text:
Nken v. Holder/Dissent Alito

, with whom joins, dissenting.

The Court's decision nullifies an important statutory provision that Congress enacted when it reformed the immigration laws in 1996. I would give effect to that provision, and I therefore respectfully dissent.

= I =

When an alien is charged with being removable from the United States, an immigration judge (IJ) conducts a hearing, receives and considers evidence, and determines whether the alien is removable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a); 8 CFR §§ 1240.1(a)(1)(i), (c) (2008). If the IJ enters an order of removal, that order becomes final when the alien's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) is unsuccessful or the alien declines to appeal to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B); 8 CFR §§ 1241.1, 1241.31. Once an order of removal has become final, it may be executed at any time. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1252(b)(8)(C); [p440] 8 CFR § 1241.33. Removal orders "are self-executing orders, not dependent upon judicial enforcement." Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 398 (1995).

After the removal order is final and enforceable, the alien may file a motion to reopen before the IJ, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), or a petition for review before the appropriate court of appeals, see § 1252(a)(1). While either challenge is pending, the alien may ask the Executive Branch to stay its own hand. See 8 CFR §§ 241.6(a)–(b), 1241.6(a)–(b). If, however, the alien wants a court to restrain the Executive from executing a final and enforceable removal order, the alien must seek an injunction to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (making a final order of removal subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2349(b), which provides that an "interlocutory injunction" can "restrain" the "execution of" a final order). The plain text of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009–546, provides the relevant legal standard for granting such relief: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2).

= II =

In my view, petitioner's request for an order preventing his removal pending disposition of his current petition for review was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2). Petitioner is "remova[ble] pursuant to a final order," and he sought a court order to "enjoin" the Executive Branch's execution of that removal.

A
There is no dispute that petitioner is "remova[ble] pursuant to a final order." Ibid. On March 4, 2005, the IJ determined that petitioner was removable under § 1227(a)(1)(B) and denied his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, [p441] and protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. See App. 32–43. Petitioner appealed to the Board, and on June 16, 2006, the Board affirmed. Id., at 44–49. On that date, petitioner's order of removal became administratively final, and the Executive Branch became legally entitled to remove him from the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i); 8 CFR § 1241.33(a).

B
The only remaining question, therefore, is whether the interim equitable relief that petitioner sought was an order "enjoin[ing]" his removal as that term is used in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2). I believe that it was.

In ordinary usage, the term "enjoin" means to "require," "command," or "direct" an action, or to "require a person to perform, or to abstain or desist from, some act." Black's Law Dictionary 529 (6th ed. 1990) (hereinafter Black's). See also Webster's Third New International Dictionary 754 (1993) (defining "enjoin" to mean "to direct, prescribe, or impose by order"; "to prohibit or restrain by a judicial order or decree"). When an alien subject to a final order of removal seeks to bar executive officials from acting upon that order pending judicial consideration of a petition for review, the alien is seeking to "enjoin" his or her removal. The alien is seeking an order "restrain[ing]" those officials and "requir[ing]" them to "abstain" from executing the order of removal.

The Court concludes that § 1252(f)(2) does not apply in this case because, in the Court's view, that provision applies only to requests for an injunction and not to requests for a stay. That conclusion is wrong for at least three reasons.

1
First, a stay is "a kind of injunction," Black's 1413, as even the Court grudgingly concedes, see ante, at 430 (an order [p442] blocking an alien's removal pending judicial review "might technically be called an injunction"). See also Teshome-Gebreegziabher v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 330, 333 (CA4 2008) ([T]he term "stay" "is a subset of the broader term 'enjoin); Kijowska v. Haines, 463 F.3d 583, 589 (CA7 2006) (a stay "is a form of injunction"); Weng v. United States Atty. Gen., 287 F.3d 1335, 1338 (CA11 2002) (per curiam) ("[T]he plain meaning of enjoin includes the grant of a stay").

Both statutes and judicial decisions refer to orders that "stay" legal proceedings as injunctions. For example, the Anti-Injunction Act provides that "[a] court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. See also Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 578–580 (2006) (habeas petitioner sought injunction to stay his execution); [p443] McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37, 42 (1877) ("[Petitioner] can, if he is wrongfully taxed, stay the proceeding for its collection by process of injunction"); Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151, 153 (CA4 2003) (denial of "injunction" to "stay [a] trial"); Jove Eng., Inc. v. IRS, 92 F.3d 1539, 1546 (CA11 1996) (automatic stay is "essentially a court-ordered injunction"). And it is revealing that the standard that the Court adopts for determining whether a stay should be ordered is the standard that is used in weighing an application for a preliminary injunction. Ante, at 434 (adopting preliminary injunction standard set out in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)).

2
Second, the context surrounding IIRIRA's enactment suggests that § 1252(f)(2) was an important—not a superfluous—statutory provision. This Court should interpret it accordingly.

IIRIRA was designed to expedite removal and restrict the ability of aliens to remain in this country pending judicial review. Before IIRIRA, the filing of a petition for review automatically stayed removal unless the court of appeals directed otherwise. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(3) (1994 ed.) (repealed 1996). IIRIRA repealed this provision and, to drive home the point, specifically provided that "[s]ervice of the petition [for judicial review] does not stay the removal of an alien pending the court's decision on the petition, unless the court orders otherwise." § 1252(b)(3)(B) (2006 ed.) (emphasis added). In addition, "many provisions of IIRIRA are aimed at protecting the Executive's discretion from the courts." Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 486 (1999) (emphasis deleted). Indeed, "protecting the Executive's discretion from the courts can fairly be said to be the theme of the legislation." Ibid. Section 1252(f)(2), which provides that a court may not block removal during the judicial review process [p444] unless a heightened standard is met, fits perfectly within this scheme.

The Court's interpretation, by contrast, produces anomalous results. If § 1252(f)(2) does not provide the standard to be used by the courts in determining whether an alien should be permitted to remain in this country pending judicial review, then IIRIRA left the formulation of that standard entirely to the discretion of the courts. A Congress that sought to expedite removal and limit judicial discretion is unlikely to have taken that approach.

More important, if § 1252(f)(2) does not set the standard for blocking removal pending judicial review, then, as the Court concedes, "the exact role of subsection (f)(2) is not easy to explain." Ante, at 431. "In construing a statute we are obliged to give effect, if possible, to every word Congress used." Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339 (1979). We should not lightly conclude that Congress enacted a provision that serves no function, and the Court's hyper-technical distinction between an injunction and a stay does not provide a sufficient justification for adopting an interpretation that renders § 1252(f)(2) meaningless. That result is particularly anomalous in the context of § 1252(f)(2), which Congress said should apply "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law."

3
Third, if stays and injunctions really are two entirely distinct concepts, the order that petitioner sought here is best viewed as an injunction. Insofar as there is a difference between the two concepts, I agree with the Court that it boils down to this: "A stay 'simply suspend[s] judicial alteration of the status quo, whereas an injunction grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts. Ante, at 429 (quoting Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313 (1986) (, J., in chambers)). See also Black's 1413 (defining a stay as an "act of arresting a judicial proceeding by the order of a court"). [p445] Here, petitioner did not seek an order "suspend[ing] judicial alteration of the status quo." Instead, he sought an order barring Executive Branch officials from removing him from the country. Such an order is best viewed as an injunction. See McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317, 1317, n. 1 (1976) (Powell, J., in chambers) (although applicants claimed to seek a "stay," the court granted an "injunction" because "the applicants actually [sought] affirmative relief" against executive officials).

Even if petitioner had sought to block his removal pending judicial review of the order of removal, any interim order blocking his removal would best be termed an injunction. When the Board affirmed petitioner's final removal order in 2006, it gave the Executive Branch all of the legal authority it needed to remove petitioner from the United States immediately. An order preventing an executive officer from exercising that authority does not "simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo." Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, supra, at 1313. Instead, such an order is most properly termed an injunction because it blocks executive officials from carrying out what they view as proper enforcement of the immigration laws. And in that regard, it is significant that the Hobbs Act—which governs judicial review under IIRIRA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)—refers to an "application for an interlocutory injunction restraining or suspending the enforcement, operation, or execution of, or setting aside" a final administrative order. 28 U.S.C. § 2349(b) (emphasis added).

In the present case, however, petitioner did not seek to block his removal pending judicial review of his final order of removal. That review concluded long ago. What petitioner asked for was an order barring the Executive Branch from removing him pending judicial review of an entirely different order, the Board's order denying his third motion to reopen the proceedings. Petitioner's current petition for review does not contest the correctness of the removal order. [p446] Rather, he argues that the Board should have set aside that order due to alleged changes in conditions in his home country. A motion to reopen an administrative proceeding that is no longer subject to direct judicial review surely seeks an order altering the legal status quo. Ante, at 429 (majority opinion) (quoting Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers)). Consequently, the relief that petitioner sought here is best categorized as an injunction.

= III =

In addition to its highly technical distinction between an injunction and a stay, the Court advances several other justifications for its decision, but none is persuasive.

The Court argues that applying 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2) would "deprive" us of our customary' stay power." Ante, at 433. As noted above, however, restricting judicial discretion was "the theme" of IIRIRA, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S., at 486. And Congress is free to regulate or eliminate the relief that federal courts may award, within constitutional limits that the Court does not invoke here. Cf. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 299–300 (2001).

