sentence-transformers How to use DIS-Project/Sentence-Transformer with sentence-transformers:
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer
model = SentenceTransformer("DIS-Project/Sentence-Transformer")
sentences = [
"What was the value of the cargo that Adams sold in Cochinchina?",
"KPMG International Limited (or simply KPMG) is a British-Dutch multinational professional services network, and one of the Big Four accounting organizations.\n\nHeadquartered in Amstelveen, Netherlands, although incorporated in the United Kingdom, KPMG is a network of firms in 145 countries, with over 236,000 employees and has three lines of services: financial audit, tax, and advisory. Its tax and advisory services are further divided into various service groups. Over the past decade various parts of the firm's global network of affiliates have been involved in regulatory actions as well as lawsuits.\n\nThe name \"KPMG\" stands for \"Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler\". The acronym was chosen when KMG (Klynveld Main Goerdeler) merged with Peat Marwick in 1987.\n\nHistory\n\nEarly years and mergers \n\nIn 1818, John Moxham opened a company in Bristol. James Grace and James Grace Jr. bought John Moxham & Co. and renamed it James Grace & Son in 1857. In 1861, Henry Grace joined James Jr. and the company was renamed James & Henry Grace; the firm evolved to become Grace, Ryland & Co.\n\nWilliam Barclay Peat joined Robert Fletcher & Co. in London in 1870 at the age of 17 and became head of the firm in 1891, renamed William Barclay Peat & Co. by then. In 1877, Thomson McLintock founded Thomson McLintock & Co in Glasgow. In 1897, Marwick Mitchell & Co. was founded by James Marwick and Roger Mitchell in New York City. In 1899, Ferdinand William LaFrentz founded the American Audit Co., in New York. In 1923, The American Audit Company was renamed FW LaFrentz & Co.\n\nIn about 1913, Frank Wilber Main founded Main & Co. in Pittsburgh. In March 1917, Piet Klijnveld and Jaap Kraayenhof opened an accounting firm called Klynveld Kraayenhof & Co. in Amsterdam.\n\nIn 1925, William Barclay Peat & Co. and Marwick Mitchell & Co., merged to form Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co.\n\nIn 1963, Main LaFrentz & Co was formed by the merger of Main & Co and FW LaFrentz & Co. In 1969 Thomson McLintock and Main LaFrentz merged forming McLintock Main LaFrentz International and McLintock Main LaFrentz International absorbed the general practice of Grace, Ryland & Co.\n\nIn 1979, Klynveld Kraayenhof & Co. (Netherlands), McLintock Main LaFrentz (United Kingdom / United States) and Deutsche Treuhandgesellschaft (Germany) formed KMG (Klynveld Main Goerdeler) as a grouping of independent national practices to create a strong European-based international firm. Deutsche Treuhandgesellschaft CEO Reinhard Goerdeler (son of leading anti-Nazi activist Carl Goerdeler, who would have become Chancellor if Operation Valkyrie had succeeded) became the first CEO of KMG. In the United States, Main Lafrentz & Co. merged with Hurdman and Cranstoun to form Main Hurdman & Cranstoun.\n\nIn 1987, KMG and Peat Marwick joined forces in the first mega-merger of large accounting firms and formed a firm called KPMG in the United States, and most of the rest of the world, and Peat Marwick McLintock in the United Kingdom.\n\nIn the Netherlands, as a consequence of the merger between PMI and KMG in 1988, PMI tax advisors joined Meijburg & Co. (The tax advisory agency Meijburg & Co. was founded by Willem Meijburg, Inspector of National Taxes, in 1939). Today, the Netherlands is the only country with two members of KPMG International: KPMG Audit (accountants) and Meijburg & Co (tax consultants).\n\nIn 1991, the firm was renamed KPMG Peat Marwick, and in 1999, the name was reduced again to KPMG.\n\nIn October 1997, KPMG and Ernst & Young announced that they were to merge. However, while the merger to form PricewaterhouseCoopers was granted regulatory approval, the KPMG/Ernst & Young tie-up was later abandoned.\n\nRecent history \n\nIn 2001, KPMG spun off its United States consulting firm through an initial public offering of KPMG Consulting, which was rebranded BearingPoint. In early 2009, BearingPoint filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The UK and Dutch consulting arms were sold to Atos in 2002.\n\nIn 2003, KPMG divested itself of its legal arm, Klegal and KPMG sold its Dispute Advisory Services to FTI Consulting.\n\nKPMG's member firms in the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland and Liechtenstein merged to form KPMG Europe LLP in October 2007. These member firms were followed by Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, CIS (Azerbaijan, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Georgia), Turkey, Norway, and Saudi Arabia. They appointed joint Chairmen, John Griffith-Jones and Ralf Nonnenmacher.\n\nIn 2020, KPMG International Limited was incorporated in London, England.\n\nIn February 2021, KPMG UK appointed its first female leaders, replacing Bill Michael, who stepped aside after making controversial comments. Bina Mehta was asked to step in as acting UK chairman and Mary O'Connor took over Michael's executive responsibilities as acting senior partner in UK. In April 2021, O'Connor quit the firm after being passed over for the permanent role.\n\nIn November 2021, KPMG UK was reported as having revised its partnership process to introduce five levels of partnership which required partners to inject capital at levels starting at £150,000 and going up to £500,000. This along with the £115 million proceeds from the sale of its pensions business earlier in 2021, which it seems was not distributed to the partners, was intended to prepare the balance sheet for a potential large fine (up to £1 billion) arising out of the Carillion lawsuit.\n\nIn February 2022, KPMG Canada announced they had added Bitcoin and Ethereum cryptoassets to their corporate treasury.\n\nGlobal structure \nEach national KPMG firm is an independent legal entity and is a member of KPMG International Limited, a UK Limited Company incorporated in London, United Kingdom. KPMG International changed its legal structure from a Swiss Verein to a co-operative under Swiss law in 2003 and to a limited company in 2020.\n\nThis structure in which the Limited company provides support services only to the member firms is similar to other professional services networks. The member firms provide the services to client. The purpose is to limit the liability of each independent member.\n\nBill Thomas is KPMG's Global Chairman. He was formerly Senior Partner and CEO of KPMG LLP, the KPMG member firm in Canada.\n\nSome KPMG member firms are registered as multidisciplinary entities which also provide legal services in certain jurisdictions.\n\nIn India, regulations do not permit foreign auditing firms to operate. Hence KPMG carries out audits in India under the name of BSR & Co, an auditing firm that it bought. BSR & Co was an auditing firm founded by B.S. Raut in Mumbai. In 1992, after India was forced to liberalise as one of the conditions of the World Bank and IMF bail out, KPMG was granted a license to operate in India as an investment bank. It subsequently purchased BSR & Co and conducts audits in India under the name of this firm.\n\nServices \n\nKPMG is organised into the following three service lines (the 2021 revenue shares are listed in parentheses):\n\n Audit ($11.46 billion)\n Advisory ($13.65 billion)\n Tax ($7.02 billion)\n\nTax arrangements relating to tax avoidance and multinational corporations and Luxembourg which were negotiated by KPMG became public in 2014 in the so-called Luxembourg Leaks.\n\nStaff \nKPMG was the preferred employer among the Big Four accounting firms according to CollegeGrad.com. It was also ranked No. 4 on the list of \"50 Best Places to Launch a Career\" in 2009 according to Bloomberg Businessweek.\n\nIt was reported in early 2012 that KPMG has about 11,000 staff in the UK and 9,000 in mainland China and Hong Kong. KPMG's global deputy chairman predicted that headcount in China would overtake that of the UK by the end of 2013.\n\nControversies\n\nTax shelter fraud\n\nIn 2003, the IRS issued summonses to KPMG for information about certain tax shelters and their investors. In February 2004, the US Justice Department commenced a criminal inquiry. The United States member firm, KPMG LLP, was accused by the United States Department of Justice of fraud in marketing abusive tax shelters. KPMG fired or forced the retirement of over a dozen who were involved. KPMG LLP admitted criminal wrongdoing in creating fraudulent tax shelters to help wealthy clients avoid $2.5 billion in taxes between 1996 and 2002, and agreed to pay $456 million in penalties to avoid indictment. Under the deferred prosecution agreement, KPMG LLP would not face criminal prosecution if it complied with the terms of its agreement with the government. On 3 January 2007, the criminal conspiracy charges against KPMG were dropped.\n\nVarious other controversies\n\n 2003\nKPMG agreed to pay $125 million and $75 million to settle lawsuits stemming from the firm's audits of Rite Aid and Oxford Health Plans Inc., respectively.\n\n 2004\nKPMG agreed to pay $115 million to settle lawsuits stemming from the collapse of software company Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products NV.\n\n 2005\n\nDuring August, KPMG LLP admitted to criminal wrongdoing and agreed to pay US$456 million in fines, restitution, and penalties as part of an agreement to defer prosecution of the firm, according to the US Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to the agreement, nine individuals-including six former KPMG partners and the former deputy chairman of the firm were to be criminally prosecuted. As alleged in a series of charging documents, the fraud relates to the design, marketing, and implementation of fraudulent tax shelters.\n\n 2006\nAmerican real estate financing firm Fannie Mae sued KPMG for malpractice for approving years of erroneous financial statements.\n\n 2007\nIn February, KPMG Germany was investigated for ignoring questionable payments in the Siemens bribery case. In November 2008, the Siemens Supervisory Board recommended changing auditors from KPMG to Ernst & Young.\n\n 2008\nIn March, KPMG was accused of enabling \"improper and imprudent practices\" at New Century Financial, a failed mortgage company, and KPMG agreed to pay $80 million to settle suits from Xerox shareholders over manipulated earnings reports.\n\nIn December, it was announced that two of Tremont Group's Rye Select funds, audited by KPMG, had $2.37 billion invested with the Madoff \"Ponzi scheme.\" Class action suits were filed.\n\n 2010\nIn August, it was reported by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority to the Swedish accountancy regulator after HQ Bank was forced into involuntary liquidation after the Financial Supervisory Authority revoked all its licences for breach of banking regulations.\n\n 2011\nIn August, KPMG conducted due diligence work on Hewlett Packard's $11.1 billion acquisition of the British software company Autonomy. In November 2012 HP announced an $8.8 billion write off due to \"serious accounting improprieties\" committed by Autonomy management prior to the acquisition.\n\nAccording to an independent panel formed to investigate irregular payments made by Olympus which reported in December, KPMG's affiliate in Japan did not identify fraud at the company.\n\n 2013\nIn April, Scott London, a former KPMG LLP partner in charge of KPMG's US Los Angeles-based Pacific Southwest audit practice, admitted passing on stock tips about clients, including Herbalife, Skechers, and other companies, to his friend Bryan Shaw, a California jewelry-store owner. In return Shaw gave London $70,000 as well as gifts that included a $12,000 Rolex watch and concert tickets. On 6 May, Shaw agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He also agreed to pay around $1.3 million in restitution, and to cooperate with the government as part of a plea deal with federal prosecutors. This scandal led KPMG to resign as auditor for Herbalife and Skechers.\n\n 2015\nKPMG was accused by the Canada Revenue Agency of abetting tax evasion schemes: \"The CRA alleges that the KPMG tax structure was in reality a 'sham' that intended to deceive the taxman.\"\n\n 2016\nThe Canada Revenue Agency offered an amnesty to KPMG clients caught using an offshore tax-avoidance scheme on the Isle of Man.\n\n 2017\nKPMG US terminated five partners in its audit practice, including the head of its audit practice in the US, after an investigation of advanced confidential knowledge of planned audit inspections by its Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. This followed criticism about KPMG's failure to uncover illegal sales practices at Wells Fargo or potential corruption at FIFA, the governing international body of football. It was reported in 2017 that KPMG had the highest number of deficiencies, among the Big Four, cited by its regulator in the previous two years. This includes two annual inspections that were compromised as a result of advanced access to inspection information. In March 2019, David Middendorf and Jeffrey Wada, co-defendants in the scandal, were convicted.\n\nIn August, KPMG US paid a $6.2 million fine to the US Securities and Exchange Commission for inadequacies in its audit of the financial statements of oil and gas company, Miller Energy Resources.\n\nIn November, 91 partners of KPMG Hong Kong faced contempt proceedings in Hong Kong High Court, as China Medical Technologies (CMED) liquidators investigating a $400 million fraud took action against KPMG with regard to its refusal to honor a February 2016 court order to produce Chinese working papers, correspondence, and records to the liquidators. The liquidators are asking that 91 defendants be held in contempt of court, which could result in criminal penalties, or weekly fines. KPMG had issued written audit reports for CMED from 2003 to 2008, and was replaced by PwC Zhong Tian in August 2009. \"Perhaps locking up 91 KPMG partners over Christmas may spur the firms to find a solution to this problem\", said Professor Paul Gillis of Peking University's Guanghua School of Management.\n\n 2018\nDuring July, KPMG has come under criticism for its role in the bankruptcy of Dubai-based private equity firm, Abraaj Group, after it was determined that KPMG Lower Gulf Chairman and Chief Executive Vijay Malhotra's son has worked at Abraaj and an executive named Ashish Dave alternated between stints at KPMG and as Abraaj’s chief financial officer, a job he held twice.\n\nAlso during July, the UK accounting watchdog, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) announced an investigation into KPMG’s work for Conviviality, the British drinks supplier that collapsed into administration during April 2018.\n\nAlso during July, KPMG paid HK$650 million (US$84 million) to settle legal claims after failing to identify fraud at a Chinese timber company, China Forestry. The liquidators of China Forestry claimed KPMG was negligent when it failed to detect serious false accounting by some of the company’s top management ahead of its listing in 2009.\n\nDuring August, Chile's Comision Para El Mercado Financiero(CMF) sanctioned KPMG Auditores Consultores Limitada (KPMG LLP's local affiliate) 3,000 UF (~$114,000), and Joaquín Lira Herreros, its partner, for offences incurred in the audit made to the financial statements of the Aurus Insignia Fondo de Inversión, managed by Aurus Capital S.A. Admnistradora General de Fondos Management (AGF), corresponding to the year 2014.\n\nIn November, the Sultanate of Oman's Capital Market Authority (CMA) suspended KPMG from auditing entities regulated by the CMA for a period of one year after discovering major financial and accounting irregularities in the entities' records.