Source: https://m.openjurist.org/150/us/249/united-states-v-rodgers
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 22:06:22
Document Index: 69048342

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 26', '§ 29', '§ 187', '§ 182', 'art. 11', '§ 205', '§ 30']

150 US 249 United States v. Rodgers | OpenJurist
150 U.S. 249 - United States v. Rodgers
The language of section 5346, immediately following the term 'high seas,' declaring the penalty for violent assaults when committed on board of a vessel in any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, equally as when committed on board of a vessel on the high seas, lends force to the construction given to that term. The language used must be read in conjunction with that term, and as referring to navigable waters out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, but connecting with the high seas mentioned. The Detroit river, upon which was the steamer Alaska at the time the assault was committed, connects the waters of Lake Huron (with which, as stated above, the waters of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan join) with the waters of Lake Erie, and separates the dominion of Canada from the United States, constituting the boundary between them; the dividing line running nearly midway between its banks, as established by commissioners, pursuant to the treaty between the two countries. 8 Stat. 276. The river is about 22 miles in length, and from 1 to 3 miles in width, and is navigable at all seasons of the year by vessels of the largest size. The number of vessels passing through it each year is immense. Between the years 1880 and 1892, inclusive, they averaged from thirty-one to forty thousand a year, having a tonnage varying from sixteen to twenty-four millions.2 In traversing the river, they are constantly passing from the territorial jurisdiction of the one nation to that of the other. All of them, however, so far as transactions had on board are concerned, are deemed to be within the country of their owners. Constructively, they constitute a part of the territory of the nation to which the owners belong. While they are on the navigable waters of the river, they are within the admiralty jurisdiction of that country. This jurisdiction is not changed by the fact that each of the neighboring nations may in some cases assert its own authority over persons on such vessels, in relation to acts committed by them within its territorial limits. In what cases jurisdiction by each country will be thus asserted, and to what extent, it is not necessary to inquire, for no question on that point is presented for our consideration. The general rule is that the country to which the vessel belongs will exercise jurisdiction over all matters affecting the vessel, or those belonging to her, without interference of the local government, unless they involve its peace, dignity, or tranquility, in which case it may assert its authority. Wildenhus' Case, 120 U. S. 12, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385; Hal. Int. Law, c. 7, § 26, p. 172. The admiralty jurisdiction of the country of the owners of the steamer upon which the offense charged was committed is not denied. They being citizens of the United States, and the steamer being upon navigable waters, it is deemed to be within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States. It was therefore perfectly competent for congress to enact that parties on board, committing an assault with a dangerous weapon, should be punished, when brought within the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States. But it will hardly be claimed that congress, by the legislation in question, intended that violent assaults committed upon persons on vessels owned by citizens of the United States in the Detroit river, without the jurisdiction of any particular state, should be punished, and that similar offenses upon persons on vessels of like owners upon the adjoining lakes should be unprovided for. If the law can be deemed applicable to offenses committed on vessels in any navigable river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, connecting with the lakes, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, it would not be reasonable to suppose that congress intended that no remedy should be afforded for similar offenses committed on vessels upon the lakes, to which the vessels on the river, in almost all instances, are directed, and upon whose waters they are to be chiefly engaged. The more reasonable inference is that congress intended to include the open, uninclosed waters of the lakes under the designation of 'high seas.' The term, in the eye of reason, is applicable to the open, uninclosed portion of all large bodies of navigable waters, whose extent cannot be measured by one's vision, and the navigation of which is free to all nations and people on their borders, by whatever names those bodies may be locally designated. In some countries, small lakes are called 'seas,' as in the case of the sea of Galilee, in Palestine. In other countries, large bodies of water, greater than many bodies denominated 'seas,' are called 'lakes,' 'gulfs,' or 'basins.' The nomenclature, however, does not change the real character of either, nor should it affect our construction of terms properly applicable to the waters of either. By giving to the term 'high seas' the construction indicated, there is consistency and sense in the whole statute, but there is neither if it be disregarded. If the term applies to the open, uninclosed waters of the lakes, the application of the legislation to the case under indictment cannot be questioned, for the Detroit river is a water connecting such high seas, and all that portion which is north of the boundary line between the United States and Canada is without the jurisdiction of any state of the Union. But, if they be considered as not thus applying, it is difficult to give any force to the rest of the statute, without supposing that congress intended to provide against violence on board of vessels in navigable rivers, havens, creeks, basins, and bays, without the jurisdiction of any particular state, and intentionally omitted the much more important provision for like violence and disturbances on vessels upon the Great Lakes. All vessels in any navigable river, haven, creek, basin, or bay of the lakes, whether within or without the jurisdiction of any particular state, would some time find their way upon the waters of the lakes; and it is not a reasonable inference that congress intended that the law should apply to offenses only on a limited portion of the route over which the vessels were expected to pass, and that no provision should be made for such offenses over a much greater distance on the lakes.