The Court opines that subsection (b)(3)(B)—not subsection (f)(2)—is "the natural place to locate an amendment to the traditional standard governing the grant of stays." Ante, at 431. But I would not read too much into Congress' decision to locate such a provision in one subsection rather than in another subsection of the same provision. In addition, there is also nothing "unnatural" about Congress' use of two separate subsections of § 1252 to address a common subject. For example, § 1252(a)(2)(A) lists several matters over which "no court shall have jurisdiction to review," while § 1252(g) lists another subject over which "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim." The fact that those provisions are separated by five subsections and framed in slightly [p447] different terms does not justify ignoring them, just as the space and difference in terminology between § 1252(b)(3)(B) and § 1252(f)(2) cannot justify the Court's result.

Noting that the term "stay" is used in § 1252(b)(3)(B) but not in § 1252(f)(2), the Court infers that Congress did not intend that the latter provision apply to stays. Ante, at 430–431. But the use of the term "stay" in subsection (b)(3)(B) is easy to explain. As noted above, prior to IIRIRA, the Immigration and Nationality Act provided for an automatic "stay" of deportation upon the filing of a petition for review unless the court of appeals directed otherwise. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(3) (1994 ed.) (repealed 1996). The statute provided:

"The service of the petition for review upon [the Attorney General's agents] shall stay the deportation of the alien pending determination of the petition by the court unless the court otherwise directs " Ibid. (emphasis added).

In IIRIRA, Congress repealed that provision and, to make sure that the pre-IIRIRA practice would not be continued, enacted a new provision that explicitly inverted the prior rule:

"Service of the petition on the officer or employee does not stay the removal of an alien pending the court's decision on the petition, unless the court orders otherwise." § 1252(b)(3)(B) (2006 ed.) (emphasis added).

It is thus apparent that § 1252(b)(3)(B) uses the term "stay" because that is the term that was used in the provision that it replaced.

Finally, the Court worries that applying § 1252(f)(2) would create inequitable results by allowing removable aliens to remain in the United States only if they can prove the merits of their claims under a "higher standard" than the one they would otherwise have to satisfy. Ante, at 432–433. But as the Court acknowledges, ante, at 424, IIRIRA specifically [p448] contemplated that most aliens wishing to contest final orders of removal would be forced to pursue their appeals from abroad. See § 306(b), 110 Stat. 3009–612 (repealing 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1994 ed.)). If such an alien seeks to remain in the United States pending judicial review, IIRIRA provides that the alien must make the heightened showing required under § 1252(f)(2). Congress did not think that this scheme is inequitable, and we must heed what § 1252(f)(2) prescribes.

In my view, the Fourth Circuit was correct to apply § 1252(f)(2) and to deny petitioner's application for an order barring his removal pending judicial review. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

title: Nken v. Holder/Dissent Alito


text:
Nken v. Holder/Concurrence Kennedy

, with whom joins, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion and agree that the traditional four-part standard governs an application to stay the removal of an alien pending judicial review. This is the less stringent of the two standards at issue. See Kenyeres v. Ashcroft, 538 U.S. 1301, 1303–1305 (2003) (, J., in chambers).

It seems appropriate to underscore that in most cases the debate about which standard should apply will have little practical effect provided the court considering the stay application adheres to the demanding standard set forth. A stay of removal is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted in the ordinary case, much less awarded as of right. Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672–673 (1926); see also Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).

No party has provided the Court with empirical data on the number of stays granted, the correlation between stays granted and ultimate success on the merits, or similar matters. The statistics would be helpful so that experience can demonstrate whether this decision yields a fair and effective result. Then, too, Congress can evaluate whether its policy objectives are being realized by the legislation it has enacted. Based on the Government's representations at oral argument, however, there are grounds for concern. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35 ("[W]e do not have empirical data, but [stays of removal] are—in the Ninth Circuit in our experience—  granted quite frequently"). This concern is of particular importance in those Circuits with States on our international borders. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for example, considers over half of all immigration petitions filed nationwide, and immigration cases compose nearly half of the Ninth Circuit's docket. See Catterson, Symposium, Ninth Circuit Conference: Changes in Appellate Caseload and Its Processing, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 287, 297 (2006).

[p438] Under either standard, even the less stringent standard the Court adopts today, courts should not grant stays of removal on a routine basis. The passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009–546, reinforces this point. Before IIRIRA, aliens who left the United States no longer had the ability to seek review of their removal orders, see 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (1994 ed.) (repealed 1996), so they could more easily have established irreparable harm due to their removal. It is perhaps for this reason Congress decided to "stay the deportation of [an] alien pending determination of the petition by the court, unless the court otherwise direct[ed]." § 1105a(a)(3) (same). IIRIRA, however, removed that prohibition (as well as the automatic stay provision), and courts may now review petitions after aliens have been removed. See Brief for Respondent 44; ante, at 424, 435; post, at 443, 447 (, J., dissenting).

This change should mean that obtaining a stay of removal is more difficult. Under the Court's four-part standard, the alien must show both irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the merits, in addition to establishing that the interests of the parties and the public weigh in his or her favor. Ante, at 434–435. As the Court explains, because aliens may continue to seek review and obtain relief after removal, "the burden of removal alone cannot constitute the requisite irreparable injury." Ante, at 435. As a result of IIRIRA there must be a particularized, irreparable harm beyond mere removal to justify a stay.

That is not to say that demonstration of irreparable harm, without more, is sufficient to justify a stay of removal. The Court has held that "[a] stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result." Virginian R. Co., supra, at 672. When considering success on the merits and irreparable harm, courts cannot dispense with the required showing of one simply because there is a strong likelihood of the other. This is evident in the decisions of Justices [p439] of the Court applying the traditional factors. See, e.g., Curry v. Baker, 479 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1986) (Powell, J., in chambers) ("It is no doubt true that, absent [a stay], the applicant here will suffer irreparable injury. This fact alone is not sufficient to justify a stay"); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 463 U.S. 1315, 1317 (1983) (Blackmun, J., in chambers) ("[L]ikelihood of success on the merits need not be considered if the applicant fails to show irreparable injury from the denial of the stay"). As those decisions make clear, the applicant must meet a heavy burden of showing not only that the judgment of the lower court was erroneous on the merits, but also that the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the judgment is not stayed pending his appeal. Williams v. Zbaraz, 442 U.S. 1309, 1311 (1979) (, J., in chambers) (quoting Whalen v. Roe, 423 U.S. 1313, 1316 (1975) (Marshall, J., in chambers)).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Nken v. Holder/Concurrence Kennedy


text:
Page:Essays on the Chinese Language (1889).djvu/345

Rh has seen all the great nations of Europe coming to ask for trade and treaties and for the privilege of living in China. Her subjects also have travelled to foreign lands and mixed largely with the “Ocean men.” They have read books which tell of the arts and sciences, the natural and artificial products, and the languages and religions of all countries. Some of them have even compiled such books or otherwise described the foreign lands and peoples with which they became personally acquainted.

Reserving the consideration of Indian words in Chinese for the next Chapter I now give some examples of foreign other than Indian terms to be found in the spoken or written language. The examples to be given do not belong in an equal degree to what is properly the language of China. Some of them, it will be observed, have been for a long time treated not as aliens but as citizens, while others are at most only tolerated as recent squatters from abroad. Some, moreover, are recognised as current only in one part of the empire, or in certain districts, or among peculiar classes and societies. It must also be admitted that the foreign words in Chinese, brought together here, are only examples, only occasional specimens picked up by the way. They are not discoveries reached by patient study and critical research directed to that end, but merely findings in the desultory reading of an indolent amateur.

Honouring, as is meet, the classical languages of ancient Greece and Rome we begin our circuit with them. It cannot surprise us, however, to find that very few expressions from these languages seem to have found their way into Chinese. Even the names of the countries seem to have been scarcely known in the Midlde Kingdom until a comparatively modern period. Among the specially educated native scholars we find a few who know at least the name Latin. This word is transcribed la-t‘i-na (拉體納) and la-t‘i-no (喇提諾), and it occurs now and then in the writings of scholars who profess to describe European countries. It is used to designate our Western letters and writing.

We find, however, certain terms, even in a comparatively early period of the Chinese language, which seem to have at least


text:
Nken v. Holder/Opinion of the Court

delivered the opinion of the Court.

It takes time to decide a case on appeal. Sometimes a little; sometimes a lot. "No court can make time stand still" while it considers an appeal, Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4, 9 (1942), and if a court takes the time it needs, the court's decision may in some cases come too late for the party seeking review. That is why it "has always been held, that as part of its traditional equipment for the administration of justice, a federal court can stay the enforcement of a judgment pending the outcome of an appeal." Id., at 9–10 (footnote omitted). A stay does not make time stand still, but does hold a ruling in abeyance to allow an appellate court the time necessary to review it.

[p422] This case involves a statutory provision that sharply restricts the circumstances under which a court may issue an injunction blocking the removal of an alien from this country. The Court of Appeals concluded, and the Government contends, that this provision applies to the granting of a stay by a court of appeals while it considers the legality of a removal order. Petitioner disagrees, and maintains that the authority of a court of appeals to stay an order of removal under the traditional criteria governing stays remains fully intact, and is not affected by the statutory provision governing injunctions. We agree with petitioner, and vacate and remand for application of the traditional criteria.

= I =

Jean Marc Nken, a citizen of Cameroon, entered the United States on a transit visa in April 2001. In December 2001, he applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of removal under § 1231(b)(3), and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, p. 20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, see 8 CFR § 208.17 (2008). In his application, Nken claimed he had been persecuted in the past for participation in protests against the Cameroonian Government, and would be subject to further persecution if he returns to Cameroon.