\n\nIn December, KPMG South Africa published an open apology for its participation in various scandals in South Africa, including publishing a misleading report that led to the resignation of the South African Finance Minister, involvement with the Gupta family who have been implicated in corruption scandal with former President, Jacob Zuma, and acting as the auditor of VBS Mutual Bank that collapsed due to fraud. Its top eight staff resigned during 2017 and its workforce shrank from 3,400 to 2,200.\n\n 2019\nKPMG were fined £5 million by the Financial Reporting Council for misconduct shortly after the takeover of the Britannia Building Society by The Co-operative Bank, particularly relating to the valuation of Britannia's commercial loans and other liabilities. The takeover led to the near collapse of The Co-operative Bank.\n\nKPMG was fined £6 million by the Financial Reporting Council following a long running investigation by the regulator into misconduct in the firm’s auditing of Lloyds Syndicate 218 between 2007 & 2009. KPMG partner Mark Taylor has been fined £100,000, severely reprimanded and agreed to the imposition of a requirement to have a second partner review of his audits until the end of 2020.\n\n 2020\n\nIn June, KPMG resigned from the auditor role at British fashion firm, Ted Baker plc after the company admitted accounting errors resulting in overstatement of its inventory by up to £58 million.\n\n 2021\n\nIn February, the liquidators for South African bank, VBS Mutual Bank, sued KPMG for 863.5 million rand (~US$59 million) over its audit opinion on the now defunct bank.\n\nIn March, KPMG US agreed to pay $10 million to settle a 10-year gender discrimination lawsuit in a New York Federal Court that alleged claims by 450 women that its culture was rife with gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation.\n\nDuring May, members of the Canadian Parliament's House of Commons finance committee re-launched a probe into offshore tax evasion by interviewing Lucia Iacovelli, managing partner at KPMG.\n\nKPMG in the UK has been sued for more than £6 million (~€6.9 million, ~US$7.8 million) by property company Mount Anvil which claims it was left with an unexpected tax bill after the firm provided it with negligent advice.\n\nIn July, the UK accounting regulator Financial Reporting Council (FRC) criticised KPMG for its “unacceptable” failure to meet required standards in its audits of banks for a third year running. Only 61% of KPMG’s audits sampled by the regulator met industry standards.\n\nThe Government of Malaysia and the state sovereign fund, 1MDB, launched a lawsuit seeking over $5.6 billion in damages from KPMG partners for alleged breaches and negligence linked to a corruption scandal at the fund.\n\nSouth Africa's largest asset manager, the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) sued KPMG for 144 million rand (~U$9.5 million) it lost when the VBS Mutual Bank went bankrupt as a result of fraud. Its claim is centred on the rights issue and a revolving credit facility it participated in at VBS relying on financial statements audited by KPMG and its former senior partner, Sipho Malaba.\n\nIn August, a tribunal convened by the UK regulator, FRC, fined KPMG £13m and ordered it to pay £2.75m in costs. This was because of its serious misconduct in the sale of bed company Silentnight. The tribunal found that KPMG had helped private equity group H.I.G Capital drive Silentnight into an insolvency process, so that HIG could acquire the company without its £100m pension scheme. KPMG was severely reprimanded by the tribunal, and was ordered to appoint an independent reviewer to check a sample of previous cases for similar failings. The tribunal ruled that KPMG's involvement with Silentnight was \"deeply troubling\" as it failed to act solely in its client's interests.\n\nIn September, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board fined KPMG Australia $450,000 after it confessed to a cheating scandal involving over 1,100 (almost 12%) of its employees.\n\nIn October, UK regulator The Financial Reporting Council (FRC), said KPMG and David Costley-Wood, a partner at the firm, used an “untruthful defence” in an investigation into the sale of Silentnight to a private equity firm in 2011. Costley-Wood, who was formerly head of KPMG’s Manchester restructuring division, was also fined £500,000 and barred from insolvency or accountancy licences for 13 years.\n\nIn November, a British litigation financing firm - Augusta Ventures announced that it will bankroll three $152.4-million lawsuits in Canada against the previous auditor (KPMG LLP), authorized legal adviser (Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP) and monetary adviser (Canaccord Genuity Corp) of the Money Retailer Monetary Providers Inc., a Canadian payday lender that filed for creditor safety in 2014. “It’s alleged in these lawsuits that KPMG, Cassels Brock and Canaccord triggered over $100-million in damages to Money Retailer and its collectors,” mentioned Mr. Aziz, President of BlueTree Advisors Inc., a company restructuring advisory agency primarily based in Oakville, Ontario.\n\nAlso in November, KPMG UK has been hit with a £15m lawsuit by insurance outsourcer Watchstone — formerly known as Quindell — over allegations it suffered losses because of the audit firm's negligence in 2013.\n\nAgain in November, two units of Abraaj that are now in liquidation, filed a lawsuit in Dubai against KPMG LLP for damages of US$600 million alleging that KPMG accountants “failed to maintain independence and an appropriate attitude of professional skepticism,” and breached their duty of care when auditing the private-equity firm.\n\n 2022\n\nIn January, the Malaysian government reported that KPMG's local affiliate had agreed to pay a fine of RM 333 million ($111 million) to settle the case filed against it in connect with the 1MDB funds scandal.\n\nA group of investors in Airbus, the Dutch foundation Stichting Investor Loss Compensation (SILC), filed a lawsuit against Airbus, KPMG and EY in the Hague District Court alleging they suffered damages worth at least €300 million (US$340 million) as a result of company's misleading publications about the manufacturer’s involvement in and financial settlements involving corruption, bribery, and other forms of fraud.\n\nUK regulator The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) fined KPMG £3 million for audit failings at collapsed alcohol retailer Conviviality.\n\nA settlement agreement between the UK regulator, the Financial Reporting Council and a KPMG Partner, Stuart Smith, who led the firm’s audit of IT company, Regenersis later renamed as Blancco Technology Group, resulted in a fine of £150,000 after he admitted misleading its inspectors.\n\nCarillion audit role\nIn January 2018, it was announced that KPMG, auditor of collapsed UK construction firm Carillion, would have its role examined by the Financial Reporting Council, (FRC) and it was summoned to give evidence before two House of Commons select committees on 22 February 2018.\n\nOn 13 February 2018, the 'Big 4' accountancy firms, including KPMG, were described by MP Frank Field as \"feasting on what was soon to become a carcass\" after collecting fees of £72m for Carillion work during the years leading up to its collapse. KPMG was singled out for particular criticism for signing off Carillion's last accounts before a profit warning in July 2017: \"Either KPMG failed to spot the warning signs, or its judgement was clouded by its cosy relationship with the company and the multimillion-pound fees it received,\" said MP Rachel Reeves. Two out of three former Carillion finance directors had also worked for KPMG.\n\nKPMG defended itself, saying that in the construction industry \"an accumulation of adverse events [...] can quite quickly cause a precipitous decline.\" KPMG chairman and senior partner Bill Michael said: \"It does not follow automatically from a company collapse either that the opinion of management was wrong, or that the auditor did a bad job.\"\n\nOn 22 February 2018, MPs contested evidence from KPMG (in one exchange MP Peter Kyle told KPMG partner Peter Meehan: \"I would not hire you to do an audit of the contents of my fridge\"). Rachel Reeves, chair of the business select committee, said:\n\nAuditing is a multi-million-pound business for the Big Four. On this morning's evidence from KPMG and Deloitte, these audits appear to be a colossal waste of time and money, fit only to provide false assurance to investors, workers and the public. [...] Carillion staff and investors could see the problems at the company but those responsible – auditors, regulators, and, ultimately, the directors – did nothing to stop Carillion being driven off a cliff.\n\nThe final report of the Parliamentary inquiry into Carillion's collapse, published on 16 May 2018, criticised KPMG for its \"complicity\" in the company's financial reporting practices:\n\nKPMG audited Carillion for 19 years, pocketing £29 million in the process. Not once during that time did they qualify their audit opinion on the financial statements, instead signing off the figures put in front of them by the company's directors. Yet, had KPMG been prepared to challenge management, the warning signs were there in highly questionable assumptions about construction contract revenue and the intangible asset of goodwill accumulated in historic acquisitions. These assumptions were fundamental to the picture of corporate health presented in audited annual accounts. In failing to exercise—and voice—professional scepticism towards Carillion's aggressive accounting judgements, KPMG was complicit in them. It should take its own share of responsibility for the consequences.\n\nThe select committee chairs (Frank Field and Rachel Reeves) called for a complete overhaul of Britain's corporate governance regime, saying the government had \"lacked the decisiveness or bravery\" to do so, accused the big four accounting firms of operating as a \"cosy club\", with KPMG singled out for its \"complicity\" in signing off Carillion's \"increasingly fantastical figures\".\n\nKPMG said:\nWe believe we conducted our audit appropriately. However, it's only right that following a corporate collapse of such size and significance, the necessary investigations are performed. Auditing large and complex businesses involves many judgments and we will continue to cooperate with the FRC's ongoing investigation. ... We welcome any future review of our profession. If we consider how the profession has changed in the last decade […] it is clear there is a need for us to look closely at our business models.\n\nIn a June 2018 report on audit standards across eight accounting firms, the FRC identified \"failure to challenge management and show appropriate scepticism across their audits.\" It highlighted a decline in the quality of work undertaken by the Big Four, with KPMG performing the worst. There had, the FRC said, been an \"unacceptable deterioration\" in the quality of KPMG's work, and the FRC would scrutinise KPMG more closely as a result. In October 2018, the FRC proposed reforms to tackle the \"underlying falling trust in business and the effectiveness of audit,\" and severely rebuked KPMG.\n\nIn November 2018, KPMG said it would no longer undertake consultancy work for FTSE 350 Index-listed companies if it was also auditing them, in an effort to \"remove even the perception of a possible conflict\" of interest.\n\nThe Carillion investigation followed FRC investigations into KPMG's role at HBOS, Quindell and The Co-operative Bank. In July 2018, the FRC started an investigation into KPMG's audit role at collapsed drinks merchant Conviviality.\n\nIn January 2019, KPMG announced it had suspended the partner that led Carillion's audit and three members of his team; in August 2021, an FRC disciplinary panel was scheduled for 10 January 2022 to hear a formal complaint against KPMG and former KPMG partner Peter Meehan regarding the provision of allegedly false and misleading information concerning the 2016 Carillion audit. The tribunal convened to hear the formal complaint started on 10 January 2022. At the disciplinary hearing, KPMG's UK chief executive Jon Holt said the firm had discovered misconduct by it staff in its own internal investigations, and immediately reported it to the FRC.\n\nThe FRC opened a second investigation into how KPMG audited Carillion's accounts. The FRC's first report, which found a number of breaches, was delivered to KPMG in September 2020; the FRC was awaiting a KPMG response before deciding whether to take enforcement action. In March 2021, KPMG was reported to be \"inching towards a financial settlement with regulators\" over its auditing of Carillion, with the FRC expected to impose a record fine, possibly around £25m, on KPMG for its failings.\n\nIn May 2020, the FT reported that the Official Receiver was preparing to sue KPMG for £250m over alleged negligence in its audits of Carillion. In May 2021, the liquidator secured funding for its legal action, with speculation that the likely damages claim could be as much as £2 billion. In February 2022, Sky News reported the Official Receiver's claim would be in the range of £1bn-£1.5bn, with one source suggesting around £1.2bn. The OR's negligence claim focuses on the value of major contracts which were not properly accounted for in audits in 2014, 2015 and 2016, resulting in misstatements in excess of £800m within Carillion's financial reports. KPMG was said to have accepted management explanations for inflated revenue and understated cost positions. The OR had received legal advice that KPMG was answerable to Carillion's creditors for a portion of their losses. KPMG said: \"We believe this claim is without merit and we will robustly defend the case. Responsibility for the failure of Carillion lies solely with the company's board and management, who set the strategy and ran the business.\" The claim, for £1.3 billion (US$1.77 billion), accused KPMG of missing \"red flags\" during audits of Carillion, in one of the largest claims against an audit firm.\n\nAlterations to past audit work\nIn June 2019, KPMG was fined $50 million for altering its past audit work after receiving stolen data from accounting industry watch dog Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). KPMG admitted to its mistakes and as a part of its settlement, it also agreed to hire an independent consultant to review its internal controls.\n\n2017 South African corruption scandal\n\nIn 2017, KPMG was embroiled in related scandals involving the Gupta family. KPMG, whose history in South Africa dated back to 1895, and which had been part of the international organization since its founding in 1979, faced calls for closure, and an uncertain future, as a consequence of the damage done to the South African economy as a result of its activities.\n\nKPMG had been working with a Gupta family company in the mining sector, Oakbay Resources and Energy, for 15 years prior to the revelations of corruption and collusion in 2016, at which point KPMG resigned. The full impact and financial profit that KPMG received is yet to be determined; however, at least one large company has terminated its services with KPMG due to its relationship with Oakbay.\n\nIn July 2017, after controversial documents were leaked by the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism, former chief executive of KPMG South Africa and the former partner that was responsible for audits related to the Gupta family, Moses Kgosana, withdrew from becoming the chairman of Alexander Forbes, a financial services firm.