Congress, in thus designating the open, uninclosed portion of large bodies of water, extending beyond one's vision, naturally used the same term to indicate it as was used with reference to similar portions of the ocean, or of bodies which had been designated as seas. When congress, in 1790, first used that term, the existence of the Great Lakes was known. They had been visited by great numbers of persons, in trading with the neighboring Indians, and their immense extent and character were generally understood. Much more accurate was this knowledge when the act of 1825 was passed, (4 Stat. 115,) and when the provisions of section 5346 were re-enacted in the Revised Statutes in 1874. In all these cases, when congress provided for the punishment of violence on board of vessels, it must have intended that the provision should extend to vessels on those waters, the same as to vessels on seas, technically so called. There were no bodies of water in the United States to any portion of which the term 'high seas' was applicable, if not to the open, uninclosed waters of the Great Lakes. It does not seem reasonable to suppose that congress intended to confine its legislation to the high seas of the ocean, and to its navigable rivers, havens, creeks, basins, and bays, without the jurisdiction of any state, and to make no provision for offenses on those vast bodies of inland waters of the United States. There are vessels of every description on those inland seas, now, carrying on a commerce greater than the commerce on any other inland seas of the world. And we cannot believe lieve that the congress of the United States purposely left, for a century, those who navigated, and those who were conveyed in vessels upon, those seas, without any protection.
The statute under consideration provides that every person who, upon the high seas, or in any river connecting with them, as we construe its language, within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, commits, on board of any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, an assault on another with a dangerous weapon, or with intent to perpetrate a felony, shall be punished, etc. The Detroit river, from shore to shore, is within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and connects with the open waters of the lakes,—high seas, as we hold them to be, within the meaning of the statute. From the boundary line, near its center, to the Canadian shore, it is out of the jurisdiction of the state of Michigan. The case presented is therefore directly within its provisions. The act of congres of September 4, 1890, (1 Supp. Rev. St. c. 874, p. 799,) providing for the punishment of crimes subsequently committed on the Great Lakes, does not, of course, affect the construction of the law previously existing.