An Immigration Judge denied Nken relief after concluding that he was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and also declined to remand for consideration of Nken's application for adjustment of status based on his marriage to an American citizen. After the BIA denied a motion to reopen, Nken filed a petition for review of the BIA's removal order in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His petition was denied. Nken then filed a second motion to reopen, which was also denied, followed by a second petition for review, which was denied as well.

[p423] Nken filed a third motion to reopen, this time alleging that changed circumstances in Cameroon made his persecution more likely. The BIA denied the motion, finding that Nken had not presented sufficient facts or evidence of changed country conditions. Nken again sought review in the Court of Appeals, and also moved to stay his deportation pending resolution of his appeal. In his motion, Nken recognized that Fourth Circuit precedent required an alien seeking to stay a removal order to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the order was "prohibited as a matter of law," 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2). See Teshome-Gebreegziabher v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 330 (CA4 2008). Nken argued, however, that this standard did not govern. The Court of Appeals denied Nken's motion without comment. App. 74.

Nken then applied to this Court for a stay of removal pending adjudication of his petition for review, and asked in the alternative that we grant certiorari to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on what standard governs a request for such a stay. Compare Teshome-Gebreegziabher, supra, at 335, and Weng v. United States Atty. Gen., 287 F.3d 1335 (CA11 2002) (per curiam), with Arevalo v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 1 (CA1 2003), Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95 (CA2 2002), Douglas v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 230 (CA3 2004), Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 169 (CA5 2005), Bejjani v. INS, 271 F.3d 670 (CA6 2001), Hor v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 482 (CA7 2005), and Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477 (CA9 2001) (en banc). We granted certiorari, and stayed petitioner's removal pending further order of this Court. Nken v. Mukasey, 555 U.S. 1042 (2008).

= II =

The question we agreed to resolve stems from changes in judicial review of immigration procedures brought on by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009–546, which substantially amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), [p424] 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. When Congress passed IIRIRA, it "repealed the old judicial-review scheme set forth in [8 U.S.C.] § 1105a and instituted a new (and significantly more restrictive) one in 8 U.S.C. § 1252." Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 475 (1999) (AAADC). The new review system substantially limited the availability of judicial review and streamlined all challenges to a removal order into a single proceeding: the petition for review. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (barring review of certain removal orders and exercises of executive discretion); § 1252(b)(3)(C) (establishing strict filing and briefing deadlines for review proceedings); § 1252(b)(9) (consolidating challenges into petition for review). Three changes effected by IIRIRA are of particular importance to this case.

Before IIRIRA, courts of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the deportation order of an alien who had already left the United States. See § 1105a(c) (1994 ed.) ("An order of deportation or of exclusion shall not be reviewed by any court if [the alien] has departed from the United States after the issuance of the order"). Accordingly, an alien who appealed a decision of the BIA was typically entitled to remain in the United States for the duration of judicial review. This was achieved through a provision providing most aliens with an automatic stay of their removal order while judicial review was pending. See § 1105a(a)(3) ("The service of the petition for review shall stay the deportation of the alien pending determination of the petition by the court, unless the court otherwise directs").

IIRIRA inverted these provisions to allow for more prompt removal. First, Congress lifted the ban on adjudication of a petition for review once an alien has departed. See IIRIRA § 306(b), 110 Stat. 3009–612 (repealing § 1105a). Second, because courts were no longer prohibited from proceeding with review once an alien departed, see [p425] Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 22 (2008), Congress repealed the presumption of an automatic stay, and replaced it with the following: "Service of the petition on the officer or employee does not stay the removal of an alien pending the court's decision on the petition, unless the court orders otherwise." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(B) (2006 ed.).

Finally, IIRIRA restricted the availability of injunctive relief:

"Limit on injunctive relief

"(1) In general

"Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by [IIRIRA], other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.

"(2) Particular cases

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law." § 1252(f).

This provision, particularly subsection (f)(2), is the source of the parties' disagreement.

= III =

The parties agree that courts of appeals considering a petition for review of a removal order may prevent that order from taking effect and therefore block removal while adjudicating the petition. They disagree over the standard a court should apply in deciding whether to do so. Nken argues that the "traditional" standard for a stay applies. Under [p426] that standard, a court considers four factors: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

The Government disagrees, arguing that a stay is simply a form of injunction, or alternatively that the relief petitioner seeks is more accurately characterized as injunctive, and therefore that the limits on injunctive relief set forth in subsection (f)(2) apply. Under that provision, a court may not "enjoin" the removal of an alien subject to a final removal order, "unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2). Mindful that statutory interpretation turns on "the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole," Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997), we conclude that the traditional stay factors—not § 1252(f)(2)—govern a request for a stay pending judicial review.

A
An appellate court's power to hold an order in abeyance while it assesses the legality of the order has been described as "inherent," preserved in the grant of authority to federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law," All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See In re McKenzie, 180 U.S. 536, 551 (1901). The Court highlighted the historic pedigree and importance of the power in Scripps-Howard, 316 U.S. 4, holding in that case that Congress's failure expressly to confer the authority in a statute allowing appellate review should not be taken as an implicit denial of that power.

[p427] The Court in Scripps-Howard did not decide what "criteria should govern the Court in exercising th[e] power" to grant a stay. Id., at 17. Nor did the Court consider under what circumstances Congress could deny that authority. See ibid. The power to grant a stay pending review, however, was described as part of a court's "traditional equipment for the administration of justice." Id., at 9–10. That authority was "firmly imbedded in our judicial system," "consonant with the historic procedures of federal appellate courts," and "a power as old as the judicial system of the nation." Id., at 13, 17.

The authority to hold an order in abeyance pending review allows an appellate court to act responsibly. A reviewing court must bring considered judgment to bear on the matter before it, but that cannot always be done quickly enough to afford relief to the party aggrieved by the order under review. The choice for a reviewing court should not be between justice on the fly or participation in what may be an "idle ceremony." Id., at 10. The ability to grant interim relief is accordingly not simply "[a]n historic procedure for preserving rights during the pendency of an appeal," id., at 15, but also a means of ensuring that appellate courts can responsibly fulfill their role in the judicial process.

At the same time, a reviewing court may not resolve a conflict between considered review and effective relief by reflexively holding a final order in abeyance pending review. A stay is an "intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review," Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Assn. v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (CADC 1958) (per curiam), and accordingly "is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant," Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926). The parties and the public, while entitled to both careful review and a meaningful decision, are also generally entitled to the prompt execution of orders that the legislature has made final. [p428]

B
Subsection (f)(2) does not by its terms refer to "stays" but instead to the authority to "enjoin the removal of any alien." The parties accordingly begin by disputing whether a stay is simply a type of injunction, covered by the term "enjoin," or a different form of relief. An injunction and a stay have typically been understood to serve different purposes. The former is a means by which a court tells someone what to do or not to do. When a court employs "the extraordinary remedy of injunction," Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982), it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers. See Black's Law Dictionary 784 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "injunction" as "[a] court order prohibiting someone from doing some specified act or commanding someone to undo some wrong or injury").

It is true that [i]n a general sense, every order of a court which commands or forbids is an injunction; but in its accepted legal sense, an injunction is a judicial process or mandate operating in personam. Id., at 800 (8th ed. 2004) (quoting 1 H. Joyce, A Treatise on the Law Relating to Injunctions § 1, pp. 2–3 (1909)). This is so whether the injunction is preliminary or final; in both contexts, the order is directed at someone, and governs that party's conduct.

By contrast, instead of directing the conduct of a particular actor, a stay operates upon the judicial proceeding itself. It does so either by halting or postponing some portion of the proceeding, or by temporarily divesting an order of enforceability. See Black's, supra, at 1413 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "stay" as "a suspension of the case or some designated proceedings within it").

A stay pending appeal certainly has some functional overlap with an injunction, particularly a preliminary one. Both can have the practical effect of preventing some action before the legality of that action has been conclusively determined. But a stay achieves this result by temporarily suspending [p429] the source of authority to act—the order or judgment in question—not by directing an actor's conduct. A stay "simply suspend[s] judicial alteration of the status quo," while injunctive relief "grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts." Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313 (1986) (, J., in chambers); see also Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers) ("[A]pplicants are seeking not merely a stay of a lower court judgment, but an injunction against the enforcement of a presumptively valid state statute"); Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1993) (same) ("By seeking an injunction, applicants request that I issue an order altering the legal status quo").

An alien seeking a stay of removal pending adjudication of a petition for review does not ask for a coercive order against the Government, but rather for the temporary setting aside of the source of the Government's authority to remove. Although such a stay acts to "ba[r] Executive Branch officials from removing [the applicant] from the country," post, at 445 (, J., dissenting), it does so by returning to the status quo—the state of affairs before the removal order was entered. That kind of stay, "relat[ing] only to [p430] the conduct or progress of litigation before th[e] court[,] ordinarily is not considered an injunction." Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279 (1988); see Fed. Rule App. Proc. 8(a)(1)(A) (referring to interim relief from "the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal" as "a stay"). Whether such a stay might technically be called an injunction is beside the point; that is not the label by which it is generally known. The sun may be a star, but "starry sky" does not refer to a bright summer day. The terminology of subsection (f)(2) does not comfortably cover stays.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when Congress wanted to refer to a stay pending adjudication of a petition for review in § 1252, it used the word "stay." In subsection (b)(3)(B), under the heading "Stay of order," Congress provided that service of a petition for review "does not stay the removal of an alien pending the court's decision on the petition, unless the court orders otherwise." By contrast, the language of subsection (f) says nothing about stays, but is instead titled "Limit on injunctive relief," and refers to the authority of courts to "enjoin the removal of any alien." § 1252(f)(2).

