firm and well formed—not too large or flabby—and with perfect, well-developed nipples. We should see that the milk flows freely, upon slight pressure; and we should allow a little of it to remain in a glass in order that we may judge of its quality. It should be thin, and of a bluish-white color; sweet to the taste; and when allowed to stand, should throw up a considerable quantity of cream. A nurse should not be old, but it is better that she should have had one or two children before, as she will then be likely to have more milk, and may be supposed to have acquired experience in the management of infants. Having examined the mother, we must next turn to the child, which should be well nourished, clean and free from eruptions, especially on the head and buttocks. We should also carefully examine its mouth, to ascertain that it is free from sores or aphthæ. If both woman and child bear such an examination, we may with tolerable security pronounce the former to be likely to prove a good nurse.’—Op. cit., pp. 44, 45. In one respect, we differ from this eminent physician. He holds that ‘ the more recently the nurse’s own confinement has taken place, provided she has recovered from its effects, the better.’ Supposing a nurse is required for a new born infant, this rule holds good; but provided a nurse is required for an infant of three or four months old (for example), it is preferable to obtain a nurse whose milk is of that age. We believe it to be a general physiological law that the age of the milk should correspond to the age of the infant; that is to say, that an infant taken at any given age from its mother, before the normal period of weaning, should be provided with a nurse who was confined about the same time as its own mother.

A wet-nurse should be very much preferred to any kind of artificial feeding; but peculiar cases may occur in which it is impossible to procure a nurse; or an infant whose mother is incapable of nourishing it may be the subject of a disease that may be transmitted through the infant to the nurse. In these cases, a food must be provided as nearly as possible resembling the natural food; and this is naturally sought for among the food of animals. The milk of the cow is most commonly used, in consequence of its being the most easily obtained; but ass’s milk more nearly resembles human milk, as is shown from the following comparative analyses by Professor Playfair :

The most important difference between cow’s milk and woman’s milk is the great excess of casein in the former. The former fluid may, however, be made to resemble the latter in composition in either of the following ways : (1) On gently heating cow’s milk, a membrane of casein forms on-the surface; by removing two or

three of these membranes as they form, we can reduce the quantity of casein to the desired extent; or (2) we may dilute cow’s milk with twice its bulk of pure water, and add a little sugar. This food should be administered at a natural temperature (of about 98°) through a sucking-bottle; and as the child grows older, it will soon be able to take natural cow’s milk without inconvenience. The nature and importance of the mixture of milk and farinaceous food known as Liebig’s Soup for Children, are described under SOUP.

The rules regarding the times &c. of feeding are similar to those laid down for suckling. Assuming that the infant, whether brought up at the breast or artificially reared, has been safely weaned, we have to consider what rules should be laid clown regarding its food subsequently. For some months after weaning the food should consist principally of semi-fluid substances, such as milk thickened with baked flour, or pap, to which a little sugar should be added. Light broth’s may also be administered, especially in the occasional cases in which milk seems to disagree; and bread and butter may be tried in small quantity. We shall con-elude this article with the following ‘ model of a suitable diet for children,’ which cannot be too strongly impressed upon the minds of all young mothers. ‘A healthy child, of two or three years old, commonly awakes hungry and thirsty at five or six o’clock in the morning, sometimes even earlier. Immediately after awaking, a little bread and sweet milk should be given to it, or (when the child is too young to eat bread) a little bread-pap. The latter should be warm; but in the former case, the bread may be eaten from the hand, and the milk allowed to be drunk cold, as it is well at this meal to furnish no inducement for eating beyond that of hunger. After eating, the child will generally sleep again for an hour or two; and about nine o’clock it should get its second meal, of bread softened in hot water, which latter is to be drained off, and fresh milk and a little sugar added to the bread. Between one and two, the child may have dinner, consisting, at the younger ages, of beef, mutton, or chicken broth (deprived of all fat), and bread. When a sufficient number of teeth are developed to admit of chewing being performed, a little animal food, as chicken, roast, or broiled mutton, or beef, not too much dressed, should be allowed, with a potato or bread, and some fresh, well-dressed vegetable, as turnips or cauliflower. After dinner, some drink will be requisite; and a healthy child requires, and indeed wishes for nothing but water.