We are not unmindful of the fact that it was held by the supreme court of Michigan in People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161, that the criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts did not extend to offenses committed upon vessels on the lakes. The judges who rendered that decision were able and distinguished; but that fact, while it justly calls for a careful consideration of their reasoning, does not render their conclusion binding or authoritative upon this court. Their opinions show that they did not accept the doctrine extending the admiralty jurisdiction to cases on the lakes and navigable rivers, which is now generally—we might say, almost universally—received as sound by the judicial tribunals of the country. It is true, as there stated, that as a general principle the criminal laws of a nation do not operate beyond its territorial limits, and that to give any government, or its judicial tribunals, the right to punish any act or transaction as a crime, it must have occurred within those limits. We accept this doctrine as a general rule, but there are exceptions to it as fully recognized as the doctrine itself. One of those exceptions is that offenses committed upon vessels belonging to citizens of the United States, within their admiralty jurisdiction, (that is, within navigable waters,) though out of the territorial limits of the United States, may be judicially considered when the vessel and parties are brought within their territorial jurisdiction. As we have before stated, a vessel is deemed part of the territory of the country to which she belongs. Upon that subject, we quote the language of Mr. Webster, while secretary of state, in his letter to Lord Ashburton of August, 1842. Speaking for the government of the United States, he stated with great clearness and force the doctrine which is now recognized by all countries. He said: 'It is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, though at sea, as the state retains its jurisdiction over them; and, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion. This is the doctrine of the law of nations, clearly laid down by writers of received authority, and entirely conformable, as it is supposed, with the practice of modern nations. If a murder be committed on board of an American vessel, by one of the crew, upon another, or upon a passenger, or by a passenger on one of the crew or another passenger, while such vessel is lying in a port within the jurisdiction of a foreign state or sovereignty, the offense is cognizable and punishable by the proper court of the United States in the same manner as if such offense had been committed on board the vessel on the high seas. The law of England is supposed to be the same. It is true that the jurisdiction of a nation over a vessel belonging to it, while lying in the port of another, is not necessarily wholly exclusive. We do not so consider or so assert it. For any unlawful acts done by her while thus lying in port, and for all contracts entered into while there, by her master or owners, she and they must, doubtless, be answerable to the laws of the place. Nor, if her master or crew, while on board in such port, break the peace of the community by the commission of crimes, can exemption be claimed for them. But, nevertheless, the law of nations, as I have stated it, and the statutes of governments founded on that law, as I have referred to them, show that enlightened nations, in modern times, do clearly hold that the jurisdiction and laws of a nation accompany her ships, not only over the high seas, but into ports and harbors, or wheresoever else they may be waterborne, for the general purpose of governing and regulating the rights, duties, and obligations of those on board thereof, and that, to the extent of the exercise of this jurisdiction, they are considered as parts of the territory of the nation herself.' 6 Webst. Works, pp. 306, 307.
We do not accept the doctrine that because, by the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, the boundary line between the two countries is run through the center of the lakes, their character as seas is changed, or that the jurisdiction of the United States to regulate vessels belonging to their citizens navigating those waters, and to punish offenses committed upon such vessels, is in any respect impaired. Whatever effect may be given to the boundary line between the two countries, the jurisdiction of the United States over the vessels of their citizens navigating those waters, and the persons on board, remains unaffected. The limitation to the jurisdiction by the qualification that the offenses punishable are committed on vessels in any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay 'without the jurisdiction of any particular state,' which means without the jurisdiction of any state of the Union, does not apply to vessels on the 'high seas' of the lakes, but only to vessels on the waters designated as connecting with them. So far as vessels on those seas are concerned, there is no limitation named to the authority of the United States. It is true that lakes, properly so called,—that is, bodies of water whose dimensions are capable of measurement by the unaided vision,—within the limits of a state, are part of its territory, and subject to its jurisdiction; but bodies of water of an extent which cannot be measured by the unaided vision, and which are navigable at all times in all directions, and border on different nations or states or people, and find their outlet in the ocean, as in the present case, are seas, in fact, however they may be designated; and seas in fact do not cease to be such, and become lakes, because, by local custom, they may be so called.
According to all the authorities, without exception, 'the high seas' denote the ocean, the common highway of all nations, sometimes as including, sometimes as excluding, bays and arms of the sea, or waters next the coast, which are within the dominion and jurisdiction of particular states,—but never as extending to any waters not immediately connecting with the sea.