"[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is particularly true here, where subsections (b)(3)(B) and (f)(2) were [p431] enacted as part of a unified overhaul of judicial review procedures.

Subsection (b)(3)(B) changed the basic rules covering stays of removal, and would have been the natural place to locate an amendment to the traditional standard governing the grant of stays. Under the Government's view, however, Congress placed such a provision four subsections later, in a subsection that makes no mention of stays, next to a provision prohibiting classwide injunctions against the operation of removal provisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) (permitting injunctions only "with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien"); AAADC, 525 U.S., at 481–482. Although the dissent "would not read too much into Congress' decision to locate such a provision in one subsection rather than in another," post, at 446, the Court frequently takes Congress's structural choices into consideration when interpreting statutory provisions. See, e.g., Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 47 (2008).

The Government counters that petitioner's view "fails to give any operative effect to Section 1252(f)(2)." Brief for Respondent 32. Initially, this argument undercuts the Government's textual reading. It is one thing to propose that "enjoin" in subsection (f)(2) covers a broad spectrum of court orders and relief, including both stays and more typical injunctions. It is quite another to suggest that Congress used "enjoin" to refer exclusively to stays, so that a failure to include stays in subsection (f)(2) would render the provision superfluous. If nothing else, the terms are by no means synonymous.

Leaving that aside, there is something to the Government's point; the exact role of subsection (f)(2) under petitioner's view is not easy to explain. Congress may have been concerned about the possibility that courts would enjoin application of particular provisions of the INA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) (prohibiting injunctions "other than with [p432] respect to the application of [part IV of the INA] to an individual alien"), or about injunctions that might be available under the limited habeas provisions of subsection (e). Or perhaps subsection (f)(2) was simply included as a catchall provision raising the bar on any availability (even unforeseeable availability) of "the extraordinary remedy of injunction." Weinberger, 456 U.S., at 312. In any event, the Government's point is not enough to outweigh the strong indications that subsection (f)(2) is not reasonably understood to be directed at stays.

C
Applying the subsection (f)(2) standard to stays pending appeal would not fulfill the historic office of such a stay. The whole idea is to hold the matter under review in abeyance because the appellate court lacks sufficient time to decide the merits. Under the subsection (f)(2) standard, however, a stay would only be granted after the court in effect decides the merits, in an expedited manner. The court would have to do so under a standard—"clear and convincing evidence"—that does not so much preserve the availability of subsequent review as render it redundant. Subsection (f)(2), in short, would invert the customary role of a stay, requiring a definitive merits decision earlier rather than later.

The authority to grant stays has historically been justified by the perceived need "to prevent irreparable injury to the parties or to the public" pending review. Scripps-Howard, 316 U.S., at 9. Subsection (f)(2) on its face, however, does not allow any consideration of harm, irreparable or otherwise, even harm that may deprive the movant of his right to petition for review of the removal order. Subsection (f)(2) does not resolve the dilemma stays historically addressed: what to do when there is insufficient time to resolve the merits and irreparable harm may result from delay. The provision instead requires deciding the merits under a higher [p433] standard, without regard to the prospect of irreparable harm.

In short, applying the subsection (f)(2) standard in the stay context results in something that does not remotely look like a stay. Just like the Court in Scripps-Howard, we are loath to conclude that Congress would, "without clearly expressing such a purpose, deprive the Court of Appeals of its customary power to stay orders under review." Id., at 11. Subsection (f)(2) would certainly deprive courts of their "customary" stay power. Our review does not convince us that Congress did that in subsection (f)(2). The four-factor test is the "traditional" one, Hilton, 481 U.S., at 777, and the Government has not overcome the "presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident," Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952). We agree with petitioner that an alien need not satisfy the demanding standard of § 1252(f)(2) when asking a court of appeals to stay removal pending judicial review.

= IV =

So what standard does govern? The question presented, as noted, offers the alternative of the traditional test for stays, 555 U.S., at 1042, but the parties dispute what that test is. See Brief for Respondent 46 ("[T]he four-part standard requires a more demanding showing than petitioner suggests"); Reply Brief for Petitioner 26 ("The Government argues that the [stay] test should be reformulated").

"A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result." Virginian R. Co., 272 U.S., at 672. It is instead "an exercise of judicial discretion," and "[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case." Id., at 672–673; see Hilton, supra, at 777 ("[T]he traditional stay factors contemplate individualized judgments in each case"). The party requesting a stay [p434] bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion. See, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997); Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936).

The fact that the issuance of a stay is left to the court's discretion "does not mean that no legal standard governs that discretion '[A] motion to [a court's] discretion is a motion, not to its inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139 (2005) (quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.)). As noted earlier, those legal principles have been distilled into consideration of four factors: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Hilton, supra, at 776. There is substantial overlap between these and the factors governing preliminary injunctions, see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); not because the two are one and the same, but because similar concerns arise whenever a court order may allow or disallow anticipated action before the legality of that action has been conclusively determined.

The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical. It is not enough that the chance of success on the merits be "better than negligible." Sofinet v. INS, 188 F.3d 703, 707 (CA7 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even petitioner acknowledges that "[m]ore than a mere 'possibility' of relief is required." Reply Brief for Petitioner 21 (quoting Brief for Respondent 47). By the same token, simply showing some "possibility of irreparable injury," Abbassi v. INS, 143 F.3d 513, 514 (CA9 1998), fails to satisfy the [p435] second factor. As the Court pointed out earlier this Term, the possibility' standard is too lenient." Winter, supra, at 22.

Although removal is a serious burden for many aliens, it is not categorically irreparable, as some courts have said. See, e.g., Ofosu v. McElroy, 98 F.3d 694, 699 (CA2 1996) ("Ordinarily, when a party seeks [a stay] pending appeal, it is deemed that exclusion is an irreparable harm"); see also Petitioner's Emergency Motion for a Stay 12 ("[T]he equities particularly favor the alien facing deportation in immigration cases where failure to grant the stay would result in deportation before the alien has been able to obtain judicial review").

The automatic stay prior to IIRIRA reflected a recognition of the irreparable nature of harm from removal before decision on a petition for review, given that the petition abated upon removal. Congress's decision in IIRIRA to allow continued prosecution of a petition after removal eliminated the reason for categorical stays, as reflected in the repeal of the automatic stay in subsection (b)(3)(B). It is accordingly plain that the burden of removal alone cannot constitute the requisite irreparable injury. Aliens who are removed may continue to pursue their petitions for review, and those who prevail can be afforded effective relief by facilitation of their return, along with restoration of the immigration status they had upon removal. See Brief for Respondent 44.

Once an applicant satisfies the first two factors, the traditional stay inquiry calls for assessing the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest. These factors merge when the Government is the opposing party. In considering them, courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible, as some courts have concluded. See, e.g., [p436] Mohammed, 309 F.3d, at 102 (Government harm is nothing more than "one alien [being] permitted to remain while an appeal is decided"); Ofosu, supra, at 699 (the Government "suffers no offsetting injury" in removal cases).

Of course there is a public interest in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm. But that is no basis for the blithe assertion of an "absence of any injury to the public interest" when a stay is granted. Petitioner's Emergency Motion for a Stay 13. There is always a public interest in prompt execution of removal orders: The continued presence of an alien lawfully deemed removable undermines the streamlined removal proceedings IIRIRA established, and "permit[s] and prolong[s] a continuing violation of United States law." AAADC, 525 U.S., at 490. The interest in prompt removal may be heightened by the circumstances as well—if, for example, the alien is particularly dangerous, or has substantially prolonged his stay by abusing the processes provided to him. See ibid. ("Postponing justifiable deportation (in the hope that the alien's status will change—by, for example, marriage to an American citizen—or simply with the object of extending the alien's unlawful stay) is often the principal object of resistance to a deportation proceeding"). A court asked to stay removal cannot simply assume that "[o]rdinarily, the balance of hardships will weigh heavily in the applicant's favor." Andreiu, 253 F.3d, at 484.

The Court of Appeals did not indicate what standard it applied in denying Nken a stay, but Circuit precedent required the application of § 1252(f)(2). Because we have concluded that § 1252(f)(2) does not govern, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for consideration of Nken's motion for a stay under the standards set forth in this opinion.

It is so ordered.

title: Nken v. Holder/Opinion of the Court


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/1


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/2


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/3


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/4


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/5


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/6


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/173

 represents the whistling of bullets. In Dinorah lightning is imitated by means of an ascending scale on the piccolo, the flute playing a descending scale in the opposite direction. In his Kronungs March we find two piccolos , Robert le Diable, Valse Infernale (for voices, piccolo, trumpets and cornets, trombones, tuba, triangle and cymbals). and two flutes all playing separate parts simultaneously. Two piccolos and two flutes soli are used in L'Êtoile du Nord, and in the Soldiers' March there are four piccolos on the stage, but they play only two distinct parts. In Ib. Dance of the Nuns. the overture to Dinorah we again find two piccolos and two flutes used. He frequently uses the piccolo without the flute, and sometimes in very curious combinationse.g., with the cor anglais or with the bass clarinet. "Piff", paff," sung by the soldier Marcel in The Huguenots (i.) is accompanied solely by the piccolo, cymbals pianissimo, four bassoons, big drum, and double bass pizzicato; the piccolo, as an introduction,


text:
Talk:GB1893 15805

See
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/035242426/publication/GB189315805A?q=pn%3DGB189315805 -- Beardo (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:GB1893 15805


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/174

 shaking successively on G, G♯, A, and B. This song gave rise to Rossini's sarcastic comment, "musique champetre." In the finale to Act I. we find the piccolo, viola, bassoons, and trombones united; in the Bohemian rondo (act iii.) we have the piccolo, flute, drum de basque, and triangle; also the piccolo, trumpet, drums, and horns. In the valse in L'Êtoile (ii.) we have the piccolo, bassoon, 'celli, and double-basses: and in the gallop in Le Prophéte the piccolo, flute, and triangle have a very important solo passage.