Light, fresh table-beer would not be injurious to a child of four or five years old, but it is unnecessary. Between six and seven o’clock, the child may have its last meal of bread steeped in water, &c., as at nine o’clock in the morning. A healthy child which lias been in the open air during the greater part of the day, will be ready for bed shortly after this last supply, and will require nothing more till next morning. Similar regimen and hours may be adopted throughout the whole period of childhood; only as the fourth or fifth year approaches, giving, for breakfast and supper, bread and milk without water, and either warmer cold, according to the weather or the child’s inclination. The supply of food upon first awakening in the morning may also be gradually discontinued, and breakfast be given somewhat earlier.’ —Op. cit., pp. 80, 81.

WE’RE-WOLF (Aug.-Sax. wer, a man), a man-wolf, a man who, either periodically or for a time, is transformed, or transforms himself into a wolf, becoming possessed of all the powers and appetites of a wolf in addition to his own, and being especially remarkable for his appetite for human flesh. The belief in the transformation of men into wolves or other beasts of prey has been very widely diffused; there is perhaps no people among whom some evidence of its former prevalence does not exist. It is not yet extinct, even in Europe. In many of the rural districts of France, the loup-garou (the latter part of the word is a corruption of the Teutonic wer-wolf), is still an object of dread. This superstition lingers too among the country-people of Northern Europe, and a particular form of it nourishes vigorously among the Bulgarians, Slavonians, and Serbs, and even among the more intelligent inhabitants of Greece. See VAMPIRE. Its details vary in different countries and districts. The definition given above includes only the commonest and the best marked of its incidents. Probably, it has not yet entirely disappeared in any country whose rural districts are infested with wolves or other wild animals; and manifestations fitted to suggest it may be occasionally observed in the mad-houses of most countries. See LYCANTHROPIA. The animal whose shape is taken, as already stated, is not always, though usually, a wolf; it was probably always the animal most formidable, or considered most inimical to man. In Abyssinia, it is the hyæna.

Occasional notices of lycanthropy, as it is called, are found in classical writers; and lycanthropy, as there described, was the change of a man or woman into a wolf, so as to enable the man or woman to gratify an appetite for human flesh, either by magical means, or through the judgment of the gods, as a punishment for some dire offence. Sometimes the transformation was into the shape of a dog or a bull. Ovid, in his Metamorphoses, tells the story of Lycaon, king of Arcadia, who, when entertaining Jupiter at a banquet, resolved to test his omniscience by serving up to him a hash of human flesh. The god, to punish him for this, transformed him into a wolf. Herodotus describes the Neuri as sorcerers who had the power of taking once a year, for several days, the shape of wolves; and the same account of them is given by Pomponius Mela. Pliny relates that, in Arcadia, every year, at the festival of Jupiter Lycæus, one of the family of Antæus was chosen by lot, and conducted to the brink of the Arcadian Lake, into which, after having hung his garments upon a tree, lie plunged, and was transformed into a wolf. Nine years after, if alive, he returned to his friends, looking nine years older than when he disappeared. Some notices of lycanthropy are to be found in Petronius; and allusion to it is also made by Virgil in the 8th Eclogue. Marcellus Sidetes tells us of men who, every winter, were seized with the notion that they were dogs or wolves, and lived precisely like these animals, spending the night in lone cemeteries. This disorder attacked men chiefly in the beginning of the year, and was usually at its height in February. It is worth while observing that the classical instances of lycanthropy mostly refer to Arcadia, a pastoral country whose inhabitants suffered greatly from the ravages of wolves.

In Norway and Iceland, it used to be believed that there were men who were ‘ not of one skin.’ Such men could take upon themselves other shapes than that of man, and the natures corresponding to the shapes which they assumed; they had the strength and other powers of the animal whose shape they bore, as well as their own. It was believed that the change of shape might be effected in one of three ways : simply by putting on a skin of the animal; by the soul of the man deserting the human body—leaving it for a time in a cataleptic state—and entering into a body borrowed or created for the purpose; or, without any actual change of form, by means of a charm, which made all beholders see the man under the shape of the animal whose part he was sustaining. The two former were the common modes of transformation; at any rate, the Sagas are full of illustrations of them; while illustrations of the third mode are comparatively rare. Nothing of the man remained unchanged except his eyes; by these only could he be recognized. Odin had, and freely exercised, the power of varying his shape. When men changed their shape to prey upon their kind, they always took the form of a wolf. It was believed that many had the power of thus transforming themselves; and great was the popular dread of were-wolves. Perhaps the best stories-of were-wolves which are to be found are contained in the Northern Sagas. Scarcely anywhere did the belief in them go so deep into the minds of the people as among the northern races. In connection with it, notice may be taken of what is called the ‘Berserkr rage,’ which appears to have been a peculiar form of mania. The Berserkr yelped like dogs, or wolves rushing into conflict, bit their shields with their teeth, and committed terrible-atrocities while the paroxysms of their disease were upon them. Berserkr has been rendered ‘ bare-skinned;’ others make it mean ‘ wolf-skin-coated ‘ (why not ‘bear-skin-coated ?’).