\n\nIn 2015, KPMG issued a controversial report that implicated former Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan in the creation of an illegal intelligence gathering unit of the South African Revenue Service (SARS). This report was seen by elements of the media to be part of a wider Gupta-linked state capture conspiracy, with the aim of forcing Gordhan out of his post. The report was withdrawn by KPMG in September 2017, earning the ire of the Commissioner of SARS, Tom Moyane.\n\nAfter an internal investigation that found work done for the Gupta family fell \"considerably short\" of the firm's standards and amid rising political and public backlash, KPMG's senior leadership in South Africa, including its chairman Ahmed Jaffer, CEO Trevor Hoole, COO Steven Louw, and five partners, resigned in September 2017.\n\nSave South Africa, a civil-society group, accused KPMG and UK PR firm Bell Pottinger of playing a \"central role in facilitating state capture.\" Numerous South African companies either fired KPMG in the immediate aftermath of the scandal, or were reconsidering their relationships with the firm with the international chairman of KPMG, John Veihmeyer, apologising for the conduct of the South African arm and the firm pledged to donate fees earned from Gupta businesses, as well as the withdrawn SARS report, to anti-corruption activities.\n\nCorporate theme song\nIn 2001, a blogger named Chris Raettig discovered a number of “corporate theme songs,” including one for KPMG. He created a page for these songs, and included deep links to the MP3 files on the source servers. KPMG responded by sending a takedown notice to Raettig, reading: “Please be aware such links require that a formal Agreement exist between our two parties, as mandated by our organization's Web Link Policy.” Raettig wrote publicly about this takedown notice, responding that \"my own organization's Web link policy requires no such formal agreement.\" The chorus to the anthem reads: KPMG – We're as strong as can be, A team of power and energy, We go for the gold, together we hold, Onto our vision of global strategy!\n\nSponsorship \n\nThe Swedish member firm was the main sponsor for Swedish biathlete Magdalena Forsberg, six-time world champion and two-time Olympic medalist. Forsberg was working as a tax consultant at the KPMG Sundsvall office parallel to her athletic career.\n\nIn February 2008, Phil Mickelson, ranked one of the best golfers in the world, signed a three-year global sponsorship deal with KPMG. As part of the agreement, Mickelson was to wear the KPMG logo on his headwear during all golf related appearances. The sponsorship lasted until 22 February 2022, when the two parties mutually split following comments in which Mickelson called Saudi Arabia \"scary\" but would overlook the country's human rights controversies in the best interest of the PGA Tour.\n\nThe Canadian member firm sponsored skier Alexandre Bilodeau, who won the first gold medal for Canada on home soil in the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Alexandre's father is a tax partner in the Montreal office.\n\nKPMG and McLaren Technology Group have formed a strategic alliance to apply McLaren Applied Technologies' (MAT) predictive analytics and technology to KPMG's audit and advisory services. McLaren 2015 Formula 1 car has the KPMG logo engraved above the pilot seat.\n\nSince 2016, KPMG has been strategic sponsor of Brain Bar, a Budapest-based, annually held festival on the future.\n\nAwards \nKPMG ranked in the top two overall in Consultancy Rankings 2009 by OpRisk & Compliance – in recognition of KPMG's experience in risk management.\n\nIn 2011, the company was ranked second on the World's Best Outsourcing Advisors – in recognition of the firm's depth of experience, global reach and holistic approach. That same year, the company was inducted into Working Mother Hall of Fame after being honored for 15 years as one of Working Mother magazine's 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers. KPMG was ranked number 13 in Consulting Magazine'''s Best Firms to Work for in 2016.\n\nIn 2017, KPMG was ranked 29th on the Fortune'' list of 100 best companies to work for. That same year, KPMG, along with PwC, Deloitte, and PA Consulting Group, were among the UK's 25 top companies to work for.\n\nSee also \n\n Accounting networks and associations\n Big Four accounting firms: PwC, EY, Deloitte\n Crowe Global, BDO Global, Grant Thornton\n Financial audit\n FTSE 100 Index\n Management consulting\n Professional services\n Tax advisor\n\nReferences\n\nExternal links \n\n \n\n \n1818 establishments in England\nConsulting firms established in 1818\nFinancial services companies established in 1818\nAmstelveen\nCompanies based in North Holland\nCompanies based in Zug\nInternational management consulting firms\nMadoff investment scandal\nPrivately held companies of Switzerland",
"(24 September 1564 – 16 May 1620), known in Japanese as , was an English navigator who, in 1600, was the first Englishman to reach Japan leading a five-ship expedition for a private Dutch fleet. Of the few survivors of the only ship that reached Japan, Adams and his second mate Jan Joosten were not allowed to leave the country while Jacob Quaeckernaeck and Melchior van Santvoort were permitted to go back to the Dutch Republic to invite them to trade.\n\nAdams, along with former second mate Joosten, then settled in Japan, and the two became some of the first (of very few) Western samurai.\n\nSoon after Adams' arrival in Japan, he became a key advisor to the shōgun Tokugawa Ieyasu. Adams directed construction for the shōgun of the first Western-style ships in the country. He was later key to Japan's approving the establishment of trading factories by the Netherlands and England. He was also highly involved in Japan's Red Seal Asian trade, chartering and serving as captain of four expeditions to Southeast Asia. He died in Japan at age 55. He has been recognised as one of the most influential foreigners in Japan during this period.\n\nEarly life\nAdams was born in Gillingham, Kent, England. When Adams was twelve his father died, and he was apprenticed to shipyard owner Master Nicholas Diggins at Limehouse for the seafaring life. He spent the next twelve years learning shipbuilding, astronomy, and navigation before entering the Royal Navy.\n\nWith England at war with Spain, Adams served in the Royal Navy under Sir Francis Drake. He saw naval service against the Spanish Armada in 1588 as master of the Richarde Dyffylde, a resupply ship. Adams was recorded to have married Mary Hyn in the parish church of St Dunstan's, Stepney on 20 August 1589 and they had two children: a son John and a daughter named Deliverance. Soon after, Adams became a pilot for the Barbary Company. During this service, Jesuit sources claim he took part in an expedition to the Arctic that lasted about two years, in search of a Northeast Passage along the coast of Siberia to the Far East. The veracity of this claim is somewhat suspect, because he never referred to such an expedition in his autobiographical letter written from Japan; its wording implies that the 1598 voyage was his first involvement with the Dutch. The Jesuit source may have misattributed to Adams a claim by one of the Dutch members of Mahu's crew who had been on Rijp's ship during the voyage that discovered Spitsbergen.\n\nExpedition to the Far East\n\nAttracted by the Dutch trade with India, Adams, then 34 years old, shipped as pilot major with a five-ship fleet dispatched from the isle of Texel to the Far East in 1598 by a company of Rotterdam merchants (a voorcompagnie, predecessor of the Dutch East India Company). His brother Thomas accompanied him. The Dutch were allied with England and as well as fellow Protestants, they too were also at war with Spain fighting for their independence.\n\nThe Adams brothers set sail from Texel on the Hoope and joined with the rest of the fleet on 24 June. The fleet consisted of:\n the Hoope (\"Hope\"), under Admiral Jacques Mahu (d. 1598), he was succeeded by Simon de Cordes (d. 1599) and Simon de Cordes Jr. This ship was lost near the Hawaiian Islands;\n the Liefde (\"Love\" or \"Charity\"), under Simon de Cordes, 2nd in command, succeeded by Gerrit van Beuningen and finally under Jacob Kwakernaak; this was the only ship which reached Japan\n the Geloof (\"Faith\"), under Gerrit van Beuningen, and in the end, Sebald de Weert; the only ship which came back in Rotterdam.\n the Trouw (\"Loyalty\"), under Jurriaan van Boekhout (d. 1599) and finally, Baltazar de Cordes; was captured in Tidore\n the Blijde Boodschap (\"Good Tiding\" or \"The Gospel\"), under Sebald de Weert, and later, Dirck Gerritz was seized in Valparaiso.\n\nJacques Mahu and Simon de Cordes were the leaders of an expedition with the goal to achieve the Chile, Peru and other kingdoms (in New Spain like Nueva Galicia; Captaincy General of Guatemala; Nueva Vizcaya; New Kingdom of León and Santa Fe de Nuevo México). The fleet's original mission was to sail for the west coast of South America, where they would sell their cargo for silver, and to head for Japan only if the first mission failed. In that case, they were supposed to obtain silver in Japan and to buy spices in the Moluccas, before heading back to Europe. Their goal was to sail through the Strait of Magellan to get to their destiny, which scared many sailors because of the harsh weather conditions. The first major expedition around South America was organized by a voorcompagnie, the Rotterdam or Magelhaen Company. It organized two fleets of five and four ships with 750 sailors and soldiers, including 30 English musicians.\n\nAfter leaving Goeree on 27 June 1598 the ships sailed to the Channel, but anchored in the Downs till mid July. When the ships approached the shores of North Africa Simon de Cordes realized he had been far too generous in the early weeks of the voyage and instituted a 'bread policy'. At the end of August they landed on Santiago, Cape Verde and Mayo off the coast of Africa because of a lack of water and need for fresh fruit. They stayed around three weeks in the hope to buy some goats. Near Praia they succeeded to occupy a Portuguese castle on the top of a hill, but came back without anything substantial. At Brava, Cape Verde half of the crew of the \"Hope\" caught fever there, with most of the men sick, among them Admiral Jacques Mahu. After his death the leadership of the expedition was taken over by Simon de Cordes, with Van Beuningen as vice admiral. Because of contrary wind the fleet was blown off course (NE in the opposite direction) and arrived at Cape Lopez, Gabon, Central Africa. An outbreak of scurvy forced a landing on Annobón, on 9 December. Several men became sick because of dysentery. They stormed the island only to find that the Portuguese and their native allies had set fire to their own houses and fled into the hills. They put all the sick ashore to recover and left early January. Because of starvation the men fell into great weakness; some tried to eat leather. On 10 March 1599 they reached the Rio de la Plata, in Argentina. Early April they arrived at the Strait, 570 km long, 2 km wide at its narrowest point, with an inaccurate chart of the seabed. The wind turned out to be unfavorable and this remained so for the next four months. Under freezing temperatures and poor visibility they caught penguins, seals, mussels, duck and fish. About two hundred crew members died. On 23 August the weather improved.\n\nOn the Pacific\n\nWhen finally the Pacific Ocean was reached on 3 September 1599, the ships were caught in a storm and lost sight of each other. The \"Loyalty\" and the \"Believe\" were driven back in the strait. After more than a year each ship went its own way.\nThe Geloof returned to Rotterdam in July 1600 with 36 men surviving of the original 109 crew.)\nDe Cordes ordered his small fleet to wait four weeks for each other on Santa María Island, Chile, but some ships missed the island. Adams wrote \"they brought us sheep and potatoes\". From here the story becomes less reliable because of a lack of sources and changes in command. In early November, the \"Hope\" landed on Mocha Island where 27 people were killed by the people from Araucania, including Simon de Cordes. (In the account given to Olivier van Noort it was said that Simon der Cordes was slain at the Punta de Lavapie, but Adams gives Mocha Island as the scene of his death.) The \"Love\" hit the island, but went on to Punta de Lavapié near Concepción, Chile. A Spanish captain supplied the \"Loyalty\" and \"Hope\" with food; the Dutch helped him against the Araucans, who had killed 23 Dutch, including Thomas Adams (according to his brother in his second letter) and Gerrit van Beuningen, who was replaced by Jacob Quaeckernaeck.\n\nDuring the voyage, before December 1598, Adams changed ships to the Liefde (originally named Erasmus and adorned by a wooden carving of Erasmus on her stern). The statue was preserved in the Ryuko-in Buddhist temple in Sano City, Tochigi-ken and moved to the Tokyo National Museum in the 1920s. The Trouw reached Tidore (Eastern Indonesia). The crew were killed by the Portuguese in January 1601.\n\nIn fear of the Spaniards, the remaining crews determined to leave the island and sail across the Pacific. It was 27 November 1599 when the two ships sailed westward for Japan. On their way, the two ships made landfall in \"certain islands\" where eight sailors deserted the ships. Later during the voyage, a typhoon claimed the Hope with all hands, in late February 1600.\n\nArrival in Japan\n\nIn April 1600, after more than nineteen months at sea, a crew of twenty-three sick and dying men (out of the 100 who started the voyage) brought the Liefde to anchor off the island of Kyūshū, Japan. Its cargo consisted of eleven chests of trade goods: coarse woolen cloth, glass beads, mirrors, and spectacles; and metal tools and weapons: nails, iron, hammers, nineteen bronze cannon; 5,000 cannonballs; 500 muskets, 300 chain-shot, and three chests filled with coats of mail.\n\nWhen the nine surviving crew members were strong enough to stand, they made landfall on 19 April off Bungo (present-day Usuki, Ōita Prefecture). They were met by Japanese locals and Portuguese Jesuit missionary priests claiming that Adams' ship was a pirate vessel and that the crew should be executed as pirates. The ship was seized and the sickly crew were imprisoned at Osaka Castle on orders by Tokugawa Ieyasu, the daimyō of Edo and future shōgun. The nineteen bronze cannon of the Liefde were unloaded and, according to Spanish accounts, later used at the decisive Battle of Sekigahara on 21 October 1600.\n\nAdams met Ieyasu in Osaka three times between May and June 1600. He was questioned by Ieyasu, then a guardian of the young son of the Taikō Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the ruler who had just died. Adams' knowledge of ships, shipbuilding and nautical smattering of mathematics appealed to Ieyasu.\n\nComing before the king, he viewed me well, and seemed to be wonderfully favourable. He made many signs unto me, some of which I understood, and some I did not. In the end, there came one that could speak Portuguese. By him, the king demanded of me of what land I was, and what moved us to come to his land, being so far off. I showed unto him the name of our country, and that our land had long sought out the East Indies, and desired friendship with all kings and potentates in way of merchandise, having in our land diverse commodities, which these lands had not… Then he asked whether our country had wars? I answered him yea, with the Spaniards and Portugals, being in peace with all other nations. Further, he asked me, in what I did believe? I said, in God, that made heaven and earth. He asked me diverse other questions of things of religions, and many other things: As what way we came to the country. Having a chart of the whole world, I showed him, through the Strait of Magellan. At which he wondered, and thought me to lie. Thus, from one thing to another, I abode with him till mid-night. (from William Adams' letter to his wife)\n\nAdams wrote that Ieyasu denied the Jesuits' request for execution on the ground that:\nwe as yet had not done to him nor to none of his land any harm or damage; therefore against Reason or Justice to put us to death. If our country had wars the one with the other, that was no cause that he should put us to death; with which they were out of heart that their cruel pretence failed them. For which God be forever praised. (William Adams' letter to his wife)\n\nIeyasu ordered the crew to sail the Liefde from Bungo to Edo where, rotten and beyond repair, she sank.