Meyerbeer's treatment of the flute is masterly. He uses it largely to brighten the strings; bringing out all its charm and sweetness, all its descriptive and dramatic powers. In the dream scene in Le Prophéte a mystical effect is produced by the low notes of the flute (right down to lowest C), accompanied by violins playing arpeggios, drum, and cymbals. In "L'Exorcisme" (iv.) two flutes and a piccolo are used along with violas, divided violins, and a cor anglais to create an ethereal effect at the words, "Que la sainte lumiére descende sur ton front." In the prelude to the song, "Quand je quittais la Normandie," in Robert le Diable, the flutes, in conjunction with the oboes and clarinets, are most delightfully handled, echoing and interlacing each other, as it were. In Les Huguenots the flute has many florid solo passages, and is given a long cadenza in the prelude to Act II. He frequently combines the flute with the harp, and in Dinorah (ii.) produces a peculiar effect by means of the flute and some harmonic sounds of the


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/7


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/8


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/9


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/10

iv


text: National Geographic Magazine/Volume 16/The Supposed Birthplace of Civilizations


text: The Moving Picture Boys and the Flood

title: The Moving Picture Boys and the Flood


text:
Author:Renzo Novatore

Works

 * The Collected Writings of Renzo Novatore translated by Wolfi Landstreicher (2012)

title: Author:Renzo Novatore


text: Page:Novatore - The collected writings of Renzo Novatore, 2012.djvu/6


text: Page:Novatore - The collected writings of Renzo Novatore, 2012.djvu/7


text: Page:Novatore - The collected writings of Renzo Novatore, 2012.djvu/13


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/175

 harp, which are heard above the melody which is sung out by the 'cellos.

The solo "Dall' Aurora," in L'Êtoile du Nord, is accompanied by a double obligato on two flutesone flute is behind the scene and the other is on the stage, and has a cadenza along with the voice. Chorley remarks that this trio is "better as a concert-piece, Cadenza in Les Huguenots ii. than when heard in the opera, because there the songstress must remain at such a distance from both instruments (the flautist on the stage being merely a mime) that all the intimacy of response and dialogue is lost, and the effect is that of a soprano scrambling against a double echo." It was performed at the Philharmonic Concerts in 1857 (Pratten and Card) and in


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/176

 1868 (Svendsen and Card), and by Madame Albani and Messrs. Fransella and Warner-Hollis at the Norwich Festival of 1899. Bach has accompanied a soprano aria with two flutes in several of his works, and Verdi accompanies the soprano and contralto voices in his "Agnus Dei" (Requiem) with three flutes: these, however, are not, strictly speaking, obligatos.

The Italian operatic composers, Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini, etc., write melodious passages for the flute, often in unison with the voice or the violin. A notable obligato occurs in the mad scene in Lucia de Lammermoor, which has given rise to the remark that whenever the principal female character in opera becomes distraught with passion or grief, her recovery is marked by a flute , Overture, Scmiramide. obligato! Rossini frequently combines the flute with the oboe or clarinet in rapid passages; as in the overtures to La Gazza Ladra and Semiramide, in the latter the above well-known passage is given first to the


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/11

", this looks bad, Joe! It sure does!"

"What's that, Blake? Must be quite serious, to make you sit up and take notice."

"It is! Look at the scare head!" and the speaker held out, for the inspection of his companion, a newspaper the front page of which fairly bristled with black type.

They were two youths, sitting under a cherry tree, on the green grass of a lawn which fronted a farmhouse. They were evidently taking their ease, or had been, for there were comfortable chairs near them, two hammocks, and a pile of magazines, while on a board seat, built into a crotch of the cherry tree, was a large pitcher of lemonade. And if that doesn't show comfort on a warm, sunny June day I don't know what does.


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/12

2 "Where'd you get that paper?" asked Joe Duncan, as he accepted the sheet his companion, Blake Stewart, passed over.

"It came in the mail, but I didn't take it out of the wrapper until a second ago. It's yesterday's. Some news that; eh?"

"It sure is," and as Joe began to read, Blake looked over his shoulder, murmuring such expressions as: "Worst flood in years! Many houses swept away! Toll of lives will be heavy! Many deeds of heroism! Mississippi on great rampage!"

What Blake gave expression to was merely quoted from some of the lines in the heading of the article that had so excited him and his chum. It was a telegraphed story of a big flood on the Mississippi, which, the article stated, was higher than it had been in years, while unusually heavy spring rains had added to the terrors of the rising waters.

"That sure is some flood!" murmured Joe, as he reached the bottom of the newspaper page, and turned the sheet over. "Hello!" he cried. "They've got some pictures of it, too!"

Almost all of the second page was taken up with half-tone cuts of scenes in the flooded districts. There were views of overturned houses being swept down a turbulent stream, pictures of half-demolished buildings, jammed together into


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/13

Rh a rude sort of raft, on which could be seen farm animals; views of whole towns partly inundated, and people being taken from roofs and out of third-story windows in small boats. It was a photographic story of untold misery and desolation.

"Yes, sir, that sure is some flood, Blake," murmured Joe. "And do you know what I think?"

"I might make a guess at it, old man."

But Joe did not give his chum a chance. He went on hastily:

"I think we ought to go out there with our moving picture cameras, and get some films of that flood."

"I thought you were going to say that."

"Then you're not surprised. But how does it strike you?"

"Well, I sure would like to see the Mississippi on a tear the like of which she's having now, for it would be something worth remembering And I suppose we could make a neat little sum, over and above our expenses, if we went out there and got a lot of films. We could work them off through the moving picture newspaper syndicate easily enough. But you know why we came out here to Central Falls; don't you, Joe?" added Blake.

"To get a good rest in the country, of course."


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/14

4 "That's it, and we're getting it. There isn't anything I like better than this," and Blake, who had stretched out in lazy luxury on the grass, looked up at the blue sky, and into the cherry tree, which was laden with luscious fruit. "All I want now is a robin to come along, pick the cherries and drop them down to me," went on Blake, with a grin.

"Say, you don't want much," laughed Joe. "But it sure is nice here," and he looked across the fertile farm acres that stretched away to the rear, and on either side of the comfortable house, in the shade of which they were taking their ease.

"Finest place we could strike to spend a vacation," agreed Blake.

"But, all the same, I think we're missing a chance if we don't go out there and get some Mississippi flood pictures," went on Joe. "How does it strike you?"

"Say, I wish you hadn't mentioned it, Joe! Now you've got me going! If we hadn't seen a big story of it in the papers we'd be content to sit here, and take it easy. But, now that the germ has got to working"

"Then you'll go there with me, and take our moving picture cameras along; won't you?" interrupted Joe, eagerly. "I tell you we may never have another chance like this!


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/15

Rh "We've got pictures of earthquakes, of volcanoes in eruption, of wild animals fighting, and lots of other exciting things. But we never yet tackled a flood," went on Joe, with ever-growing enthusiasm. "And you know moving water always shows up well on the films."

"Oh, I can see what all this is leading to," broke in Blake. "Good-bye to all the fine, lazy times we've been having the last two weeks. No more lying in bed as long as you like—no more chicken dinners—we'll be lucky if we can hold a sandwich in one hand and grind away at the crank of the moving picture camera with the other. Good-bye to a good day's fishing in the brook. No more cherry pie, and no more lemonade in the shade. And, speaking of lemonade, we might as well finish this pitcher, and get ready to go. I can see what is going to happen," and he sighed in pretended dolefulness.

"Oh, don't go just because I suggested it, Blake," said Joe, quickly.

"Oh, no, I'm not blaming you. It's just that it's in our blood, I guess We can't seem to keep away from places where there are moving pictures to be made. Might as well get started. Here, have some," and he poured out a drink of lemonade.

"Oh, we'll have a good time, as well as some work, if we go out there," declared Joe. "It


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/16

6 won't be as bad as you try to make out. Didn't we always have good times on our trips?"

"Yes, and strenuous times, too. I'm not making any kick. Only if we hadn't seen that newspaper we could still be sitting here in the shade, eating cherries"

Something fell with a thud on Blake's upturned face.

"Wow!" he cried. "I guess that robin's getting busy," for a ripe, luscious cherry had fallen from above, and Blake laughed as he popped it into his mouth.

"It's a good thing this isn't a cocoanut tree," remarked Joe. "You wouldn't feel so jolly if one of those hit you."

"I guess not. Well, I s'pose we might as well go in and tell Mr. Baker that we're going to leave him. We can pack up to-day, and start West to-morrow. We'll have to have the cameras sent on from New York. We can order them and a supply of film by telegraph. I guess we could telephone the message in. That will save a trip to town, and we haven't much time," added Joe.

"There you go! Off with a rush! Telephones and telegrams. Walking will be too slow for you! Everything bang-up! Let her go!" cried Blake, swinging his arms to indicate progress.


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/17

Rh "Good-bye, vacation!" he cried. "The strenuous life from now on!"

The two youths arose from the grass, and together they started for the house at which they were boarding.

They had gone only a few steps, however, when, from across the country road, and a short distance down it, came a hail.