The first crimes act of the United States provided, in section 8, for the punishment of murder or other capital offense committed 'upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, basin or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state,' and, in section 12, for the punishment of any person who should 'commit manslaughter upon the high seas,' but not mentioning in that section any other waters. Act April 30, 1790, c. 9, (1 Stat. 113, 115.) In U. S. v. Wiltberger (decided by this court in 1820) it was adjudged that manslaughter committed by the master upon one of the seamen, on board a merchant vessel of the United States, below low-water mark of a river flowing into the sea in China, was not 'manslaughter upon the high seas,' nor within the act of 1970; and Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering judgment, said: 'If the words be taken according to the common understanding of mankind, if they be taken in their popular and received sense,—the 'high seas,' if not in all instances confined to the ocean which washes a coast, can never extend to a river about half a mile wide, and in the interior of a country.' 5 Wheat. 76, 94.
A fortnight after the passage of the act of 1825, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, decided that the general admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States was limited to tide waters. The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428. That decision was followed, in 1833, in Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324; in 1827, in The Orleans, 11 Pet. 175; and in 1847, in Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441. For more than half a century after the adoption of the constitution, congress took no step towards extending the admiralty jurisdiction beyond such waters. In the act of February 26, 1845, c. 20, extending that jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort, 'upon the lakes and the navigable waters connecting the same,' congress clearly treated those lakes and waters as distinct from, and not included within 'the high seas or tide waters.' 5 Stat. 726. And congress never indicated any intention to extend the criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the United States 'to the Great Lakes and the connecting waters' until three years after the assault alleged in the indictment in this case. Act Sept. 4, 1890, c. 874, (26 Stat. 424.)
In a case in which a municipal seizure under the customs act of March 2, 1799, c. 22, § 29, (1 Stat. 649,) in the St. Mary's river, then forming the boundary between the United States and the Spanish territory, of a vessel bound up that river to the Spanish waters and Spanish possessions, was held unlawful, Mr. Justice Story, speaking for this court, said that, 'upon the general principles of the law of nations, the waters of the whole river must be considered as common to both nations, for all purposes of navigation, as a common highway, necessary for the advantageous use of its own territorial rights and possessions;' and he distinguished the waters of the river, common to the two nations between whose dominions it flowed, from 'the ocean, the common highway of all nations.' The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362, 369, 371.
Wheaton says: 'The sea cannot become the exclusive property of any nation; and consequently the use of the sea for these purposes [navigation, commerce, and fisheries] remains open and common to all mankind.' Wheat. Int. Law, (8th Ed.) § 187. 'The territory of the state includes the lakes, seas, and rivers entirely inclosed within its limits. The rivers which flow through the territory also form a part of the domain, from their sources to their mouths, or as far as they flow within the territory, including the bays or estuaries formed by their junction with the sea. Where a navigable river forms the boundary of conterminous states, the middle of the channel is generally taken as the line of separation between the two states, the presumption of law being that the right of navigation is common to both; but this presumption may be destroyed by actual proof of prior occupancy, and long, undisturbed possession, giving to one of the riparian proprietors the exclusive title to the entire river.' Section 192.
Phillimore, after observing that 'no difficulty can arise with respect to rivers and lakes entirely inclosed within the limits of a state,' and discussing the rights in rivers which flow through more than one state, and the rights in the open sea, in narrow seas or straits, and in portions of the sea next the coast or between headlands, says: 'With respect to seas entirely inclosed by the land, so as to constitute a salt-water lake, the general presumption of law is that they belong to the surrounding territory or territories, in as full and complete a manner as a freshwater lake. The Caspian and the Black sea naturally belong to this class.' And he proceeds to show that the rights of other nations than Turkey and Russia to navigate the Black sea from the Mediterranean rest upon treaties, only. 1 Phillim. Int. Law, (3d Ed.) arts. 155, 205, 205a. See, also, Wheat. Int. Law, § 182, and note; treaty of 1826 of the United States with the Ottoman empire, art. 11, (12 Stat. 1216.)
