Simhadri Super Thermal Power Plant is a coal-fired power plant located in the outskirts of Visakhapatnam city in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The power plant is one of the coal fired power plants of NTPC, a Government of India enterprise. The coal for the power plant is sourced from Kalinga Block of Talcher Coal fields in Odisha. The plant is a national asset, and power generated is shared between multiple states, as the operator is national. Power generated by units 1 and 2, making up for 1,000 MW, is dedicated to power distribution companies owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The remaining 1,000 MW, generated by units 3 and 4, is allocated to the states of Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Puducherry as per their shares as  decided in PPA.

NTPC Simhadri is a modern coal-fired power plant, and is a combination of four independent generation units, with common water and fuel sources, and common ash ponds. Each of the four units has a nameplate capacity of 500 MW. Units 1 and 2 were built in the first phase of development, and were commissioned in February 2002 and August 2004, respectively, to meet urgent needs of power in the largely agrarian Coastal Andhra and North-Coastal Andhra regions. Units 3 and 4 were built in the second phase, and commissioned in March 2011 and March 2012, respectively. Since the operator of this plant is a Government of India enterprise, and since the plant was built with central government funds, power generated by units 3 and 4 are sold to distribution companies based in neighbouring states of Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, over the National Grid, as power stocks. The allocations are decided between NTPC and the three states' discoms. Unsold units are offered to discoms of Andhra Pradesh for purchase at market prices.

Coal for NTPC Simhadri is sourced from Talcher Coal Fields, Odisha, and transported by East Coast Railway (ECoR), over the Kolkata-Chennai trunk line, with a spur heading towards the plant at Duvvada. Unlike other coal-fired plants located in the Indian hinterlands, which use water of the same kind as working fluid and coolant, NTPC Simhadri, which operates out of a fresh water-deficient region of Andhra Pradesh, diversified its water sourcing, based on usage. It uses fresh water sourced from the Yeluru Canal as working fluid (steam which turns the turbines). For cooling, however, the plant uses seawater pumped in from the Bay of Bengal. Seawater, with its salt content, is unfit to be used as working fluid, without desalination.

Environment Protection Activities in NTPC Simhadri

Committed to producing  Green Power, the Simhadri Super Thermal Power Station (2X500 MW in Stage-I & 2X500 MW in Stage-II) is the first coastal coal fired thermal power station of NTPC Limited. Simhadri Plant meets more than  85% of its Water needs from Sea, thereby contributing to the Nation's efforts in conserving Fresh Water.  Having spent nearly Rs. 1000 Cr towards various equipments and systems for mitigating pollution and protecting environment, NTPC Simhadri planted over 7.0 lakh trees for protection of environment. Besides, NTPC Simhadri is also a proud partner of "Green Visakha" Project and has planted 3.5 lakh trees additionally under this program and distributed 1.25 lakh fruit bearing plants. NTPC also contributed Rs. 6.0 Cr towards conservation of Olive Ridley turtles. Furthermore, the Power Station and Township premises are declared as plastic free zones. The Journey continues for adopting the latest environment norms leading to a World Class Power Plant.

References

External links

 NTPC Simhadri
 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/the-need-to-safeguard-vizags-green-ambience/article8692979.ece

Coal-fired power stations in Andhra Pradesh
Buildings and structures in Visakhapatnam district
Energy infrastructure completed in 2002
2002 establishments in Andhra Pradesh

Simhadri Super Thermal Power Station


The Gold Coast Historic District is a historic district in Chicago, Illinois, located in Chicago's Near North Side community area. It is roughly bounded by North Avenue, Lake Shore Drive, Oak Street, and Clark Street.

The Gold Coast neighborhood grew in the wake of the Great Chicago Fire.

In 1882, millionaire Potter Palmer moved to the area from the Prairie Avenue neighborhood on the city's south side.  He filled in a swampy area which later became Lake Shore Drive. Other wealthy Chicagoans followed Potter into the neighborhood, which became one of the richest in Chicago.