"Who's that?" asked Joe.

"I don't know—listen!" suggested Blake. "Are they calling us?"

There was no doubt about it a moment later, for the boys heard a voice shouting:

"Hi there! Joe! Blake! Moving Picture Boys! You're wanted!"

"Who is it? I can't see," murmured Joe.

"It's Harry, the clerk in Robertson's store," answered Blake, for a short distance away was the general store—"The Universal Emporium," as the sign had it—of Hank Robertson, of Central Falls.

"Come on, boys!" went on the voice of the caller, who was out of sight because of a roadside hedge. "You're wanted on the long-distance telephone!"

"Ugh!" groaned Blake. "Might have known it. Did you start this, Joe?" and he looked at his chum suspiciously.


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/18

8 "Don't know a thing about it. Who can want us on the 'phone?"

"Best way's to go and find out. Mighty queer, though, that just as we read of the Mississippi flood, and decide to go, someone should ring us up on long distance. I thought we got rid of all that when we came here for our vacation. Things have started with a rush."

"Say, are you comin'?" demanded the store clerk. "Central has been ringin' like all possessed! Must be important!"

"I guess it is, or they wouldn't telephone," murmured Blake.

"We're coming!" cried Joe.

Together the boys hurried out into the road, and turned down toward the store.

There were not many telephones in the country village of Central Falls. They were considered too much of a luxury. But Hank Robertson was rather progressive, and had had a long distance instrument installed in his store some time before.

"There you be, boys!" he said, as Joe and Blake entered. "I knew as soon as I heard the bell ring that it was long distance. I answered, and sent Harry out to call you."

"Much obliged," spoke Blake. "Do you know who it is?"


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/19

Rh "Nope. It was Central talking. She said either of you two was wanted."

Blake stepped to the instrument, and took up the receiver, which had been standing upright on the desk.

"Hello!" He called into the transmitter. Then he was silent, but, from the look of wonder and surprise that spread over his face as he listened, Joe knew that it was something important, and out of the usual.


text: The Moving Picture Boys and the Flood/Chapter 1


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/234


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/233


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/232


text: Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/231


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/20

could hear his chum Blake murmuring such things as:

"Yes, I'm listening! Is that so? Say, that's fierce!"

"Why, yes, I guess we can go," spoke Blake, after a lengthy talk from the person at the other end of the wire. "Yes, Joe's here with me," he went on. "What! Is she lost, too?"

"Say, for cats' sake give a fellow an idea what it's all about; can't you, Blake?" pleaded Joe, at his chum's elbow.

"Just a minute," answered Blake, in an aside. "I'll give you the whole story in a minute. I want to get it straight first."

Then he continued to listen, and while he is thus at the telephone I will tell my new readers, briefly, something about the moving picture boys.

In the initial volume of this series, entitled "The Moving Picture Boys; Or, Perils of a


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/21

Rh Great City Depicted," I introduced Blake Stewart and Joe Duncan. They were farm lads, and, most unexpectedly, one day, a company of moving picture actors and actresses came to their village to make scenes in a rural drama. The two boys became interested, especially in the mechanical end of the work of making films.

Later they had an opportunity of taking up the business under the direction of Mr. Calvert Hadley, a moving picture operator, who offered to teach Joe and Blake how to properly use the wonderful cameras.

The boys went to New York, and met the members of the Film Theatrical Company, with which Mr. Hadley was associated. That gave Joe and Blake their start in life, and since then they had been in the business of taking moving pictures. They became experts, and their services were in great demand, not only in filming dramas acted by the company, but in making independent views.

They went out West, as told in the second volume, and got some stirring views of cowboys and Indians, and then they went to the Pacific Coast, and later to the jungle, where there were more strenuous times.

Their latest venture had been to Earthquake Land, and on returning from there they felt the


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/22

12 need of a vacation. They engaged board at the farmhouse of Hiram Baker, in Central Falls, about fifty miles from New York City, and they were taking their rest there when the newspaper story of the flood on the Mississippi, and the long-distance telephone call, rather interrupted their ease and quiet.

I might add that in their trip to the coast Joe located his long-lost father, and later, in an expedition to the jungle, he succeeded in locating his sister, who had gone to the Dark Continent as a missionary's helper.

Mr. Duncan and his daughter Jessie made their home together, and Joe stayed with them when he was not off with Blake making moving pictures—which was quite often.

For a time Joe and Blake had worked with the Film Theatrical Company, which went to various parts of the country to get the proper backgrounds for their films. But of late, as I have said, the two boys had started out for themselves.

Still they kept up their acquaintanceship and friendship with the company. Just a word about the various members, and I will resume this story.

Mr. Jacob Ringold was the proprietor of the Film Theatrical Company, and some of the members were Henry Robertson, who played juvenile


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/23

Rh leads, Harris Levinberg, the "villain," Miss Nellie Shay, the leading lady, and Birdie Lee, a pretty, vivacious girl, who took the lighter feminine parts in the dramas. And there was Christopher Cutler Piper—oh, yes, we must not forget him.

Mr. Piper did not like his name—that is, the two first sections, and his friends, to oblige him, had shortened it to "C. C.," or else they called him just "Mr. Piper." Sometimes, however, he was referred to as "Gloomy."

This name fitted him to perfection. He was a gloomy comedian—that is, he was gloomy off the stage; not on it. He would raise a laugh by his action, or lines, and, coming out of the scene, would be in the most doleful state of mind imaginable.

In this book you will find many references to "filming" a scene, exposed, unexposed and developed films, cameras, and the like.

For a full explanation of how moving pictures are taken, I refer my readers to the previous volumes of this series.

And now to resume the story.

Blake stood there, his ear fairly glued to the receiver, and the expression on his face constantly changing. But, though it did change, a certain worried look, that came over it almost


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/24

14 from the first moment of the spoken words, did not leave it.

"Say, are you going to talk all day, without giving me a hint of what it is?" spoke Joe, in a tense whisper. "Let me listen in; can't you, old man?"

"Right away—yes," answered Blake, in an aside. "All right," he called into the transmitter. "Yes, I'll tell Joe all about it. He'll come with me, I'm sure."

"I rather guess I will—if I ever find out what it's about," murmured the other. "Have a heart, and tell me."

"Good-bye," called Blake, into the telephone. "I'll see you in New York."

Then he hung up the receiver, and, turning to his chum, asked:

"What do you think has happened?"

"I haven't the least idea, unless New York is wiped off the map by a dynamite explosion, and we're wanted to help put it back."

"No, it isn't exactly that," said Blake. "I was talking just now to Mr. Ringold. He's in a peck of trouble!"

"How's that?"

"Why, he wants us to start for the flooded Mississippi district at once, and get a lot of scenes out there. But that's not the worst. Part


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/25

Rh of his company, that he sent out near Hannibal, Missouri, to take part in several film dramas, have been lost in the flood."

"Lost in the flood?" cried Joe. "His company of players?"

"Yes. He could give me no particulars, but he's going to start and organize a rescue party, and try to save them. He wants us to help with that work, as well as to make moving pictures for him. Some of the valuable films the company had already taken were also lost, when they were carried down the river."

"But how did it happen?" Joe wanted to know.

"He didn't have time to give me many particulars over the wire. He said he'd do that when he met us in New York."

"Some of our friends lost in the flood," murmured Joe. "I wonder if there's a chance of saving them?"

"We've got to try, anyhow," spoke Blake, seriously.

"Was C. C. among them?" Joe wanted to know, referring to the gloomy comedian.

"No, he's in New York, where Mr. Ringold also has a company at work for the movies. C. C. escaped. But Birdie Lee went adrift with the others."


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/177

 piccolo and oboe together, then to the flute, and finally to both flute and piccolo. Rossini does not use the piccolo very much, he, however, introduces two in The Bather of Seville at the words "Point de bruit"probably a joke. He seldom gives the flute a solo of any length; several, however, occur in William Tell. The Andantino in that overture is the best known flute passage in the whole range of orchestral music; the flute playing a florid embroidery, as it were, to the Alpine "Ranz des Vaches" on the cor anglais. This passage stands out wonderfully: I have seen a first-rate player from the Hallé orchestra actually trembling with nervousness when he approached it. After the final sustained top G had died away into nothing, he remarked to me, "I never come to that passage without shaking all over like an aspen leaf; if, Overture to William Tell.


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/26

16 "Birdie Lee!" cried Joe, for he and Blake were both very fond of the pretty, vivacious girl, whose pictures they had taken many times, as she went through her parts before the camera.

"I only hope we can rescue her," murmured Blake. "It certainly is a bad bit of news."

"And he didn't say how it happened?" inquired Joe.

"All he told me," resumed Blake, "was that the company was performing open-air stuff near the flooded district. How they happened to be carried away Mr. Ringold didn't know. It seems that someone telegraphed him the news, that's how he heard of it."

"And how did he happen to think of us, and how did he know we were here?"

"He says he thought of us at once—as soon as he got the news," went on Blake, "and he had our address. We left it with him when we came here, you know, but told him not to send for us except in case of emergency."

"And this sure is an emergency," cried Joe.

"You're right," agreed his chum. "Mr. Ringold got busy on the telephone, and—well, you know the rest. I told him we'd start for New York as soon as we could pack up. He'll meet us there, and then we'll head straight for the flooded district with our cameras."


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/27

Rh "Busy times ahead," murmured Joe. "Well, I guess it's all for the best, except the carrying away of our friends. I was getting a bit tired of this vacation life, anyhow."

"So was I," admitted Blake, as they left the store and headed for their boarding house.