\n\nJapan's first western-style sailing ships\nIn 1604, Tokugawa ordered Adams and his companions to help Mukai Shōgen, who was commander-in-chief of the navy of Uraga, to build Japan's first Western-style ship. The sailing ship was built at the harbour of Itō on the east coast of the Izu Peninsula, with carpenters from the harbour supplying the manpower for the construction of an 80-ton vessel. It was used to survey the Japanese coast. The shōgun ordered a larger ship of 120 tons to be built the following year; it was slightly smaller than the Liefde, which was 150 tons. According to Adams, Tokugawa \"came aboard to see it, and the sight whereof gave him great content\". In 1610, the 120-ton ship (later named San Buena Ventura) was lent to shipwrecked Spanish sailors. They sailed it to New Spain, accompanied by a mission of twenty-two Japanese led by Tanaka Shōsuke.\n\nFollowing the construction, Tokugawa invited Adams to visit his palace whenever he liked and \"that always I must come in his presence.\"\n\nOther survivors of the Liefde were also rewarded with favours, and were allowed to pursue foreign trade. Most of the survivors left Japan in 1605 with the help of the daimyō of Hirado. Although Adams did not receive permission to leave Japan until 1613, Melchior van Santvoort and Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn engaged in trade between Japan and Southeast Asia and reportedly made a fortune. Both of them were reported by Dutch traders as being in Ayutthaya in early 1613, sailing richly cargoed junks.\n\nIn 1609 Adams contacted the interim governor of the Philippines, Rodrigo de Vivero y Aberrucia on behalf of Tokugawa Ieyasu, who wished to establish direct trade contacts with New Spain. Friendly letters were exchanged, officially starting relations between Japan and New Spain. Adams is also recorded as having chartered Red Seal Ships during his later travels to Southeast Asia. (The Ikoku Tokai Goshuinjō has a reference to Miura Anjin receiving a shuinjō, a document bearing a red Shogunal seal authorising the holder to engage in foreign trade, in 1614.)\n\nSamurai status\nTaking a liking to Adams, the shōgun appointed him as a diplomatic and trade advisor, bestowing great privileges upon him. Ultimately, Adams became his personal advisor on all things related to Western powers and civilization. After a few years, Adams replaced the Jesuit Padre João Rodrigues as the Shogun's official interpreter. Padre Valentim Carvalho wrote: \"After he had learned the language, he had access to Ieyasu and entered the palace at any time\"; he also described him as \"a great engineer and mathematician\".\n\nAdams had a wife Mary Hyn and two children back in England, but Ieyasu forbade the Englishman to leave Japan. He was presented with two swords representing the authority of a Samurai. The Shogun decreed that William Adams the pilot was dead and that Miura Anjin (三浦按針), a samurai, was born. According to the shōgun, this action \"freed\" Adams to serve the Shogunate permanently, effectively making Adams' wife in England a widow. (Adams managed to send regular support payments to her after 1613 via the English and Dutch companies.) Adams also was given the title of hatamoto (bannerman), a high-prestige position as a direct retainer in the shōgun's court.\n\nAdams was given generous revenues: \"For the services that I have done and do daily, being employed in the Emperor's service, the emperor has given me a living\" (Letters). He was granted a fief in Hemi (Jpn: 逸見) within the boundaries of present-day Yokosuka City, \"with eighty or ninety husbandmen, that be my slaves or servants\" (Letters). His estate was valued at 250 koku (a measure of the yearly income of the land in rice, with one koku defined as the quantity of rice sufficient to feed one person for one year). He finally wrote \"God hath provided for me after my great misery\" (Letters), by which he meant the disaster-ridden voyage that had initially brought him to Japan.\n\nAdams' estate was located next to the harbour of Uraga, the traditional point of entrance to Edo Bay. There he was recorded as dealing with the cargoes of foreign ships. John Saris related that when he visited Edo in 1613, Adams had resale rights for the cargo of a Spanish ship at anchor in Uraga Bay.\n\nIt is rumored that William had a child born in Hirado with another Japanese woman.\n\nAdams' position gave him the means to marry Oyuki (お雪), the adopted daughter of Magome Kageyu. He was a highway official who was in charge of a packhorse exchange on one of the grand imperial roads that led out of Edo (roughly present-day Tokyo). Although Magome was important, Oyuki was not of noble birth, nor high social standing. Adams may have married from affection rather than for social reasons. Adams and Oyuki had a son Joseph and a daughter Susanna. Adams was constantly traveling for work. Initially, he tried to organise an expedition in search of the Arctic passage that had eluded him previously.\n\nAdams had a high regard for Japan, its people, and its civilisation:\nThe people of this Land of Japan are good of nature, courteous above measure, and valiant in war: their justice is severely executed without any partiality upon transgressors of the law. They are governed in great civility. I mean, not a land better governed in the world by civil policy. The people be very superstitious in their religion, and are of diverse opinions.\n\nEstablishment of the Dutch East India Company in Japan\n\nIn 1604 Ieyasu sent the Liefde'''s captain, Jacob Quaeckernaeck, and the treasurer, Melchior van Santvoort, on a shōgun-licensed Red Seal Ship to Patani in Southeast Asia. He ordered them to contact the Dutch East India Company trading factory, which had just been established in 1602, in order to bring more western trade to Japan and break the Portuguese monopoly. In 1605, Adams obtained a letter of authorization from Ieyasu formally inviting the Dutch to trade with Japan. \n\nHampered by conflicts with the Portuguese and limited resources in Asia, the Dutch were not able to send ships to Japan until 1609. Two Dutch ships, commanded by Jacques Specx, De Griffioen (the \"Griffin\", 19 cannons) and Roode Leeuw met Pijlen (the \"Red lion with arrows\", 400 tons, 26 cannons), were sent from Holland and reached Japan on 2 July 1609. The men of this Dutch expeditionary fleet established a trading base or \"factory\" on Hirado Island. Two Dutch envoys, Puyck and van den Broek, were the official bearers of a letter from Prince Maurice of Nassau to the court of Edo. Adams negotiated on behalf of these emissaries. The Dutch obtained free trading rights throughout Japan and to establish a trading factory there. (By contrast, the Portuguese were allowed to sell their goods only in Nagasaki at fixed, negotiated prices.)\n\nThe Hollandes be now settled (in Japan) and I have got them that privilege as the Spaniards and Portingals could never get in this 50 or 60 years in Japan.\n\nAfter obtaining this trading right through an edict of Tokugawa Ieyasu on 24 August 1609, the Dutch inaugurated a trading factory in Hirado on 20 September 1609. The Dutch preserved their \"trade pass\" (Dutch: Handelspas) in Hirado and then Dejima as a guarantee of their trading rights during the following two centuries that they operated in Japan.\n\nEstablishment of an English trading factory\nIn 1611, Adams learned of an English settlement in Banten Sultanate, present-day Indonesia. He wrote asking them to convey news of him to his family and friends in England. He invited them to engage in trade with Japan which \"the Hollanders have here an Indies of money.\"\n\nIn 1613, the English captain John Saris arrived at Hirado in the ship Clove, intending to establish a trading factory for the British East India Company. The Dutch East India Company (VOC) already had a major post at Hirado.\n\nSaris noted Adams praise of Japan and adoption of Japanese customs:\nHe persists in giving \"admirable and affectionated commendations of Japan. It is generally thought amongst us that he is a naturalized Japaner.\" (John Saris)\n\nIn Hirado, Adams refused to stay in English quarters, residing instead with a local Japanese magistrate. The English noted that he wore Japanese dress and spoke Japanese fluently. Adams estimated the cargo of the Clove was of little value, essentially broadcloth, tin and cloves (acquired in the Spice Islands), saying that \"such things as he had brought were not very vendible\".\n\nAdams traveled with Saris to Suruga, where they met with Ieyasu at his principal residence in September. The Englishmen continued to Kamakura where they visited the noted Kamakura Great Buddha. (Sailors etched their names of the Daibutsu, made in 1252.) They continued to Edo, where they met Ieyasu's son Hidetada, who was nominally shōgun, although Ieyasu retained most of the decision-making powers. During that meeting, Hidetada gave Saris two varnished suits of armour for King James I. As of 2015, one of these suits of armour is housed in the Tower of London, the other is on display in the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds. The suits were made by Iwai Yozaemon of Nanbu. They were part of a series of presentation armours of ancient 15th-century Dō-maru style.\n\nOn their return, the English party visited Tokugawa again. He conferred trading privileges to the English by a Red Seal permit, giving them \"free license to abide, buy, sell and barter\" in Japan. The English party returned to Hirado on 9 October 1613.\n\nAt this meeting, Adams asked for and obtained Tokugawa's authorisation to return to his home country. But, he finally declined Saris' offer to take him back to England: \"I answered him I had spent in this country many years, through which I was poor... [and] desirous to get something before my return\". His true reasons seem to lie rather with his profound antipathy for Saris: \"The reason I would not go with him was for diverse injuries done against me, which were things to me very strange and unlooked for.\" (William Adams letters)\n\nAdams accepted employment with the newly founded Hirado trading factory, signing a contract on 24November 1613, with the East India Company for the yearly salary of 100 English Pounds. This was more than double the regular salary of 40 Pounds earned by the other factors at Hirado. Adams had a lead role, under Richard Cocks and together with six other compatriots (Tempest Peacock, Richard Wickham, William Eaton, Walter Carwarden, Edmund Sayers and William Nealson), in organising this new English settlement.\n\nAdams had advised Saris against the choice of Hirado, which was small and far away from the major markets in Osaka and Edo; he had recommended selection of Uraga near Edo for a post, but Saris wanted to keep an eye on the Dutch activities.\n\nDuring the ten-year operations of the East Indian Company (1613 and 1623), only three English ships after the Clove brought cargoes directly from London to Japan. They were invariably described as having poor value on the Japanese market. The only trade which helped support the factory was that organised between Japan and South-East Asia; this was chiefly Adams selling Chinese goods for Japanese silver:\nWere it not for hope of trade into China, or procuring some benefit from Siam, Pattania and Cochin China, it were no staying in Japon, yet it is certen here is silver enough & may be carried out at pleasure, but then we must bring them commodities to their liking. (Richard Cocks' diary, 1617)\n\nReligious rivalries\nThe Portuguese and other Catholic religious orders in Japan considered Adams a rival as an English Protestant. After Adams' power had grown, the Jesuits tried to convert him, then offered to secretly bear him away from Japan on a Portuguese ship. The Jesuits' willingness to disobey the order by Ieyasu prohibiting Adams from leaving Japan showed that they feared his growing influence. Catholic priests asserted that he was trying to discredit them. In 1614, Carvalho complained of Adams and other merchants in his annual letter to the Pope, saying that \"by false accusation [Adams and others] have rendered our preachers such objects of suspicion that he [Ieyasu] fears and readily believes that they are rather spies than sowers of the Holy Faith in his kingdom.\"\n\nIeyasu, influenced by Adams' counsels and disturbed by unrest caused by the numerous Catholic converts, expelled the Portuguese Jesuits from Japan in 1614. He demanded that Japanese Catholics abandon their faith. Adams apparently warned Ieyasu against Spanish approaches as well.\n\nCharacter\nAfter fifteen years spent in Japan, Adams had a difficult time establishing relations with the English arrivals. He initially shunned the company of the newly arrived English sailors in 1613 and could not get on good terms with Saris. But Richard Cocks, the head of the Hirado factory, came to appreciate Adams' character and what he had acquired of Japanese self-control. In a letter to the East India Company Cocks wrote:\n\nParticipation in Asian trade\n\nAdams later engaged in various exploratory and commercial ventures. He tried to organise an expedition to the legendary Northwest Passage from Asia, which would have greatly reduced the sailing distance between Japan and Europe. Ieyasu asked him if \"our countrimen could not find the northwest passage\" and Adams contacted the East India Company to organise manpower and supplies. The expedition never got underway.\n\nIn his later years, Adams worked for the English East Indian Company. He made a number of trading voyages to Siam in 1616 and Cochinchina in 1617 and 1618, sometimes for the English East India Company, sometimes for his own account. He is recorded in Japanese records as the owner of a Red Seal Ship of 500 tons.\n\nGiven the few ships that the company sent from England and the poor trading value of their cargoes (broadcloth, knives, looking glasses, Indian cotton, etc.), Adams was influential in gaining trading certificates from the shōgun to allow the company to participate in the Red Seal system. It made a total of seven junk voyages to Southeast Asia with mixed profit results. Four were led by William Adams as captain. Adams renamed a ship he acquired in 1617 as Gift of God; he sailed it on his expedition that year to Cochinchina. The expeditions he led are described more fully below.\n\n1614 Siam expedition\nIn 1614, Adams wanted to organise a trade expedition to Siam to bolster the company factory's activities and cash situation. He bought and upgraded a 200-ton Japanese junk for the company, renaming her as Sea Adventure; and hired about 120 Japanese sailors and merchants, as well as several Chinese traders, an Italian and a Castilian (Spanish) trader. The heavily laden ship left in November 1614. The merchants Richard Wickham and Edmund Sayers of the English factory's staff also joined the voyage.\n\nThe expedition was to purchase raw silk, Chinese goods, sappan wood, deer skins and ray skins (the latter used for the hilts of Japanese swords). The ship carried £1250 in silver and £175 of merchandise (Indian cottons, Japanese weapons and lacquerware). The party encountered a typhoon near the Ryukyu Islands (modern Okinawa) and had to stop there to repair from 27 December 1614 until May 1615. It returned to Japan in June 1615 without having completed any trade.