As to the Great Lakes of North America, there has never been any doubt. They are in the heart of the continent, far above the flow of the tide from the sea. Lake Michigan is wholly within the limits and dominion of the United States, and of those states of the Union which surround it. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110; 6 Op. Attys. Gen. 172. The middle line of Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, and of the waters connecting them, forms part of the boundary between the United States and the state of Michigan and other states of the Union, on the one hand, and the British possessions in Canada, on the other. Treaties of Paris in 1783, (article 2,) and of Ghent in 1814, (article 6,) and decision of commissioners under this article, (8 Stat. 81, 221, 274; Charters and Constitutions, 994, 1453, 2026.) No other nation has the right to navigate them, except by the permission, and subject to the laws, of the United States and Great Britain, respectively. The controversy between the United States and Great Britain as to the right of navigating the river St. Lawrence turned upon the effect to be given to the fact that one side of the Great Lakes, and of the waters connecting them, belonged to each country, as against the fact that both shores of the St. Lawrence below belonged to Great Britain; and it was never suggested that any third nation had a free and common right of navigation of the lakes, and their connecting waters. On the contrary, the exclusive right of the United States and Great Britain to navigate the lakes was made the basis of the American claim to the navigation of the river. On June 19, 1826, Mr. Clay, secretary of state under President John Quincy Adams, in a letter to Mr. Gallatin, then minister to England, said: 'The United States and Great Britain have, between them, the exclusive right of navigation the lakes. The St. Lawrence connects them with the ocean. The right to navigate both (the lakes and the ocean) includes that of passing from the one to the other through the matural link.' Congressional Documents, 1827-28, No. 43, p. 19; Wheat. Int. Law, § 205. The right of citizens of the United States to navigate the St. Lawrence, as well as a right to British subjects to navigate Lake Michigan, was secured by treaties between the two countries in 1854 and 1871. 10 Stat. 1091; 17 Stat. 872. See, also, Act July 26, 1892, c. 248, (27 Stat. 267;) 1 Whart. Int. Law Dig. §§ 30, 31.
Upon this point, I agree with the rest of the court that the language used must be read in conjunction with the term 'the high seas,' and as referring to waters connecting with the high seas mentioned, and that congress cannot be supposed to have intended to include freshwater rivers, and not to include the lakes from or into which they flow, and which, together with them, form a continuous passage for vessels. But if the lakes are not 'high seas,' nor included in the act,—the consequence would seem to be that the word 'river' cannot be held to include clude a river connecting two of the lakes.
Upon this part of the case, the decision of this court in U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, is much in point. That was an indictment for a murder committed by a marine upon another enlisted man on a ship of war of the United States lying in the harbor of Boston, and so within the territorial jurisdiction of the state of Massachusetts, and therefore, as the court held, not coming within the description in section 8 of the act of April 30, 1790, c. 9, 'upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, basin or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state.' But the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States was also sought to be maintained under the provision of section 7 of the same act, for the punishment of murder committed 'within any fort, arsenal, dockyard, magazine, or other place or district of country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.' 1 Stat. 113. It was argued that a ship of war of the United States was 'a place under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United State,' and therefore within the act. But this court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, held otherwise; and, while waiving a decision of the question whether any court of Massachusetts would have jurisdiction of the offense, and recognizing as unquestionable the power of congress to punish an offense committed by a marine on board a ship of war, wherever she may be, nevertheless held that congress had not exercised that power by the provision last quoted, because the objects with which the word 'place' was associated—'fort, arsenal, dockyard, magazine,' and 'district of country'—being all fixed and territorial in their character, 'the construction seems irresistible that, by the words 'other place' was intended another place of a similar character with those previously enumerated, and with that which follows,' and 'the context shows the mind of the legislature to have been fixed on territorial objects of a similar character.' 3 Wheat. 390, 391.
Applying the same rule of construction, noscitur a sociis, to the enactment now before the court, the conclusion seems irresistible that as the preceding words, 'upon the high seas, or in any arm of the sea,' as well as the succeeding words, 'haven, creek, basin or bay,' designate tide waters of or adjoining the ocean, the words 'any river' must be held to designate waters of a similar character,—that is to say, those rivers, only, where the tide ebbs and flows, and which are immediately connected with the sea, or with one of the other waters enumerated,—and cannot be extended to a fresh-water river in the interior of the continent, because the context shows the mind of the legislature to have been fixed on tide waters.