With quickening steps the boys walked up the path. There was nervous energy in their every move.

"My! But you're in a hurry on a hot day," observed Mrs. Baker, who had taken quite a liking to her two young boarders.

"Got to be!" exclaimed Blake. "We're going to try and catch the afternoon train for New York."

"New York! My sakes alive! You're not going; are you?"

"Got to," explained Joe. "I think we can make it if we hurry. Some friends of ours are lost in that Mississippi flood, and we've got to go and help find and save them if we can. No time to lose!"

"My land sakes! I never heard tell of such a thing!" cried Mrs. Baker. But the boys did not stop to hear her comments. They were on their way to their rooms to pack their grips.


text: The Moving Picture Boys and the Flood/Chapter 2


text:
Page:Livingstone Popular Missionary Travels.djvu/30

Rh billed by the carnivora ; and if so, is a merciful provision of the Creator for lessening the pain of death. As he had one paw on the back of my head, I turned round to relieve myself of the weight, and saw his eyes directed to Mebalwe, who was aiming at him from a distance of ten or fifteen yards. His gun, which was a flint one, missed fire in both barrels. The animal immediately left me to attack him, and bit his thigh. Another man, whose life I had saved after he had been tossed by a buffalo, attempted to spear the lion, upon which he turned from Mebalwe and seized this fresh foe by the shoulder. At that moment the bullets the beast had received took effect, and he fell down dead. The whole was the work of a few moments, and must have been his paroxysm of dying rage. In order to take out the charm from him, the Bakatla on the following day made a huge bonfire over the carcase, which was declared to be the largest ever seen. Besides crunching the bone into splinters, eleven of his teeth had penetrated the upper part of my arm. The bite of a lion resembles a gun-shot wound. It is generally followed by a great deal of sloughing and discharge, and ever afterwards pains are felt periodically in the part. I had on a tartan jacket, which I believe wiped off the virus from the teeth that pierced the flesh, for my two companions in the affray have both suffered from the usual pains, while I have escaped with only the inconvenience of a false joint in my limb. The wound of the man who was bit in the shoulder actually burst forth afresh on the same month of the following year. This curious point deserves the attention of inquirers.

From 1840 to 1845 I was employed in preparatory labours, and associated with other missionaries at Kuruman and Mabotsa. From 1845 to 1849 I worked at Chonuane and Kolobeng, aided only by Mrs. Livingstone and two native teachers. I attached myself to the tribe called Bakuena, or Bakwains, the chief of which, named Sechele, was then living with his subjects at a place called Shokuane. I was from the first struck by his intelligence, and by the especial manner in which we felt drawn to each other. He was tall, rather corpulent, had large eyes, and more of the negro features than is common. As this remarkable man has not only


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/28

", it didn't take us long; did it, Blake?"

"No, indeed, Joe. But we certainly have hustled some since we got that long-distance telephone message."

"We're used to hustling, though, old man. You wouldn't get very far with moving pictures unless you did get a move on now and then."

The two chums were seated in a railway train, on their way to New York to meet Mr. Ringold, and do what they could to rescue the unfortunate members of the moving picture company. They did not know what was before them, but they had stout hearts, and they had made up their minds to brave any danger in order to save their friends.

"Poor Birdie Lee!" murmured Blake. "I can't help but think of her."

"Same here," agreed Joe. "She certainly was a dandy little chum and comrade. Always will-


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/29

Rh ing to do anything that was asked, to make a good film."

"Yes, and she never found fault if someone made a break, and we had to film the scene all over again," put in Blake. "Do you remember the time she had to fall overboard, out of the boat on the lake?"

"I should say I did remember it! C. C. Piper was to rescue her, but he was so slow about it—so afraid he'd get drowned, or have wet feet, or something, that the scene was spoiled, and Birdie had to get into dry clothes, and act the whole thing over, taking a second plunge into the water."

"Mr. Ringold was sure mad at C. C. that day," laughed Blake. "But it didn't always happen that way. We've had our fun, too."

"Oh, sure. But we're not likely to this time—scooting around in the rain, on a river that's twice as big as it ought to be. Say, when we get to the junction we may be able to get a New York paper of to-day, and see how things are out in the flooded district now."

"Maybe we can," assented Blake.

The boys settled back in their seats, for the ride of about two hours to New York, for they were on a slow train. On receiving the news over the wire, they had hastily packed, and amid


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/30

20 the expressed regrets of Mr. and Mrs. Baker at their departure, had driven to the station.

Their train made a stop at nearly every depot, and at several, where there was a wait, Joe and Blake got out and inquired if there were any newspapers of that day. But none had been received.

"Cliff Junction!" called out the brakeman, and the boys prepared to change in order to take an express train for the remainder of the journey.

"Now for a paper!" exclaimed Blake, as he hurried up to the news-stand. Joe followed, and as a man, with his back turned to them, was making a purchase, they waited until he should have stepped aside.

"That's always the way!" this man was complaining in a voice at the sound of which Joe and Blake looked at each other quickly. "Always the way! Whenever I go anywhere the train is sure to be late."

"The express isn't much behind," said the, boy at the news-stand. "Only ten minutes, and she'll make that up before she gets to New York."

"Ha! Yes. The engineer will put on extra steam, to make up lost time, and there'll be a collision, or we'll go off the track, or through a


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/31

Rh bridge, or something like that," went on the man. "I never saw such a road, anyhow! I'll never travel on it again. I've had the worst luck to-day!

"Somebody stepped on my foot, the expressman didn't come for my baggage until I was nearly in a fit, for fear I'd miss the train, and now I get here and find the express late! What a world this is, anyhow! It's fierce."

"Hello, C. C.!" exclaimed Blake, heartily. He did not need to see the man's face to know who he was.

The complaining man wheeled about quickly.

"The moving picture boys!" he cried, as he noted Joe and Blake.

"That's who!" laughed Joe. "Where are you bound for?"

"New York; if I ever get there. But the train is late, and I know there'll be a smash-up!"

Then, having made this gloomy prediction, Mr. C. C. Piper whistled a merry little tune, and did a few dancing steps which he used in some of his comic scenes. C. C.'s gloom was evidently not deep.

"Oh, I guess we'll come out all right," said Joe, cheerfully. "But we heard that you were in New York."

"Who told you that?" demanded Mr. Piper.


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/32

22 "Mr. Ringold. I was talking to him over the long-distance 'phone a little while ago," explained Blake. "He said you were in New York."

"I was, but I ran up to see a friend, expecting to spend the week-end with him. And I'd no sooner gotten there than Ringold got me on the telephone, and ordered me back. That was after he talked to you, I guess. It seems some of his company are lost in the Mississippi flood, and he wants me to go out there with him. Some of the dramas will have to be done over again, as the films were lost, and he's going to try to find the missing folks."

"We're on the same errand," remarked Joe. "Mr. Ringold cut short our vacation, too, by long distance. We're in the same boat."

"Boat? Yes!" snorted the gloomy comedian. "And I guess we'll have to use a boat out on the Mississippi. We can't wade or swim, and there's sure to be a lot of trouble. I wish I'd never gone into this business! It's awful!"

"Oh, it may not be so bad," spoke Blake, cheerfully.

"It's bound to be," declared C. C. "Look at it! Bad luck from the very start. Express late, and all that. It's fierce!"

There was no use trying to talk him out of his gloom, and the boys realized this. It was


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/33

Rh best to let him work it off in his own way, and be as cheerful as possible toward him.

"Is there any later news of the flood, in the paper?" asked Joe. "We only read of it in yesterday's sheet."

"Yes, it's getting worse instead of better," replied Mr. Piper. "I can't get my regular paper, though," he complained. "Why don't you keep the Planet?" he asked, of the boy behind the counter.

"I did have some, sir, but they're all gone," was the smiling answer.

"Ha! That's just the way! Everything goes wrong with me!" cried C. C. "I've a good notion to go back and not start until tomorrow. Something serious is bound to happen before this day is over. I've a notion to go back."

"Oh, I wouldn't," persuaded Blake. "Mr. Ringold will be expecting you, and he will be disappointed."

"Well, I'll go on; but, mark my words, something will happen before we reach New York," predicted C. C.

The moving picture boys purchased newspapers, not being particular what kind, as long as they contained fresh news of the big flood. They found more recent dispatches than those


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/34

24 they had read at the farmhouse, and other pictures. As Mr. Piper had said, the raging Mississippi was higher than before, and the almost constant fall of rain, augmenting the streams that poured into the Father of Waters, added to the danger and desolation.

"Anything about our friends?" asked Blake of his chum, as the latter scanned the pages eagerly.

"No, I don't see any mention of them. But it says several lives have been lost, and there is much suffering from lack of food and clothing."

"Too bad! I wish we were out there now, and could help."

The boys, pacing up and down the depot platform, rapidly glanced over the news sheets, and Joe suddenly uttered an exclamation.

"Here's something!" he cried. "There are no names given, but in a dispatch from Hannibal it says that it is rumored a company of moving picture actors, and actresses, were carried away in a house that was swept down by the current."

"That's our crowd, all right," declared Blake. "No mention of Birdie Lee; is there?"

"No, not any names given. Say, I wish that express would come along, and get us to New


text:
Page:Twentieth Century Impressions of Hongkong, Shanghai, and other Treaty Ports of China.djvu/127

Rh Bombay, Calcutta, Colombo, Foochow, Hamburg, Hankow, Kobe, London, Lyons, Manila, Nagasaki, New York, Peking, Penang, Rangoon, Saigon, San Francisco, Shanghai, Singapore, Sourabaya, Tientsin, Yloilo, and Yokohama.