\n\n1615 Siam expedition\nAdams left Hirado in November 1615 for Ayutthaya in Siam on the refitted Sea Adventure, intent on obtaining sappanwood for resale in Japan. His cargo was chiefly silver (£600) and the Japanese and Indian goods unsold from the previous voyage.\n\nHe bought vast quantities of the high-profit products. His partners obtained two ships in Siam in order to transport everything back to Japan. Adams sailed the Sea Adventure to Japan with 143 tonnes of sappanwood and 3700 deer skins, returning to Hirado in 47 days. (The return trip took from 5 June and 22 July 1616). Sayers, on a hired Chinese junk, reached Hirado in October 1616 with 44 tons of sappanwood. The third ship, a Japanese junk, brought 4,560 deer skins to Nagasaki, arriving in June 1617 after the monsoon.\n\nLess than a week before Adams' return, Ieyasu had died. Adams accompanied Cocks and Eaton to court to offer company presents to the new ruler, Hidetada. Although Ieyasu's death seems to have weakened Adams' political influence, Hidetada agreed to maintain the English trading privileges. He also issued a new Red Seal permit (Shuinjō) to Adams, which allowed him to continue trade activities overseas under the shōgun's protection. His position as hatamoto was also renewed.\n\nOn this occasion, Adams and Cocks also visited the Japanese Admiral Mukai Shōgen Tadakatsu, who lived near Adams' estate. They discussed plans for a possible invasion of the Catholic Philippines.\n\n1617 Cochinchina expedition\nIn March 1617, Adams set sail for Cochinchina, having purchased the junk Sayers had brought from Siam and renamed it the Gift of God. He intended to find two English factors, Tempest Peacock and Walter Carwarden, who had departed from Hirado two years before to explore commercial opportunities on the first voyage to South East Asia by the Hirado English Factory. Adams learned in Cochinchina that Peacock had been plied with drink, and killed for his silver. Carwarden, who was waiting in a boat downstream, realised that Peacock had been killed and hastily tried to reach his ship. His boat overturned and he drowned.\n\nAdams sold a small cargo of broadcloth, Indian piece goods and ivory in Cochinchina for the modest amount of £351.\n\n1618 Cochinchina expedition\nIn 1618, Adams is recorded as having organised his last Red Seal trade expedition to Cochinchina and Tonkin (modern Vietnam), the last expedition of the English Hirado Factory to Southeast Asia. The ship, a chartered Chinese junk, left Hirado on 11 March 1618 but met with bad weather that forced it to stop at Ōshima in the northern Ryukyus. The ship sailed back to Hirado in May.\n\nThose expeditions to Southeast Asia helped the English factory survive for some time—during that period, sappanwood resold in Japan with a 200% profit—until the factory fell into bankruptcy due to high expenditures.\n\nDeath and family legacy\n\nAdams died at Hirado, north of Nagasaki, on 16 May 1620, at the age of 55. He was buried in Nagasaki, where his grave marker may still be seen. His gravesite is next to a memorial to Saint Francis Xavier. In his will, he left his townhouse in Edo, his fief in Hemi, and 500 British pounds to be divided evenly between his family in England and his family in Japan. Cocks wrote: \"I cannot but be sorrowful for the loss of such a man as Capt William Adams, he having been in such favour with two Emperors of Japan as never any Christian in these part of the world.\" (Cocks' diary)\n\nAdams' daughter Deliverance married Ratcliff mariner Raph Goodchild at St Dunstan's, Stepney on 30 September 1618. They had two daughters, Abigail in October 1619 who died on the same month, and Jane in April 1621. Deliverance would later marry for a second time, to John Wright at St Alfege Church, Greenwich on 13 October 1624.\n\nCocks remained in contact with Adams' Japanese family, sending gifts; in March 1622, he offered silks to Joseph and Susanna. On the Christmas after Adams' death, Cocks gave Joseph his father's sword and dagger. Cocks records that Hidetada transferred the lordship from William Adams to his son Joseph Adams with the attendant rights to the estate at Hemi: He (Hidetada) has confirmed the lordship to his son, which the other emperor (Ieyasu) gave to the father. (Cocks's diary)\n\nCocks administered Adams' trading rights (the shuinjō) for the benefit of Adams' children, Joseph and Susanna. He carried this out conscientiously. In 1623, three years after Adams' death, the unprofitable English trading factory was dissolved by the East India Company. The Dutch traded on Adams' children's behalf via the Red Seal ships. Joseph Adams had since inherited the title of Miura Anjin, became a trader and made five voyages to Cochinchina and Siam between 1624 and 1635.\n\nBy 1629 only two of Adams' shipmates from 1600 survived in Japan. Melchior van Santvoort and Vincent Romeyn lived privately in Nagasaki.\n\nIn 1635, Tokugawa Iemitsu enforced the Sakoku Edict for Japan to be closed against foreign trading, by then both Joseph and Susanna disappeared from historical records at that time.\n\nAdams has a second memorial monument at the location of his residence in Hemi. Consisting of a pair of hōkyōintō, the tuff memorial on the right is that of Adams, and the andesite one of the left is for his wife. The monuments were erected by his family in accordance with his will, and the site was designated as a National Historic Site in 1923.\n\nHonours for Adams\n\n A town in Edo (modern Tokyo), Anjin-chō (in modern-day Nihonbashi) was named for Adams, who had a house there. He is annually celebrated on 15 June.\n A village and a railroad station in his fiefdom, Hemi, in modern Yokosuka, were named for him.\n In the city of Itō, Shizuoka, the Miura Anjin Festival is held annually on 10 August. On the seafront at Itō is a monument to Adams. Next to it is a plaque inscribed with Edmund Blunden's poem, \"To the Citizens of Ito\", which commemorates Adams' achievement.\n Adams' birth town, Gillingham, has held a Will Adams Festival every September since 2000. Since the late 20th century, both Itō and Yokosuka have become sister cities of Gillingham.\n A monument to Adams was installed in Watling Street, Gillingham (Kent), opposite Darland Avenue. The monument was unveiled 11 May 1934 by Tsuneo Matsudaira GCVO, Japanese ambassador to the Court of St James.\n A roundabout named Will Adams Roundabout with a Japanese theme just along from the Gillingham monument to Adams with two roads named after the Gillingham sister cities \"Ito Way\" and \"Yokosuka Way\"\n The townhouse of Will Adams still exists in Hirado. It is currently a sweet shop called Tsutaya at 431 Kihikidacho. It is known as Anjin no Yakata (Anjin's House).\n\nAnalysis of skeletal remains\n\nWilliam Adams (Miura Anjin) was buried in 1620, in Hirado, Nagasaki Prefecture. However, a few years later foreign cemeteries were destroyed and there was prosecution of Christians by the Tokugawa shogunate. The bones of Anjin were taken for safekeeping and reburied. In 1931, skeletal remains were first discovered there and assumed to be of Anjin, but it could not be confirmed due to technological limitations, the remains was later placed in a Showa period ceramic funerary urn and reburied back to where it was discovered.\n\nIn July 2017, the excavation of the skeletal remains began at the William Adams Memorial Park on Sakigata Hill, Hirado. In 2019, Japanese archaeologists announced the discovery of bones at the site believed to be those of Adams. These remains match the 1931 description. The subsequent biomolecular anthropological investigation of the genetic background showed the mtDNA analysis indicates Anjin's mitochondrial DNA likely belongs to haplogroup H. The analysis also showed aspects such as the dietary habits and burial style matched with Anjin. In April 2020, the University of Tokyo conducted conclusive forensic tests on the bones and confirmed it was William Adams' grave. Confirmation of the identity of the remains may have been possible with DNA data from living relatives of Adams. However, even if living relatives had been identified, there would probably have been the equivalent of about eight generations of genetic difference between them and Adams. Thus there may not have been sufficient similarities to establish with sufficient certainty whether such a relationship existed.\n\nRepresentation in other media\n James Clavell based his best-selling novel Shōgun (1975) on Adams' life, changing the name of his protagonist to \"John Blackthorne\". This was adapted as a popular TV mini-series, Shōgun (1980). It was also adapted as a Broadway production, Shōgun: The Musical (1990), and the video game James Clavell's Shōgun (1989).\n Michel Foucault retold Adams' tale in The Discourse on Language. According to Foucault, the story embodies one of the \"great myths of European culture,\" namely, the idea that a mere sailor could teach mathematics to the Japanese shogun shows the difference between the open exchange of knowledge in Europe as opposed to the secretive control of knowledge under \"oriental tyranny.\" In fact, however, Adams was not a mere sailor but the chief navigator of the fleet, and his value to the Shogun was along the practical lines of shipbuilding.\n\nThere were numerous earlier works of fiction based on Adams.\n William Dalton wrote Will Adams, The First Englishman in Japan: A Romantic Biography (London, 1861).\n Richard Blaker's The Needlewatcher (London, 1932) is the least romantic of the novels; he consciously attempted to de-mythologize Adams and write a careful historical work of fiction.\n James Scherer's Pilot and Shōgun dramatises a series of incidents based on Adams' life.\n American Robert Lund wrote Daishi-san (New York, 1960).\n Christopher Nicole's Lord of the Golden Fan (1973) portrays Adams as sexually frustrated in England and freed by living in Japan, where he has numerous encounters. The work is considered light pornography.\n In 2002, Giles Milton's historical biography Samurai William (2002) is based on historical sources, especially Richard Cocks's diary.\n The 2002 alternate history novel Ruled Britannia by Harry Turtledove features a brief appearance by Adams, piloting cargo and passengers between England and Ostend, both of which are puppet states of the Habsburg Empire in this timeline.\n In the second season of Heroes, a story set in samurai-era Japan features an Englishman who seems to be based on Adams.\n A book series called Young Samurai is about a young English boy who is ship wrecked in Japan, and is trained as a samurai.\n Adams also serves as the template for the protagonist in the PlayStation 4 and PC video game series Nioh (2017) and non-playable in its prequel/sequel hybrid game (2020), but with supernatural and historical fiction elements. As of the end of the second game, some time after managing to arrest the female Spaniard Maria, he married Okatsu instead and had an English-Japanese son who inherited her mother's guardian spirit.\n This version also appeared in the Warriors series' crossover game, Warriors All-Stars.\n\nDepiction\n\nAccording to Professor Derek Massarella of Chuo University:\n\nThere is however one genuine contemporary image. \"It is a derivative drawing of William Adams, which appears to be based in a sketch attributed to Dorothy Burmingham (from a description given by Melchior von Santvoort). The original drawing is to be found at the Rotterdam Maritime Museum [whose specialist Marcel Kroon considers it to be from Adams' time]. A copy is preserved at the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford.\"\n\nSee also\n\n Anglo-Japanese relations\n Jan Joosten – known in Japanese as Yan Yōsuten, was a Dutch colleague of Adams, and the only known Dutch samurai. The Yaesu neighbourhood in Chūō, Tokyo was named for him.\n Henry Schnell – known in Japanese as Hiramatsu Buhei, was a Prussian arms dealer, who served the Aizu domain as a military instructor and procurer of weapons.\n Eugène Collache – French Navy officer, who fought for the shōgun during the Boshin War (1868–1869).\n Jules Brunet (1838–1911) – French officer who fought for the shōgun in the Boshin War\n Ernest Mason Satow (1843–1929) – British scholar, diplomat and Japanologist\n Hendrick Hamel (1630–1692) – first European to live in the Joseon-dynasty era in Korea (1666) and write about it\n Yasuke (b. c. 1556) – a black (African) retainer briefly in the service of the Japanese warlord Nobunaga Oda\n List of foreign-born samurai in Japan\n List of Westerners who visited Japan before 1868\n\nNotes\n\nReferences\n England's Earliest Intercourse with Japan, by C. W. Hillary (1905)\n Letters written by the English Residents in Japan, ed. by N. Murakami (1900, containing Adams' Letters reprinted from Memorials of the Empire of Japan, ed. by T. Rundall, Hakluyt Society, 1850)\n Diary of Richard Cocks, with preface by N. Murakami (1899, reprinted from the Hakluyt Society ed. 1883)\n Hildreth, Richard, Japan as it was and is (1855)\n John Harris, Navigantium atque Itinerantium Bibliotheca (1764), i. 856\n Voyage of John Saris, edited by Sir Ernest M. Satow (Hakluyt Society, 1900)\n Asiatic Society of Japan Transactions, xxvi. (sec. 1898) pp. I and 194, where four formerly unpublished letters of Adams are printed;\n Collection of State Papers; East Indies, China and Japan. The MS. of his logs written during his voyages to Siam and China is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.\n Samurai William: The Adventurer Who Unlocked Japan, by Giles Milton (UK 2002: )\n William Adams and Early English Enterprise in Japan, by Anthony Farrington and Derek Massarella \n Adams the Pilot: The Life and Times of Captain William Adams: 1564–1620, by William Corr, Curzon Press, 1995 \n The English Factory in Japan 1613–1623, ed. by Anthony Farrington, British Library, 1991. (Includes all of William Adams' extant letters, as well as his will.)\n A World Elsewhere. Europe’s Encounter with Japan in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, by Derek Massarella, Yale University Press, 1990.\n Recollections of Japan, Hendrik Doeff, \n\nHardcopy\n The Needle-Watcher: The Will Adams Story, British Samurai by Richard Blaker\n Servant of the Shogun by Richard Tames. Paul Norbury Publications, Tenterden, Kent, England..\n Samurai William: The Englishman Who Opened Japan,'' by Giles Milton; ; December 2003\n\nExternal links\n Williams Adams- Blue Eyed Samurai, Meeting Anjin\n \"Learning from Shogun. Japanese history and Western fantasy\"\n William Adams and Early English enterprise in Japan\n William Adams – The First Englishman In Japan, full text online, Internet Archive\n Will Adams Memorial\n \n \n \n\nSamurai\nForeign samurai in Japan\n1564 births\n1620 deaths\n16th-century English people\n17th-century English people\n16th-century Japanese people\n17th-century Japanese people\nAdvisors to Tokugawa shoguns\nEnglish emigrants to Japan\nEnglish Anglicans\nEnglish sailors\nHatamoto\nJapan–United Kingdom relations\nPeople from Gillingham, Kent\nRoyal Navy officers\nSailors on ships of the Dutch East India Company\nForeign relations of the Tokugawa shogunate",
"Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist and legal scholar who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932. He is one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices and most influential American common law judges in history, noted for his long service, concise, and pithy opinions—particularly for opinions on civil liberties and American constitutional democracy—and deference to the decisions of elected legislatures. Holmes retired from the court at the age of 90, an unbeaten record for oldest justice on the United States Supreme Court. He previously served as a Brevet Colonel in the American Civil War, an Associate Justice and as Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and was Weld Professor of Law at his alma mater, Harvard Law School. His positions, distinctive personality, and writing style made him a popular figure, especially with American progressives.\n\nDuring his tenure on the Supreme Court, to which he was appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, he supported the constitutionality of state economic regulation and advocated broad freedom of speech under the First Amendment, although he upheld criminal sanctions against draft protestors with the memorable maxim that \"free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic\" and formulated the groundbreaking \"clear and present danger\" test for a unanimous court. In a famous dissent in Abrams v. United States (1919), he wrote that he regarded the United States Constitution's theory \"that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market\" as \"an experiment, as all life is an experiment\" and believed that as a consequence \"we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death\". \n\nHe was one of only a handful of justices to be known as a scholar; The Journal of Legal Studies has identified Holmes as the third-most cited American legal scholar of the 20th century. Holmes was a legal realist, as summed up in his maxim, \"The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience\", and a moral skeptic opposed to the doctrine of natural law. His jurisprudence and academic writing influenced much subsequent American legal thinking, including the judicial consensus upholding New Deal regulatory law, and the influential American schools of pragmatism, critical legal studies, and law and economics.\n\nEarly life\nHolmes was born in Boston, Massachusetts, to the prominent writer and physician Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. and abolitionist Amelia Lee Jackson. Dr. Holmes was a leading figure in Boston intellectual and literary circles. Mrs. Holmes was connected to the leading families; Henry James Sr., Ralph Waldo Emerson and other transcendentalists were family friends. Known as \"Wendell\" in his youth, Holmes, Henry James Jr. and William James became lifelong friends. Holmes accordingly grew up in an atmosphere of intellectual achievement, and early formed the ambition to be a man of letters like Emerson. While still in Harvard College he wrote essays on philosophic themes, and asked Emerson to read his attack on Plato's idealist philosophy. Emerson famously replied, \"If you strike at a king, you must kill him\". He supported the Abolitionist movement that thrived in Boston society during the 1850s. At Harvard, he was a member of the Hasty Pudding and the Porcellian Club; his father had also been a member of both clubs. In the Pudding, he served as Secretary and Poet, as his father did. Holmes graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard in 1861 and in the spring of that year, he enlisted in the Massachusetts militia, when President Abraham Lincoln first called for volunteers following the firing on Fort Sumter, but returned briefly to Harvard College to participate in commencement exercises.\n\nCivil War\n\nDuring his senior year of college, at the outset of the American Civil War, Holmes enlisted in the fourth battalion, Massachusetts militia, then, with his father's help, received a commission as first lieutenant in the Twentieth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. He saw much action, taking part in the Peninsula Campaign, the Battle of Fredericksburg and the Wilderness, suffering wounds at the Battle of Ball's Bluff, Antietam, and Chancellorsville, and suffered from a near-fatal case of dysentery. He particularly admired and was close to Henry Livermore Abbott, a fellow officer in the 20th Massachusetts. Holmes rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel, but eschewed promotion in his regiment and served on the staff of the VI Corps during the Wilderness Campaign. Abbott took command of the regiment in his place, and was later killed.\n\nHolmes is said to have shouted to Abraham Lincoln to take cover during the Battle of Fort Stevens, although this is commonly regarded as apocryphal. Holmes himself expressed uncertainty about who had warned Lincoln (\"Some say it was an enlisted man who shouted at Lincoln; others suggest it was General Wright who brusquely ordered Lincoln to safety. But for a certainty, the 6 foot 4 inch Lincoln, in frock coat and top hat, stood peering through field glasses from behind a parapet at the onrushing rebels.\") and other sources state he likely was not present on the day Lincoln visited Fort Stevens.\n\nHolmes received a brevet honorary promotion to colonel in recognition of his services during the war. He retired to his home in Boston after his three-year enlistment ended in 1864, weary and ill, his regiment disbanded.\n\nLegal career\n\nLawyer\n\nIn the summer of 1864, Holmes returned to the family home in Boston, wrote poetry, and debated philosophy with his friend William James, pursuing his debate with philosophic idealism, and considered re-enlisting. But by the fall, when it became clear that the war would soon end, Holmes enrolled in Harvard Law School, \"kicked into the law\" by his father, as he later recalled. He attended lectures there for a single year, reading extensively in theoretical works, and then clerked for a year in his cousin Robert Morse’s office. He was admitted to the bar in 1866, and after a long visit to London to complete his education, went into law practice in Boston. He joined a small firm, and in 1872 married a childhood friend, Fanny Bowditch Dixwell, buying a farm in Mattapoisett, Massachusetts, the following year. Their marriage lasted until her death on April 30, 1929. They never had children together. They did adopt and raise an orphaned cousin, Dorothy Upham. Fanny disliked Beacon Hill society, and devoted herself to embroidery. She was described as devoted, witty, wise, tactful, and perceptive.\n\nWhenever he could, Holmes visited London during the social season of spring and summer, and during the years of his work as a lawyer and judge in Boston he formed romantic friendships with English women of the nobility, with whom he corresponded while at home in the United States. The most important of these was his friendship with the Anglo-Irish Clare Castletown, the Lady Castletown, whose family estate in Ireland, Doneraile Court, he visited several times, and with whom he may have had a brief affair. He formed his closest intellectual friendships with British men, and became one of the founders of what was soon called the \"sociological\" school of jurisprudence in Great Britain, followed a generation later by the \"legal realist\" school in America.\n\nHolmes practiced admiralty law and commercial law in Boston for fifteen years. It was during this time that he did his principal scholarly work, serving as an editor of the new American Law Review, reporting decisions of state supreme courts, and preparing a new edition of Kent's Commentaries, which served practitioners as a compendium of case law, at a time when official reports were scarce and difficult to obtain. He summarized his hard-won understanding in a series of lectures, collected and published as The Common Law in 1881.\n\nThe Common Law\nThe Common Law has been continuously in print since 1881 and remains an important contribution to jurisprudence. The book also remains controversial, for Holmes begins by rejecting various kinds of formalism in law. In his earlier writings he had expressly denied the utilitarian view that law was a set of commands of the sovereign, rules of conduct that became legal duties. He rejected as well the views of the German idealist philosophers, whose views were then widely held, and the philosophy taught at Harvard, that the opinions of judges could be harmonized in a purely logical system. In the opening paragraphs of the book, he famously summarized his own view of the history of the common law:\n\nThe life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics.\n\nIn The Common Law, Holmes wrote that, even though the law ”uses the language of morality, it necessarily ends in external standards not dependent on the consciousness of the individual” or on his moral culpability. Foreseeability of harm was the key: ”the general basis of criminal liability was knowledge, at the time of action, of facts from which common experience showed that certain harmful results were likely to follow.” Tort liability, similarly, was imposed when circumstances were ”such as would have led a prudent man to perceive danger, although not necessarily to foresee the specific harm”. Likewise, with respect to contracts, ”The law has nothing to do with the actual state of the parties’ minds. In contract, as elsewhere, it must go by externals, and judge parties by their conduct.”\n\nIn the book, Holmes set forth his view that the only source of law, properly speaking, was a judicial decision enforced by the state. Judges decided cases on the facts, and then wrote opinions afterward presenting a rationale for their decision. The true basis of the decision was often an ”inarticulate major premise”, however. A judge was obliged to choose between contending legal arguments, each posed in absolute terms, and the true basis of his decision was sometimes drawn from outside the law, when precedents were lacking or were evenly divided.\n\nThe common law evolves because civilized society evolves, and judges share the common preconceptions of the governing class. These views endeared Holmes to the later advocates of legal realism, and made him one of the early founders of law and economics jurisprudence. Holmes famously contrasted his own scholarship with the abstract doctrines of Christopher Columbus Langdell, dean of Harvard Law School, who viewed the common law as a self-enclosed set of doctrines. Holmes viewed Langdell’s work as akin to the German philosophic idealism he had for so long resisted, opposing it with his own scientific materialism.\n\nState court judge\n\nHolmes was considered for a federal court judgeship in 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, but Massachusetts Senator George Frisbie Hoar persuaded Hayes to nominate another candidate. In the fall of 1882, Holmes became a professor at Harvard Law School, accepting an endowed professorship that had been created for him, largely through the efforts of Louis D. Brandeis. On Friday, December 8, 1882, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts associate justice Otis Lord decided to resign, giving outgoing Republican governor John Davis Long a chance to appoint his successor, if he could do so before the Massachusetts Governor's Council adjourned at 3 pm. Holmes's partner George Shattuck proposed him for the vacancy, Holmes quickly agreed, and there being no objection by the council, he took the oath of office on December 15, 1882. His resignation from his professorship, after only a few weeks and without notice, was resented by the law school faculty, with James Bradley Thayer finding Holmes's conduct \"selfish\" and \"thoughtless\". On August 2, 1899, Holmes became Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court following the death of Walbridge A. Field.\n\nDuring his service on the Massachusetts court, Holmes continued to develop and apply his views of the common law, usually following precedent faithfully. He issued few constitutional opinions in these years, but carefully developed the principles of free expression as a common-law doctrine. He departed from precedent to recognize workers' right to organize trade unions and to strike, as long as no violence was involved, and coercion was not exerted through impermissible means such as secondary boycotts, stating in his opinions that fundamental fairness required that workers be allowed to combine to compete on an equal footing with employers. He continued to give speeches and to write articles that added to or extended his work on the common law, most notably \"Privilege, Malice and Intent\", in which he presented his view of the pragmatic basis of the common-law privileges extended to speech and the press, which could be defeated by a showing of malice, or of specific intent to harm. This argument would later be incorporated into his famous opinions concerning the First Amendment.\n\nHe also published an address, \"The Path of the Law\", which is best known for its prediction theory of law, that \"[t]he prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by law\", and for its \"bad man\" perspective on the law that \"[i]f you really want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at it as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences which such knowledge enables him to predict\".\n\nSupreme Court Justice\n\nOverview\n\nSoon after the resignation of Associate Justice Horace Gray in July 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt made known his intention to appoint Holmes as Gray's successor; it was the president's stated desire to fill the vacancy with someone from Massachusetts. The nomination was supported by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the junior senator from Massachusetts, but was opposed by its senior senator, George Frisbie Hoar, who was also chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hoar was a strenuous opponent of imperialism, and the legality of the annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines was expected to come before the Court. Lodge, like Roosevelt, was a strong supporter of imperialism, which Holmes was expected to support as well. \n\nDespite Hoar's opposition, the president moved ahead on the matter. On December 2, 1902, he formally submitted the nomination and Holmes was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 4. He was sworn into office on December 8.\n\nOn the bench, Holmes did vote to support the administration's position favoring the annexation of former Spanish colonies in the \"Insular Cases\". However, he later disappointed Roosevelt by dissenting in Northern Securities Co. v. United States, a major antitrust prosecution; the majority of the court, however, did rule against Holmes and sided with Theodore Roosevelt’s belief that Northern Securities violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The dissent by Holmes permanently damaged his formerly close relationship with Theodore Roosevelt.\n\nHolmes was known for his pithy, short, and frequently quoted opinions. In more than twenty-nine years on the Supreme Court bench, he ruled on cases spanning the whole range of federal law. He is remembered for prescient opinions on topics as widely separated as copyright, the law of contempt, the antitrust status of professional baseball, and the oath required for citizenship. Holmes, like most of his contemporaries, viewed the Bill of Rights as codifying privileges obtained over the centuries in English and American common law, and was able to establish that view in numerous opinions of the Court. He is considered one of the greatest judges in American history and embodies for many the traditions of the common law, which are now challenged by originalists who insist the text of the Constitution trumps any common-law precedents that depart from the original understanding of its meaning.\n\nFrom the departure of William Howard Taft on February 3, 1930 until Charles Evans Hughes took office on February 24, 1930, Holmes briefly acted as the Chief Justice and presided over court sessions.\n\nNoteworthy rulings\n\nOtis v. Parker\n\nBeginning with his first opinion for the Court in Otis v. Parker, Holmes declared that ”due process of law”, the fundamental principle of fairness, protected people from unreasonable legislation but was limited only to those fundamental principles enshrined in the common law and did not protect most economic interests.