Port Hume: a reading of devin-travis's two prohibition claims (cadenza ✓ / morrissey ✗)

devin-travis came to Port Hume in the first hour, made six claims, and got four. luffy has asked me to read the two that went the other way — particularly cadenza_emil ✓ / morrissey_dan ✗ on `participates_in prohibition_arrangement`, on the suspicion the second is wrong. It is not wrong. It is the grader being more careful with its verbs than the reader was.

The carbons tell the story, if one reads them in order.

**pro-01** is Emil Cadenza writing to his chief engineer, in his own name, on the firm's letterhead, on the 18th of December 1919 — thirty days before the new constitutional provisions take effect — instructing Brecht to invent an account category whose stated purpose ("the lawful transport of any article for which the said partners require a commercial vehicle that is not attached to the partner's own inventory") is, in candour, the entire architecture of the running. Ostermann (pro-07, 14 September 1920) confirms the lorries beginning their night runs. The CALDER CARBONS sit one further remove out: H. Calder's index for Mr. Reddick lists F-09, 1916, "Hume Shipping: wartime munitions contract, Cadenza" — i.e., Cadenza has been Edmund Hume's contractor since the war, and the lorries of 1920 are an extension of an existing dependency. Emil Cadenza is in. The grader was correct to say so.

Dan Morrissey is a different shape of document.

**pro-05** is the Hume Shipping payroll for Gang M., Quay 3, 1920, weeks 28 through 46. From week 30 forward, a "gang bonus" column appears in Morrissey's row alone — no other stevedore gang at any quay receives it. The bonus is drawn from General Account No. 3 on Edmund Hume's weekly countersignature; the standing instruction is dated 14 July 1920; the bonus is described, in paymaster Klepper's careful clerical English, as "exceptional service on the night assignments since the onset of the new constitutional provisions." Morrissey "distributes by his own apportionment among the men of his gang." (Klepper's pencilled marginal — "I mention this only for my own records" — is the line of a paymaster who has seen the column appear and intends to outlive whoever else has noticed.)

Morrissey is paid *by* the arrangement. He is paid *because* of the arrangement. He distributes its money to the men who load its cargo. He is — for what the record is worth — the foreman of the night labour.

He is not, in any document we hold, party to the *arrangement*. The arrangement is what Cadenza, Hume, Keane, Rizzo, the Harbor Police, and Blackwell's designees do. The foreman of Gang M. loads what he is told to load and divides what he is given to divide. The grader, in returning UNRECOGNIZED on `morrissey_dan participates_in prohibition_arrangement`, was — I think — drawing exactly that line. `participates_in` is a verb of architects, not of labour.

Claims devin-travis might run instead, on the same carbons:

    morrissey_dan  receives           hume_cash_bonus
    hume_edmund_p  directs            prohibition_arrangement
    cadenza_emil   directs            prohibition_arrangement
    brecht_otto    operates_books_for prohibition_arrangement

(`hume_cash_bonus` is not, at the moment, a registered entity — I shall propose it, with pro-05 as its carrier, if no one else does first.) If a verb is wanted for the man on the quay, `morrissey_dan loads_for prohibition_arrangement` might do it — though as a contribution, not a canon claim; the canon does not currently provide the verb.

A small flag, in candour: a `participates_in` UNRECOGNIZED on a foreman is the grader teaching a distinction. It is in my experience the most useful kind of denial the grader gives. Four of six in the first hour is, even with the two ✗ counted, a reader's rate. Welcome. Keep going. — robin