Olaus Magnus states that in Prussia, Lithuania, and Livonia, though wolves were very numerous and troublesome, the ravages of the were-wolves were regarded as much more serious. Every year at the feast of the Nativity at night, the were-wolves assembled in great numbers at appointed places, and proceeded to loot out for human beings or tame animals, upon which they could glut their appetites. If they found an isolated house, they entered it, and devoured every human being and tame animal it contained; after which—showing that they were not common wolves —they drank up all the beer or mead. Similar testimony with regard to Livonia is given by Bishop Majolus, who adds, that the transformation into the wolf-form continued for twelve days.

Instances of persons being changed into wolves by way of punishment, were freely believed in the middle ages; for example, St. Patrick was believed to have changed Vereticus, king of Wales, into a wolf; and there was an illustrious Irish family which had incurred the curse of St. Natalis, every member of which, male and female, according to the popular belief, had to take the shape of a wolf, and live the life of a wolf for seven years.

In the 15th and 16th centuries, the belief in were-wolves was, throughout the continent of Europe, as general as the belief in witches, which it had then come to resemble in many respects- It gave rise to prosecutions almost as frequent as those for Witchcraft (q. v.), and these usually ended in the confession of the accused, and his death by hanging and burning. It was calculated to inspire even greater terror than witchcraft, since it was believed that the were-wolves delighted in human flesh, and were constantly lying in wait for solitary travelers, and carrying off and eating little children. The were-wolves, like the witches, were now regarded as servants of the devil, from whom they got the power-often exercised by anointing with a salve—of assuming the wolf’s form; and it was believed that great numbers of them trooped together to the devil’s Sabbath. The stories of mutilations and other mishaps befalling them in the wolf-state, by which, when they resumed the human form, the}’ were identified as were-wolves, exactly resemble the stories told of witches.

In September 1573, we find a court of parliament sitting at Dole, in Franche-Comte, authorizing the country-people to take their weapons, and beat the woods for a were-wolf, who had already—thus went the recital—’ carried off several little children, so that they had not since been heard of, and done injury to some horsemen, who kept him off only with great difficulty and danger to their persons.’ Throughout Europe, the judicial cognizance of witchcraft and of lycanthropy ceased at the same time. In Great Britain, where wolves had early been exterminated, the were-wolf was only known by rumors coming from abroad; but the belief that witches could transform themselves into cats and hares, which did prevail, was precisely analogous to the belief in werewolves, especially in its later forms.

The later forms of this strange belief were obviously sophisticated. In its earlier shape, three things are to be noticed—the-power ascribed to the were-wolf of transforming himself, either by changing the shape of his own body, or projecting his spirit into another body; his appetite for human flesh; his taking the shape and nature of the animal held to be most malicious against man—the wolf. As to the first of these, all that can here be done is to point to its connection with the doctrine of Transmigration (q. v.), and to add that it has been one of the commonest of human beliefs. As to the second, is it unlikely that in the early times in which the superstition had its origin, the appetite for human flesh may have been common enough to spread terror through whole-districts ?

It is, at least, not improbable that every race of men has had an experience of cannibalism; and it may well have been that, in occasional cases, especially under conditions of disease, the taste for human flesh survived the general practice of using it. Modern Europe affords many unquestionable examples of this taste existing and being indulged in the midst of comparative civilization. There can be no doubt that some of the unhappy multitude put to death as were-wolves had really murdered and eaten the flesh of human beings. But secret murders, unaccompanied by cannibalism, would tend to support a popular belief in cannibalism. We have not to go out of our own age for proofs of the existence of men afflicted with a homicidal tendency; and in times when the means of detecting crimes were very imperfect, it is conceivable that the murders committed by one or two such persons would spread terror, and give support to a superstitious theory throughout a large district. The Marechal de Retz, who lived in the time of our Henry VI., had caused to be stolen and put to death by torture, under the most inhuman circumstances, many hundred children—he confessed on his trial that he murdered 120 in a single year. (A memoir of Gilles de Laval, Marechal de Retz, has been compiled from authentic documents by P. J. Lacroix, the eminent French antiquary.)