The London and County Banking Company, Ltd., act as the London bankers of the Corporation.

The bank premises occupy one of the best business sites in the Colony. The main entrance is in Queen’s Road, Central, to which the bank has an imposing frontage, whilst the back of the premises opens on Des Voeux Road. The banking hall is one of the finest in existence, with desks and counters on either side, and covered by a spacious dome of pleasing proportions.

The Corporation also conducts the business of the Hongkong Savings Bank.

BANQUE DE L’INDO CHINE.—The Banque de l’Indo Chine, which represents French interests in the Colony of Hongkong and throughout the Far East generally, was established in the Far East in 1875, by special charter from the French Government, with a capital of Fr36,000,000 and a reserve fund of Fr24,000,000. The Hongkong agency was opened in 1896, and took over the financial interests of the Comptoir Nationale d’Escompte de Paris. In 1900 an agency was also started in the neighbouring Chinese city of Canton. The Hongkong branch is managed by Mr. L. Berindoague, and the Canton agency by Mr. G. Garnier. There are other branches and agencies of the bank at Saigon, Haiphong, Hanoi, Tourane, Pnom-Penh, Nouméa, Shanghai, Hankeau, Bangkok, Pondicherry, Battanbang, Peking, Tientsin, Papéete, and Singapore.

THE YOKOHAMA SPECIE BANK, LIMITED.—When Japan forsook her policy of isolation and allowed her subjects to have free intercourse with the outside world, a tremendous impetus was naturally given to the trade and commerce of the country. Great business corporations sprang into being, and the rapid advance made, from the commercial and industrial point of view, by the people of the Empire has been a cause of astonishment to all nations. There are many financial houses now conducting operations upon an extensive scale, and one of the most important of these is the Yokohama Specie Bank (Yokohama Shokin Ginkō). Founded in 1880 with an authorised capital of Y3,000,000, it was entrusted with the management of several million yen of the Treasury reserve, and thus had an ample capital at its disposal for discounting foreign bills of exchange. In 1889, however, this support was withdrawn, and in place of it, the Bank of Japan was ordered to re-discount foreign bills of exchange on demand of the Specie Bank, to an amount not exceeding Y20,000,000, at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum. In 1887, when the special ordinance respecting the Specie Bank was promulgated, the capital of the bank was raised to Y6,000,000. The consequent extension of business necessitated in the same year, a further increase of capital to Y12,000,000, and in 1899 the capital was again doubled. The business carried on by the bank consists of foreign exchange; inland exchange; loans; deposit of money and custody of articles of value; discount and collection of bills of exchange; promissory

notes and other cheques; and exchange of coins. The bank has authority to buy and sell public bonds, gold and silver bullion, and foreign coins. It is also entrusted with matters relating to foreign loans and with the management of public moneys for international account. The head office is at Yokohama, and there are branches and agencies in Tokio, Kobe, Osaka, Nagasaki, London, Lyons, New York, San Francisco, Honolulu, Bombay, Hankow, Chefoo, Tientsin, Peking, Newchwang, Dalny, Port Arthur, Antung, Lioyang, Mukden, Tieling, Chang-Chung, Hongkong, and Shanghai. The London office is the agency of the Bank of Japan. At the fifty-fifth half-yearly ordinary general meeting held in Yokohama in September, 1907, it was reported that the paid-up capital amounted to Y24,000,000, and the reserve to Y15,050,000. The gross profit for the half-year was Y12,171,077, from which Y9,266,018 were deducted for current expenses, interest, &c., leaving a balance of Y2,905,058 for appropriation. An additional Y500,000 was added to the reserve fund, a dividend of 12 per cent. was declared, and a balance of Y1,055,058 was carried forward to the credit of the next account. The Hongkong branch of the bank is situated in Prince’s Buildings, and is managed by Mr. Takeo Takamichi.

THE NETHERLANDS TRADING SOCIETY.—The Netherlands Trading Society (Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij), which has had a branch at Singapore for about half a


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/35

Rh York! I'm in a hurry to find out how much Mr. Ringold knows."

"So am I," added Blake.

"We'll never get to New York without an accident," declared the gloomy C. C. "I'm positive of it!"

However, at that moment the whistle of the approaching express train was heard, and there was a hurried movement among the waiting passengers. The moving picture boys and Mr. Piper kept together, and got seats by themselves.

"Well, we're making time now, all right," Joe said, as they whizzed along. "Making up some of those lost ten minutes."

"Um! Yes! Wait and see what happens," predicted C. C.

But nothing did, at least up to the time when the train pulled into the One Hundred and Twenty-fifth street station of the New York Central. The next stop would be the Grand Central Terminal, in the heart of New York.

"We've got a minute," remarked Joe, to his chum. "Let's see if we can get a still later paper. Maybe there's an extra out."

"I'm with you," agreed Blake, as they left the train. Mr. Piper seemed sad, that his apprehensions of an accident had not been borne out.

As Blake and Joe were looking for a newsboy,


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/36

26 they became aware of a commotion in the street below them, the tracks here being elevated. There was a clanging of bells, and much shouting.

"Something doing down there," remarked Blake.

"Yes, it's a fire!" cried Joe, as he caught a lurid reflection in the evening sky. "Looks like a big one, too. Shall we take it in?"

"Might as well. We can come down on a later train, and telephone Mr. Ringold. And say, you've got that little moving picture camera with you; haven't you?"

"Yes, I brought it along. Wasn't room to put it in the trunk."

"Then come on. We'll get some views of this fire. We can use them nicely, and it isn't likely that there'll be anyone else on the job. Come on and get the camera."

"We can't! The train's already started!" cried Joe, for the express was slowly moving.

"Yes, we can! I'll get it!" shouted Blake, as he sprang into the car where they had left their baggage. The train was now rapidly gathering headway, the whine and hum of the big motors of the electric engine mingling with the clang of the fire bells, and the shouts of the crowd in the streets below.


text: The Moving Picture Boys and the Flood/Chapter 3


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/37

", where are you going?" cried a station-attendant, as he saw Blake running to board the moving train.

"Forgot something—got to get it!" shouted the excited lad. Then, before the man could prevent him, Blake had jumped up the steps. Back he rushed to where his own and Joe's baggage had been left.

"Look after our stuff, C. C.!" he called to the startled comedian. "We're after a fire—moving picture. Tell Mr. Ringold we'll be down later this evening!"

Then, without giving Mr. Piper a chance to answer, Blake caught up the valise containing the small moving picture camera, and was out on the platform again.

"Look out for yourself!" cried Joe, for the train now had considerable headway.

"All right," answered his chum, and a moment later he was beside Joe, running from the momentum acquired in leaping off the train.


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/38

28 "You took a big risk, young fellow!" said one of the station men, severely.

"I'm used to that in my business," replied Blake, with a cool laugh. "Come on, Joe. We don't want to miss any of this fire. We can sell the film to one of the weekly newspapers, and make some of our vacation money."

"Go on! I'm with you!"

Together they made their way down to the street, and it needed but a glance to show them the extent of the blaze. The fire was in a large apartment house, and the flames had gained great headway. Thrilling rescue scenes were going on, and, from some of the upper stories, men and women were dropping into the life nets, about which, in a circle, stood the sturdy firemen, and volunteer helpers.

"Got to get this!" cried Blake. "Is there plenty of film in her, Joe?"

"I think so. But I'll get more. There's a photo-supply house about three blocks away. You start grinding away at the crank, and I'll chase down there and get another reel of film in case we want it. I guess they'll be open yet."

"All right," answered Blake, with a nod. Then he looked for a vantage point from which to make pictures of the big fire.


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/39

Rh He decided to stand on a square pillar, near the steps of a building nearly opposite the burning structure, and, slipping under the rope which the police had stretched as the limits of the fire lines, Blake was about to set up his machine, when a man, also bearing a moving picture camera, made for the same place. It was really about the only spot where a good picture could be taken, but there was room for only one operator there.

The opposite pillar, or pedestal, was occupied by a portable searchlight, operated by some firemen, to aid their comrades in the work of rescue, and fighting the flames, and the brilliant, white light being flashed on the burning structure made it possible to get a good moving picture film. So Blake was anxious to reach this place of vantage.

He was about to start his machine, when the man, who had reached the spot just too late, cried:

"Say, kid, come down out of there! That's my place!"

"Yours?" cried Blake, as he noted that the man was James Munson, a rival moving picture operator, and one with whom Blake and Joe had had trouble before.

"Yes, mine!" sneered Munson. "I was here


text:
Page:Moving Picture Boys and the Flood.djvu/40

30 a minute ago, and decided on that place, and now I want it."

"Well, you're not going to get it!" declared Blake, firmly. "If you were here you should have stayed," and the young operator started the mechanism of his apparatus, by turning the handle.

"I had to leave, to get some extra film!" Munson cried. "I want you to come away—come down and let me get up there!"

"Nothing doing," spoke Blake. "You should have left your machine here, to show that the pedestal was occupied. I don't believe you were here, and as I'm here first I'm going to stay!"

"Oh, you are; eh? We'll see about that!" cried Munson, as he worked his way through the crowd, carrying his camera with him.

Blake thought little more about the fellow, for he was too much occupied in getting views of the burning building, and the thrilling rescues that were made from time to time. Firemen went rapidly up, from window to window, by means of the hooked scaling ladders, leaping into the burning building in search of persons in danger.

Other firemen carried down unconscious forms, and still others were engaged in the less