In U. S. v. Wiltberger, cited at the beginning of this opinion, in which, as in U. S. v. Bevans, just cited, and in the case at bar, the question was of the meaning of words,—not defining the elements of the crime itself, but only describing the place of its commission,—Chief Justice Marshall expounded the rule of construction of penal statutes as follows: 'The rule that penal laws, are to be construed strictly is, perhaps, not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals, and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial, department. It is the legislature, not the court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.' 'Though penal laws are to be construed strictly, they are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature. The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases which those words, in their ordinary acceptation, or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend. The intention of the legislature is to be collected from the words they employ.' 'To determine that a case is within the intention of a statute, its language must authorize us to say so. It would be dangerous, indeed, to carry the principle that a case which is within the reason or mischief of a statute is within its provisions so far as to punish a crime not enumerated in the statute, because it is of equal atrocity, or of kindred character, with those which are enumerated.' 5 Wheat, 95, 96. And in answer to the suggestion made in that case (which has been repeated in this) of 'the extreme improbability that congress could have intended to make those differences with respect to place, which their words import,' the chief justice said: 'We admit that it is extremely improbable. But probability is not a guide which a court, in construing a penal statute, can safely take. We can conceive no reason why other crimes which are not comprehended in this act should not be punished. But congress has not made them punishable, and this court cannot enlarge the statute.' Id. 105.
I am, also, constrained to dissent from the opinion of the court in this case, which appears to me to inaugurate a wholly new departure in the direction of extending the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is a matter of regret to me that this departure should be made in a case in which the defendant was represented neither by brief nor oral argument,—a fact which suggests, at least, an unusual decree of caution in dealing with the question involved.
I had supposed that in criminal cases the accused was entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt, not only with regard to the evidence of guilt, but with regard to the jurisdiction of the court,—in other words, that penal statutes should be construed strictly,—and that the facts that the supreme court of Michigan, in a very carefully considered case, some 30 years ago, (People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161,) had decided that the criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts did not extend to the lakes; that the same question had been decided the same way by Judge Wilkins in Miller's Case, Brown, Adm. 156; that the federal courts upon the lakes had uniformly acquiesced in these decisions; and that no case is reported to the contrary, would, of itself, make a case of reasonable doubt, to the benefit of which the prisoner would be entitled.
The underlying error of the opinion of the court in this case appears to me to consist in a total ignoring of the last qualification. That the term 'high seas; extends to what are known as the great oceans of the world, there can be no doubt. I presume it also extends to the Mediterranean sea, for the reason that, bordering so many nations as it does, a division of the waters between these nations would be impracticable. Whether, as stated in the opinion of the court, the term also extends to the Black sea, there seems to be grave doubt; but, if it does, it is because the waters of the Black sea are not proprietary waters,—are not claimed by Russia or Turkey as being a part of their territory. The very idea of giving to the courts of all nations jurisdiction over the high seas arises, primarily, from the fact that they belong to no particular sovereignty. If it be true that the lakes are high seas, it logically follows that any European power may punish a crime committed upon the lakes in their own courts, whenever it is able to lay hands upon the offender. It would also follow that other nations than England and America would have the right to navigate these seas without any local restrictions, and even to send their fleets there, and perhaps to engage in hostilities upon its waters. In the case of The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, this court did not hold that the lakes were high seas, but that the limitation of the admiralty jurisdiction in civil cases to tide waters did not apply to this country, or to the interior lakes,—a doctrine in which I fully concur, and one that has met with the practically unanimous approval of the profession.
—The Aeneid, lib. 1.
Col. Poe adds: 'This statement does not include Canadian vessels,—a large number of which use this channel,—nor does it include any vessels not clearing from the various customhouses. Were these included, a considerably greater showing could be made. They are not included because the statistics cannot be obtained.'