Perhaps no society has ever been free from men similarly constituted, and acting similarly according to their opportunities. As to the third point, if it be granted that a certain practice of, or general suspicion of cannibalism existed among a people, who believed in the power of transformation, it is easy to understand how the cannibal, getting his victims by stealth, was supposed to indulge his inhuman appetite under the guise of the animal most unfriendly to man. And the existence of a form of mania in which the madman had the hallucination that he was changed into a wolf, yelled like a wolf, lived in many respects like a wolf, was calculated strongly to confirm the belief in men-wolves. In conjunction with the mischief done by real wolves, this itself may be thought almost enough to have given origin to the superstition. The hallucination of having undergone transformation into a wolf from time to time, seems to have been one of the commonest by which weak and crazed brains were possessed during the period when the hunt for were-wolves was kept up. The literature of this subject, though abundant, is for the most part fragmentary, .•and mixed up with other matters. A good account of the subject will be found in The Book of Were-wolves, by Sabine Baring-Gould (Lond. 1865).

POLI’CE (Lat. politia, Gr. politeia, civil government; from polis, a city), are constables or peace-officers appointed in all parts of town and country for the purpose of watching property and detecting crime, and arresting offenders and maintaining public order. Though the word policeman is now, especially in towns, a household word, the legal denomination is that of constable; but he is a paid constable, to distinguish him from unpaid constables and special constables. In each parish in England, the justices of the peace have power to appoint constables to act gratuitously and compulsorily; but the vestry has power to resolve that one or more paid constables shall be appointed, in which case the justices are to make the appointment, and these paid constables supersede the unpaid constables. The salary of these parish constables is paid out of the poor-rates of the parish by the overseers. The justices also appoint a superintendent constable for each petty sessional division, to settle the fees and allowances which are to be paid to the constables for the service of summonses, and for the execution of warrants incidental to the office of justices of the peace. In all boroughs in England, the corporation’ is empowered, by the Municipal Corporation Acts, to appoint a watch committee, who appoint a sufficient number of men to act as constables. The treasurer of the borough pays their salaries, wages and allowances, as well as extraordinary expenses incurred by them. By an act of parliament applicable to counties, the justices are empowered to establish a sufficient police force for each county, and a chief constable is appointed to govern the whole.

The duties of constables or police-officers are exceedingly multifarious, and they receive printed regulations to guide them in the proper discharge of such duties. They have important duties in reference to the apprehension of offenders, and their powers are necessarily larger than those of private individuals. Wherever a person is seen in the act of committing a felony, it is the duty of every one, not merely of constables, to apprehend him or her without any warrant, for no warrant is needed. Persons found offending in many misdemeanors may also be apprehended by anybody without a warrant; but in other cases, a constable only can make an arrest. In case of a riot, any body may arrest the rioter. Constables are bound to arrest hawkers trading without a license; and vagrants who are offending against the Vagrant Acts, such as telling fortunes, loitering about premises, &c. The powers of constables are much greater than those of individuals with reference to crimes after they are committed. Thus, where the constable has not seen the offence committed, but is merely told of the fact, and he has reason to believe it, he is entitled to arrest the party charged without any warrant; he must, however, in such cases act only on reasonable suspicion. He is not justified, for example, in apprehending a person as a receiver of stolen goods on the mere assertion of the principal felon; nor is a constable justified in taking a person into custody for a mere assault without a warrant, unless he himself was present at the time the assault was committed, or reasonably apprehends a renewal of it. If a constable have a reasonable suspicion that a man has committed a felony, he may apprehend him; and so a private individual may do so. The difference between the authority of the constable and the private person in this respect is, that the latter is justified only in case it turn out that a felony was in fact committed; but the constable may justify the arrest and detention whether a felony was committed or not.