\n\nSchenck v. United States\n\nIn a series of opinions surrounding the World War I Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, he held that the freedom of expression guaranteed by federal and state constitutions simply declared a common-law privilege for speech and the press, even when those expressions caused injury, but that privilege would be defeated by a showing of malice or intent to do harm. Holmes came to write three unanimous opinions for the Supreme Court that arose from prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act because in an earlier case, Baltzer v. United States, he had circulated a powerfully expressed dissent, when the majority had voted to uphold a conviction of immigrant socialists who had circulated a petition criticizing the draft. Apparently learning that he was likely to publish this dissent, the government (perhaps alerted by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, newly appointed by President Woodrow Wilson) abandoned the case, and it was dismissed by the Court. The Chief Justice then asked Holmes to write opinions that could be unanimous, upholding convictions in three similar cases, where there were jury findings that speeches or leaflets were published with an intent to obstruct the draft, a crime under the 1917 law. Although there was no evidence that the attempts had succeeded, Holmes, in Schenck v. United States (1919), held for a unanimous Court that an attempt, purely by language, could be prosecuted if the expression, in the circumstances in which it was uttered, posed a \"clear and present danger\" that the legislature had properly forbidden. In his opinion for the Court, Holmes famously declared that the First Amendment would not protect a person \"falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic\". Although much criticized, Schenck remained an important precedent until it was superseded by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that \"advocacy of the use of force or of law violation\" is protected unless \"such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action\".\n\nAbrams v. United States\nLater in 1919, however, in Abrams v. United States, Holmes was again in dissent. The Wilson Administration was vigorously prosecuting those suspected of sympathies with the recent Russian Revolution, as well as opponents of the war against Germany. The defendants in this case were socialists and anarchists, recent immigrants from Russia who opposed the apparent efforts of the United States to intervene in the Russian Civil War. They were charged with violating the Sedition Act of 1918, which was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 that made criticisms of the government or the war effort a crime. Abrams and his co-defendants were charged with distributing leaflets (one in English and one in Yiddish) that called for a \"general strike\" to protest the U.S. intervention in Russia. A majority of the Court voted to uphold the convictions and sentences of ten and twenty years, to be followed by deportation, while Holmes dissented. The majority claimed to be following the precedents already set in Schenck and the other cases in which Holmes had written for the Court, but Holmes insisted that the defendants' leaflets neither threatened to cause any harm, nor showed a specific intent to hinder the war effort. Holmes condemned the Wilson Administration's prosecution and its insistence on draconian sentences for the defendants in passionate language: \"Even if I am technically wrong [regarding the defendants' intent] and enough can be squeezed from these poor and puny anonymities to turn the color of legal litmus paper ... the most nominal punishment seems to me all that possibly could be inflicted, unless the defendants are to be made to suffer, not for what the indictment alleges, but for the creed that they avow ... .\" Holmes then went on to explain the importance of freedom of thought in a democracy:\n\nIn writing this dissent, Holmes may have been influenced by Zechariah Chafee’s article ”Freedom of Speech in War Time”. Chafee had criticized Holmes’s opinion in Schenck for failing to express in more detail and more clearly the common-law doctrines upon which he relied. In his Abrams dissent, Holmes did elaborate somewhat on the decision in Schenck, roughly along the lines that Chafee had suggested. Although Holmes evidently believed that he was adhering to his own precedent, some later commentators accused Holmes of inconsistency, even of seeking to curry favor with his young admirers. In Abrams, the majority opinion relied on the clear-and-present-danger formulation of Schenck, claiming that the leaflets showed the necessary intent, and ignoring the point that they were unlikely to have any effect. In later opinions, the Supreme Court departed from this line of reasoning where the validity of a statute was in question, adopting the principle that a legislature could properly declare that some forms of speech posed a clear and present danger, regardless of the circumstances in which they were uttered. Holmes continued to dissent.\n\nSilverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States\nIn Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920), Holmes ruled that any evidence obtained, even indirectly, from an illegal search was inadmissible in court. He reasoned that otherwise, police would have an incentive to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to obtain derivatives of the illegally obtained evidence, so any evidence resulting indirectly from an illegal search must be similarly suppressed. This later became known as the \"fruit of the poisonous tree\" doctrine.\n\nBuck v. Bell\nIn 1927, Holmes wrote the 8–1 majority opinion in Buck v. Bell, a case that upheld the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 and the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck, who was claimed to be mentally defective. Later scholarship has shown that the suit was collusive, in that \"two eugenics enthusiasts ... had chosen Buck as a bit player in a test case that they had devised\", and \"had asked Buck's guardian to challenge [the Virginia sterilization law]\". In addition, Carrie Buck was probably of normal intelligence. The argument made on her behalf was principally that the statute requiring sterilization of institutionalized persons was unconstitutional, as a violation of what today is called \"substantive due process\". Holmes repeated familiar arguments that statutes would not be struck down if they appeared on their face to have a reasonable basis. In support of his argument that the interest of ”public welfare” outweighs the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he argued:\n\nSterilization rates under eugenics laws in the United States climbed from 1927 until Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Oklahoma statute that provided for the sterilization of \"habitual criminals\".\n\nBuck v. Bell continues to be cited occasionally in support of due process requirements for state interventions in medical procedures. For instance, in 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Buck v. Bell to protect the constitutional rights of a woman coerced into sterilization without procedural due process. The court stated that error and abuse will result if the state does not follow the procedural requirements, established by Buck v. Bell, for performing an involuntary sterilization. Buck v. Bell was also cited briefly, though not discussed, in Roe v. Wade, in support of the proposition that the Court does not recognize an \"unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases\". However, although Buck v. Bell has not been overturned, ”the Supreme Court has distinguished the case out of existence”.\n\nJurisprudential contributions\n\nCritique of formalism\nFrom his earliest writings, Holmes demonstrated a lifelong belief that the decisions of judges were consciously or unconsciously result-oriented and reflected the mores of the class and society from which judges were drawn. Holmes accordingly argued that legal rules are not deduced through formal logic but rather emerge from an active process of human self-government. He explored these theories in his 1881 book The Common Law. His philosophy represented a departure from the prevailing jurisprudence of the time: legal formalism, which held that law was an orderly system of rules from which decisions in particular cases could be deduced. Holmes sought to consciously reinvent the common law – to modernize it as a tool for adjusting to the changing nature of modern life, as judges of the past had done more or less unconsciously. He has been classed with the philosophic pragmatists, although pragmatism is what he attributed to the law, rather than his personal philosophy.\n\nCentral to his thought was the notion that the law, as it had evolved in modern societies, was concerned with the material results of a defendant's actions. A judge's task was to decide which of two parties before him would bear the cost of an injury. Holmes argued that the evolving common law standard was that liability would fall upon a person whose conduct failed to reflect the prudence of a \"reasonable man\". If a construction worker throws a beam onto a crowded street:\n\nThis ”objective standard” adopted by common-law judges, Holmes thought, reflected a shift in community standards, away from condemnation of a person’s act toward an impersonal assessment of its value to the community. In the modern world, the advances made in biology and the social sciences should allow a better conscious determination of the results of individual acts and the proper measure of liability for them. This belief in the pronouncements of science concerning social welfare, although he later doubted its applicability to law in many cases, accounts for his enthusiastic endorsement of eugenics in his writings, and his opinion in the case of Buck v. Bell.\n\nLegal positivism\nIn 1881, in The Common Law, Holmes brought together into a coherent whole his earlier articles and lectures concerning the history of the common law (judicial decisions in England and the United States), which he interpreted from the perspective of a practicing lawyer. What counted as law, to a lawyer, was what judges did in particular cases. Law was what the state would enforce, through violence if necessary; echoes of his experience in the Civil War were always present in his writings. Judges decided where and when the force of the state would be brought to bear, and judges in the modern world tended to consult facts and consequences when deciding what conduct to punish. The decisions of judges, viewed over time, determined the rules of conduct and the legal duties by which all are bound. Judges did not and should not consult any external system of morality, certainly not a system imposed by a deity.\n\nHolmes brought himself into constant conflict with scholars who believed that legal duties rested upon natural law, a moral order of the kind invoked by Christian theologians and other philosophic idealists. He believed instead \"that men make their own laws; that these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence in the sky, and that judges are not independent mouthpieces of the infinite.\" ”The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky. ... ” Rather than a set of abstract, rational, mathematical, or in any way unworldly set of principles, Holmes said: \"[T]he prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.\"\n\nHis belief that law, properly speaking, was a set of generalizations from what judges had done in similar cases, determined his view of the Constitution of the United States. As a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Holmes rejected the argument that the text of the Constitution should be applied directly to cases that came before the court, as if it were a statute. He shared with most of his fellow judges the belief that the Constitution carried forward principles derived from the common law, principles that continued to evolve in American courts. The text of the Constitution itself, as originally understood, was not a set of rules, but only a directive to courts to consider the body of the common law when deciding cases that arose under the Constitution. It followed that constitutional principles adopted from the common law were evolving, as the law itself evolved: \"A word [in the Constitution] is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought....\"\n\nThe provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas that have their essence in form, they are organic, living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital, not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.\n\nHolmes also insisted on the separation of ”ought” and ”is”, confusion of which he saw as an obstacle in understanding the realities of the law. \"The law is full of phraseology drawn from morals, and talks about rights and duties, malice, intent, and negligence – and nothing is easier in legal reasoning than to take these words in their moral sense\". \"Therefore nothing but confusion can result from assuming that the rights of man in a moral sense are equally rights in the sense of the Constitution and the law\". Holmes said, ”I think our morally tinted words have caused a great deal of confused thinking”.\n\nNevertheless, in rejecting morality as a form of natural law outside of and superior to human enactments, Holmes was not rejecting moral principles that were the result of enforceable law: \"The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race. The practice of it, in spite of popular jests, tends to make good citizens and good men. When I emphasize the difference between law and morals I do so with reference to a single end, that of learning and understanding the law.\" Holmes's insistence on the material basis of law, on the facts of a case, has led some to characterize him as unfeeling, however. George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen summarized Holmes's views this way: \"Holmes was a cold and brutally cynical man who had contempt for the masses and for the progressive laws he voted to uphold ... an aristocratic nihilist who once told his sister that he loathed 'the thick-fingered clowns we call the people'.\"\n\nReputation as a dissenter\n\nAlthough Holmes did not dissent frequently — during his 29 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, he wrote only 72 separate opinions, whereas he penned 852 majority opinions — his dissents were often prescient and acquired so much authority that he became known as \"The Great Dissenter\". Chief Justice Taft complained that \"his opinions are short, and not very helpful\". Two of his most famous dissents were in Abrams v. United States and Lochner v. New York.\n\nSpeeches and letters\n\nSpeeches\nOnly Holmes’s legal writings were readily available during his life and in the first years after his death, but he confided his thoughts more freely in talks, often to limited audiences, and more than two thousand letters that have survived. Holmes's executor, John Gorham Palfrey, diligently collected Holmes’s published and unpublished papers and donated them (and their copyrights) to Harvard Law School. Harvard Law Professor Mark De Wolfe Howe undertook to edit the papers and was authorized by the school to publish them and to prepare a biography of Holmes. Howe published several volumes of correspondence, beginning with Holmes’s correspondence with Frederick Pollock, and a volume of Holmes's speeches, before his untimely death. Howe's work formed the basis of much subsequent Holmes scholarship.