The district was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1978.

As of 2011, Gold Coast ranks as the 7th richest urban neighborhood in America with a median household income of $153,358.

References

Neighborhoods in Chicago
Landmarks in Chicago

Gold Coast Historic District (Chicago)


Landon Parvin (born 1948) is a Republican speech writer who has written for several U.S. politicians, including Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In 1982, while working for Ronald Reagan, Parvin also wrote for Reagan's wife Nancy. Nancy was being criticized in the press for her opulence. Parvin wrote a comedic song for her to the tune of "Second Hand Rose".

Parvin left the White House temporarily in 1985 to become executive assistant to the U.S. Ambassador to the U.K.

Parvin is responsible for writing a notorious joke for President George W. Bush's appearance at a press dinner that had Bush looking for the missing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in various places, including underneath a desk table, while saying "Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere." . Despite being reasonably well received at the time, it was judged by some to be insensitive to the families of the American soldiers whose family members in the service were in great danger overseas, and resulted in Bush receiving yet more criticism from a hostile press.

Interviewed in September 2004 about the Bush presidential campaign, he described his role in the campaign, "The purpose is for him to be better liked when he sits down than when he first stood up. That is what humor can do.".

External links
 CBS story on Parvin

American speechwriters
1948 births
Living people
Speechwriters for presidents of the United States

Landon Parvin


Yao Yecheng (, 26 August 1887 – 1966), along with Chen Jieru (, "Jennie", 1906–1971) was among the two concubines of Nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek (, 1887–1975) during the time when Chiang was also in an arranged marriage to Mao Fumei (, 1882–1939). In 1921, Chiang married Jennie. In 1927, Chiang divorced Mao Fumei and exiled Jennie—denying any association with the latter. In the busy year of 1927, Chiang also dropped Yao and married Soong Mei-ling (, "Meiling", "Madame Chiang", 1897–2003).

Yao was a sing-song girl whom Chiang "took as his concubine" though at the time she "belonged to an elderly man who became jealous of her relationship" with Chiang. Once as she was serving bubbling-hot soup at a meal with both Chiang and the elderly patron present, the elder seized the bowl and emptied it onto her head while chiding her about the contacts with Chiang—an assault in which "the boiling liquid disfigured her, and ruined her career of entertaining men in teahouses."

Yao lived with Chiang for a time at a villa at 99 Daichengqiao Road in Suzhou. The spacious villa, later renamed Garden Hotel Suzhou, still stands and was used by the Communist Chinese government as an "official state guest house for leaders of the Party, the State and foreign countries" and visiting celebrities. It is now a hotel open to the general public.

Chiang entrusted Yao with the parenting of his adopted son Chiang Wei-kuo (, "Wego", 1916–1997). Young "Wego" grew up to study military tactics in Nazi Germany where he commanded a Panzer unit before being recalled to China in 1938 where he was quickly promoted through ranks up to major general in the Kuomintang's National Revolutionary Army; he later was a senior officer in the Taiwanese Republic of China Armed Forces (until 1964 when he was moved to figurehead status after the Hukou Incident).

Yao died in Taiwan in 1966 at age 79.

References

Bibliography

1887 births
1966 deaths
Wives of Chiang Kai-shek
People from Suzhou
Taiwanese people from Jiangsu
Spouses of heads of state

Yao Yecheng


Herod Archelaus (, Hērōidēs Archelaos; 23 BC – ) was the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea, including the cities Caesarea and Jaffa, for nine years (). He was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace the Samaritan, brother of Herod Antipas, and half-brother of Herod II. Archelaus (a name meaning "leading the people") came to power after the death of his father Herod the Great in 4 BC, and ruled over one-half of the territorial dominion of his father. Archelaus was removed by the Roman emperor Augustus when Judaea province was formed under direct Roman rule, at the time of the Census of Quirinius.