It is the duty of a constable to raise a hue and cry in search of a felon, and all private individuals are bound to join in it, otherwise they may be indicted and fined. An arrest by a constable is usually made by laying hands on the party, and detaining him; but it is enough for the constable to touch him and say: ‘ I arrest you, in the Queen’s name.’ If the party arrested be in a house in hiding, the constable may demand admittance, and if he is refused, may then break open the doors; this is so in all cases where the party has committed treason or felony, or has dangerously wounded another. In cases where the constable is not authorized at common law or by some statute to arrest a party without a warrant, then he must produce a warrant signed by a justice of the peace, and show it to the party if it is demanded; and if the constable happens not to have the warrant in his pocket at the time, even though it is not asked for, it is an illegal arrest. When a party is arrested, it is the duty of the constable to take him without any unreasonable delay before a justice of the peace, and meanwhile lodge him in safe custody. The party arrested must not be treated with harshness beyond what is necessary for safe custody, and therefore it has been held that a constable has no right to handcuff a person whom he has apprehended on suspicion of felony, unless such person has attempted to escape, or it be necessary to prevent an escape. Nor has a constable in general a right to search a person apprehended, unless the latter conduct himself violently.

The conduct of constables in reference to public-houses is of some importance. It is an offence in publicans and beer-house keepers, and indeed the keepers of all places of public resort, to refuse to admit the constable into such house or place at any time. Thus, in the case of these places being open on Sundays at the times prohibited by statute, the constable, if he suspect that the act is being violated, may demand admittance, and thus satisfy himself as to the fact. It is owing also to this power of a constable to enter at all times, that he is enabled to detect other offences in public-houses, such as harboring prostitutes and disorderly characters. Constables, when suspecting that a betting-house is kept, must first get a warrant from a justice of the peace, which can be obtained without notice to the parties, and can then break into the house. So as to gaming-houses. While constables have summary power of entering public-houses, still this is not to be abused; and it is a distinct offence in the keepers of all public places where wine, spirits, beer, cider, or any fermented or distilled liquors are sold on the premises, to knowingly harbor, or entertain, or suffer to remain there such constables during the time they are on duty, except when quelling disturbances or restoring order. It is an offence punishable with more than usual severity to assault constables when in the execution of their duty. Though constables are paid in great part by each county and borough, and thus by the public at large, it is often requisite for individuals to require the services of extra constables, in which case such individuals must pay for them at their own expense, as is usual in theaters and large establishments. Of late years, considerable complaint had been made as to constables interfering in the protection of game-preserves and fisheries, it being considered that the owners of those properties ought to bear the extra charge, if required, of the constables’ giving more than the ordinary attention to poachers. But by the recent Act, extended powers of detecting poachers of game were given to constables, who are now entitled, whenever they suspect people on the highway of being engaged in poaching, to stop and search them, and then summon the poachers, if necessary, before justices. See poaching.

In 1880, the total police and constabulary in England and Wales amounted to 31,480 men. These are subdivided into chief constables of counties, 56; head constables of boroughs, 163; superintendents, 581; inspectors, 1311; sergeants, 3008; constables, 25,511; additional constables, 390; detectives, 520. The proportion of policemen to the population is about 1 to 811. In 1879-30. the total expenditure on the police force of England and Wales, including the city of London police, was £3,113,725, of which less than £600,000 was paid by Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Superannuation Fund, the major part coining from local sources. The public revenue pays nothing towards the city of London police; it pays all the cost of the dock-yard police; it pays nearly one-fifth of the other branches of the police. In 1881, the metropolitan police numbered 1 chief superintendent, 24 superintendents, 605 inspectors, 941 sergeants, and 9634 constables; the city police comprising 124 officers and 737 constables.

In Ireland, the first regular police force was established in 1814, which was improved in 1836 and 1839. Originally, the expense was defrayed partly out of the Consolidated Fund; but in 1846, the whole expense was borne by the Consolidated Fund, with trifling exceptions. In 1880, the total cost of the constabulary of Ireland amounted to £1,095,121. The number of constables in 1880 was 11,473, besides 1111 Dublin Metropolitan Police. In Ireland the police carry firearms.

In Scotland, the public police force was, in 1880, 3702 (1331 for counties, 2371 for burghs), including 84 detectives; and their cost for the year was £316,413. In addition to this number, the Tweed Commissioners pay for about 30 constables; 12 more are paid by other fishery commissioners, 20 employed by companies or private persons, and 160 by harbor boards.