\n\nHolmes's speeches were divided into two groups: public addresses, which he gathered into a slim volume, regularly updated, that he gave to friends and used as a visiting card, and less formal addresses to men's clubs, dinners, law schools, and Twentieth Regiment reunions. All of the speeches are reproduced in the third volume of The Collected Works of Justice Holmes. The public addresses are Holmes’s effort to express his personal philosophy in Emersonian, poetic terms. They frequently advert to the Civil War and to death, and express a hope that personal sacrifice, however pointless it may seem, serves to advance the human race toward some as-yet unforeseen goal. This mysterious purpose explained the commitment to duty and honor that Holmes felt deeply himself and that he thought was the birthright of a certain class of men. As Holmes stated at a talk upon receiving an honorary degree from Yale:\n\nIn the 1890s, at a time when \"scientific\" anthropology that spoke of racial differences was in vogue, his observations took on a bleakly Darwinist cast:\n\nThis talk was widely reprinted and admired at the time, and may have contributed to the popular name given by the press to the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry (the \"Rough Riders\") during the Spanish–American War.\n\nOn May 30, 1895, Holmes gave the address at a Memorial Day function held by the Graduating Class of Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts. The speech, which came to be known as \"The Soldier's Faith\", expressed Holmes's view of the nature of war, and the conflict between the high ideals that motivated his generation to fight in the civil war, and the reality of a soldier's experience and personal pledge to follow orders into battle. Holmes stated:\n\nIn the conclusion of the speech, Holmes said:\n\nTheodore Roosevelt reportedly admired Holmes's \"Soldier's Faith\" speech, and it is believed to have contributed to his decision to nominate Holmes to the Supreme Court.\n\nLetters\n\nMany of Holmes's closest male friends were in England and he corresponded with them regularly and at length, speaking usually of his work. Letters to friends in England such as Harold Laski and Frederick Pollock contain frank discussion of his decisions and his fellow justices. In the United States, letters to male friends Morris R. Cohen, Lewis Einstein, Felix Frankfurter, and Franklin Ford are similar, although the letters to Frankfurter are especially personal. Holmes’s correspondence with women in Great Britain and the U.S. was at least as extensive, and in many ways more revealing, but these series of letters have not been published. An extensive selection of letters to Claire Castletown, in Ireland, is included in Honorable Justice: The Life of Oliver Wendell Holmes, by Sheldon Novick. These letters are closer to Holmes’s conversation and cast light upon the style he adopted in judicial opinions, which were often designed to be read aloud.\n\nIn a letter to a contemporary, Holmes made this comment on international comparisons: \"Judge not a people by the ferocity of its men, but by the steadfastness of its women.\"\n\nRetirement, death, honors and legacy\n\nHolmes was widely admired during his last years, and on his ninetieth birthday was honored on one of the first coast-to-coast radio broadcasts, during which the Chief Justice, the Dean of Yale Law School, and the president of the American Bar Association read encomia; the Bar Association presented him with a gold medal. Holmes served on the court until January 12, 1932, when his brethren on the court, citing his advanced age, suggested that the time had come for him to step down. By that time, at 90 years and 10 months of age, he was the oldest justice to serve in the court's history, and his record has only been challenged by John Paul Stevens in 2010, who retired when only 8 months younger than Holmes had been at retirement. On Holmes’s ninety-second birthday, newly inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor, called on Holmes at his home in Washington, D.C. Holmes died of pneumonia in Washington on March 6, 1935, two days short of his 94th birthday. He was the last living Justice of the Fuller Court and had been between 1925 and 1932 the last Justice of that Court to remain on the bench.\n\nIn his will, Holmes left his residuary estate to the United States government (he had earlier said that ”taxes are what we pay for civilized society” in Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927).) After his death, his personal effects included his Civil War Officer’s uniform still stained with his blood and ’torn with shot’ as well as the Minié balls that had wounded him three times in separate battles. Holmes was buried beside his wife in Arlington National Cemetery.\n\nThe United States Postal Service honored Holmes with a Prominent Americans series (1965–1978) 15¢ postage stamp.\n\nHolmes's papers, donated to Harvard Law School, were kept closed for many years after his death, a circumstance that gave rise to somewhat fanciful accounts of his life. Catherine Drinker Bowen’s fictionalized biography Yankee from Olympus was a long-time bestseller, and the 1946 Broadway play and 1950 Hollywood motion picture The Magnificent Yankee were based on a biography of Holmes by Francis Biddle, who had been one of his secretaries. Much of the scholarly literature addressing Holmes’s opinions was written before much was known about his life, and before a coherent account of his views was available. The Harvard Law Library eventually relented and made available to scholars the extensive Holmes papers, collected and annotated by Mark DeWolfe Howe, who died before he was able to complete his own biography of the justice. In 1989, the first full biography based on Holmes's papers was published, and several other biographies have followed.\n\nCongress established the U.S. Permanent Committee for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise within the Library of Congress with the funds he left to the United States in his will which were used to create a memorial garden at the Supreme Court building and to publish an ongoing series on the history of the Supreme Court.\n\nHolmes' summer house in Beverly, Massachusetts, was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1972, recognition for his contributions to American jurisprudence.\n\nJustice Holmes was an honorary member of the Connecticut Society of the Cincinnati.\n\nClerks\n\n\"Many secretaries formed close friendships with one another\", wrote Tony Hiss, son of Alger Hiss, about the special club of clerks of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. They included:\n Robert M. Benjamin (later, lawyer for an appeal by Alger Hiss)\n Laurence Curtis, U.S. Representative\n Alger Hiss, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and convicted perjurer\n Donald Hiss, partner, Covington & Burling law firm\n Irving Sands Olds, chairman of U.S. Steel\n H. Chapman Rose, Undersecretary of the United States Treasury\n Chauncey Belknap, partner at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, one of largest law firms in New York during his time, and an attorney for the Rockefeller Foundation\n\nIn popular culture\n American actor Louis Calhern portrayed Holmes in the 1946 play The Magnificent Yankee, with Dorothy Gish as Holmes's wife Fanny. In 1950, Calhern repeated his performance in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's film version The Magnificent Yankee, for which he received his only Academy Award nomination. Ann Harding co-starred in the film. A 1965 television adaptation of the play starred Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne in one of their few appearances on the small screen.\n In the movie Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), defense advocate Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell) quotes Holmes twice. First, with one of his earlier opinions:\n\nSecond, on the sterilization laws enacted in Virginia and upheld by the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell:\n\n This was in relation to Holmes' support for eugenics laws in the United States, which Rolfe argued were not different in principle from the Nazi laws. In the earlier Playhouse 90 television version from 1959, which also quotes Holmes in this context, the tribunal judge Ives, who ultimately presents a dissenting verdict, is played by the actor Wendell Holmes (1914–1962), born Oliver Wendell Holmes.\n Holmes appears as a minor character in Bernard Cornwell's novels Copperhead and The Bloody Ground, the second and fourth volumes of his Starbuck Chronicles; the novels portray the battles of Ball's Bluff and Antietam, in both of which the young Lieutenant Holmes was wounded in action.\n The 1960s television sitcom Green Acres starred Eddie Albert as a character named Oliver Wendell Douglas, a Manhattan white shoe lawyer who gives up the law to become a farmer.\n The 1980 comic strip Bloom County features a character named Oliver Wendell Jones, a young computer hacker and gifted scientist.\n\nSee also\n\n Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States\n Freedom for the Thought That We Hate\n List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States\n List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 2)\n List of United States Supreme Court justices by time in office\n Prediction theory of law\n List of people on the cover of Time Magazine: 1920s (March 15, 1926)\n Skepticism in law\n List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Fuller Court\n List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Hughes Court\n List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Taft Court\n List of United States Supreme Court cases by the White Court\n\nReferences\n\nExplanatory notes\n\nCitations\n\nGeneral bibliography \n \n Collins, Ronald K.L., ed., The Fundamental Holmes: A Free Speech Chronicle and Reader (Cambridge University Press, 2010)\n \n \n \n \n Hoeflich, Michael H. and Davies, Ross E., eds. (2021). The Black Book of Justice Holmes: Text Transcript and Commentary. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. . Interview with editors \n Holmes, Oliver Wendell (1920). Collected Legal Papers. Harcourt, Brace and Company.\n\nFurther reading \n Abraham, Henry J., Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Bush II (5th ed., 2007). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. .\n Aichele, Gary, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: Soldier, Scholar, Judge. Twayne Publishers, 1989.\n 1991.\n Biddle, Francis, Mr. Justice Holmes. Scribner, 1942.\n Biddle, Francis, Justice Holmes, Natural Law, and the Supreme Court. MacMillan, 1961. Reviewed\n Brown, Richard Maxwell, No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Publishing Division of the University, by arrangement with Oxford University Press, Inc., 1991). \n Budiansky, Stephen, Oliver Wendell Holmes: A Life in War, Law, and Ideas. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.\n Burton, Steven J., ed., The Path of the Law And Its Influence: The Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Cambridge University Press, 2000.\n Cushman, Clare, The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies,1789-1995 (2nd ed.) (Supreme Court Historical Society), (Congressional Quarterly Books, 2001) .\n Frank, John P., The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions (Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, editors) (Chelsea House Publishers, 1995) .\n Frankfurter, Felix, ed., Mr. Justice Holmes. Coward-McCann, Inc., 1931.\n Gordon, Robert W., ed., The Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Stanford University Press, 1992.\n Grant, Susan-Mary, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: Civil War Soldier, Supreme Court Justice. Routledge, 2016.\n Hall, Kermit L., ed., The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. .\n Hurst, James Willard, Justice Holmes on Legal History. The Macmillan Company, 1964.\n Kang, John M., Oliver Wendell Holmes and Fixations of Manliness. Routledge, 2018. Reviewed\n Kellogg, Frederic R., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Legal Theory, and Judicial Restraint. Cambridge University Press, 2007.\n Kellogg, Frederic R., Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Legal Logic. The University of Chicago Press, 2018.\n Kornstein, Daniel, The Second Greatest American. AuthorHouse, 2017.\n Lerner, Max, ed., The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes: His Speeches, Essays, Letters, and Judicial Opinions. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1943.\n Lewis, Anthony, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment (Basic ideas. New York: Basic Books, 2007). .\n Lian, Alexander, Stereoscopic Law: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Legal Education. Cambridge University Press, 2020.\n Martin, Fenton S. and Goehlert, Robert U., The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography. Congressional Quarterly Books, 1990. .\n Matteson, John, A Worse Place Than Hell: How the Civil War Battle of Fredericksburg Changed a Nation. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2021. .\n Menand, Louis, The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001. .\n Mendenhall, Allen, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Pragmatism, and the Jurisprudence of Agon: Aesthetic Dissent and the Common Law. Bucknell University Press, 2016.\n Monagan, John S., The Grand Panjandrum: Mellow Years of Justice Holmes. Lanham: University Press of America, 1988. .\n Rabban, David M., Law's History: American Legal Thought and the Transatlantic Turn to History. Cambridge University Press, 2012. .\n Rosenberg, David, The Hidden Holmes: His Theory of Torts in History. Harvard University Press, 1995. .\n Shriver, Harry C., ed., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: His Book Notices and Uncollected Letters and Papers. Central Book Co., 1936.\n Snyder, Brad, The House of Truth: A Washington Political Salon and the Foundations of American Liberalism. Oxford University Press, 2017.\n Urofsky, Melvin I., The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994). 590 pp. .\n Vannatta, Seth, ed., The Pragmatism and Prejudice of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Lexington Books, 2019.\n Wells, Catharine Pierce, Oliver Wendell Holmes: A Willing Servant to an Unknown God. Cambridge University Press, 2020.\n White, G. Edward, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self. Oxford University Press, 1993.\n White, G. Edward, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Oxford University Press, 2006.\n\nExternal links\n\n Fanny Holmes, Wife Of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.\n Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., American Jurist\n \n \n Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Recalls Famed Abraham Lincoln Fort Stevens Visit, Original Letter at Shapell Manuscript Foundation\n \n Holmes' Dissenting Opinion, Abrams vs. United States, 10 November 1919\n \n \n \n Booknotes interview with Liva Baker on The Justice from Beacon Hill: The Life and Times of Oliver Wendell Holmes, September 8, 1991.\n\n|-\n\n|-\n\n \n1841 births\n1935 deaths\n19th-century American judges\n20th-century American judges\nAmerican eugenicists\nAmerican legal writers\nAmerican people of English descent\nAmerican Unitarians\nBurials at Arlington National Cemetery\nChief Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court\nCorresponding Fellows of the British Academy\nDeaths from pneumonia in Washington, D.C.\nHall of Fame for Great Americans inductees\nHarvard College alumni\nHarvard Law School alumni\nHarvard Law School faculty\nHasty Pudding alumni\nJustices of the Supreme Court of the United States\nLawyers from Boston\nMassachusetts lawyers\nMassachusetts Republicans\nPeople from Beacon Hill, Boston\nPeople from Mattapoisett, Massachusetts\nPeople of Massachusetts in the American Civil War\nPhilosophers of law\nUnited States Army officers\nUnited States federal judges appointed by Theodore Roosevelt"
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities.shape)
# [4, 4] 