Biography

Josephus writes that Herod the Great (father of Archelaus) was in Jericho at the time of his death. Just prior to his final trip to Jericho, he was deeply involved in a religious conflagration. Herod had placed a golden eagle over the Temple entrance which was perceived as blasphemous. The eagle was chopped down with axes. Two teachers and approximately 40 other youths were arrested for this act and immolated. Herod defended his works and offered an attack on his predecessors, the dynastic Hasmoneans. Herod killed all male lineal successors of the Hasmoneans. The Pharisees had long attacked the Hasmoneans as well, as having parentage from Greeks while under bondage. This racial slur was repeated by the Pharisees through the rule of Alexander Jannaeus and Queen Salome.

With this explicit background given, Josephus began an exposition of the days of Archelaus' reign before Passover of 4 BC. Archelaus dressed in white and ascended a golden throne and appeared to be kind to the populace in Jerusalem in order to appease their desires for lower taxes and an end to the (political) imprisonment of Herod's enemies. The demeanor of the questioning appeared to turn at some point, and the crowd began to call for the punishment of those of Herod's people who ordered the death of the two teachers and the 40 youths. They also demanded the replacement of the High Priest, from the appointed High Priest of Herod's to a High Priest, "of greater piety and purity". Josephus does not tell who would be "of greater piety and purity". To this request, Archelaus acceded, although he was becoming angry at the presumptions of the crowds. Archelaus asked for moderation and told the crowds that all would be well if they would put aside their animosities and wait until he was confirmed king by Caesar Augustus.

Archelaus then left to feast with his friends. It was evening and as the darkness settled, a mourning and wailing began over the city. Archelaus began to worry as people started streaming into the temple area and those who wailed for the loss of the teachers continued their very loud mourning. The people were escalating in their threatening behavior. Henry St. John Thackeray's translation of Josephus here states it thus: "The promoters of the mourning for the doctors stood in the body of the temple, procuring recruits for their faction". Josephus does not tell us who these "promoters of the mourning", who recruit from within a body inside the Temple, could have been.

Archelaus then sent a general, some other people, and finally a "tribune in Command of a Cohort" to reason with these "Seditionists", to stop their "innovations" and wait until Archelaus could return from Rome and Caesar. Those who came from Archelaus were stoned, with many killed. After the stoning, those who stoned the soldiers returned to their sacrifices, as if nothing had happened. Josephus does not tell who performed the sacrifices in the Temple. It was after midnight, and Archelaus suddenly ordered the entire army into the city to the temple. Josephus records the death toll at 3000. Archelaus sent heralds around the city announcing the cancellation of Passover.

Archelaus quickly sailed to Caesar and faced a group of enemies – his own family. Antipas, the younger brother of Archelaus who was deposed from Herod's will days earlier, argued that Archelaus merely feigned grief for his father, crying during the day and involved with great "merriment" during the night. The threats carried out by Archelaus ending in the death of 3000 in the Temple were not just threats to the worshipers in Jerusalem at Passover, but also amounted to a threat to Caesar himself, since Archelaus acted in every manner a king, before such title had been given by Caesar.

At this point, Nicolaus of Damascus argued to Caesar that Archelaus acted appropriately and that Herod's will, supposedly written a few weeks prior (yielding the kingship to Archelaus and against Antipater), should be seen as valid. The change of this will in favor of Archelaus is given as Herod's true choice and, it is argued, occurred with Herod being in his right mind since he left the final decision to Caesar. The change of the will appears as one of Herod's last acts and it is attested from Jericho by one "Ptolemy", keeper of Herod's Seal. Nicholaus of Damascus had been Herod's confidant for years. He was loyal to Rome. Ptolemy was Nicholaus of Damascus' brother.

Archelaus, at the conclusion of the arguments, fell at Caesar's feet. Caesar raised him up and stated that Archelaus "was worthy to succeed his father". Caesar gave Archelaus the title of ethnarch and divided the kingdom. Rome would consolidate its power later.

Thus, Archelaus received the tetrarchy of Judea through the last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allotted to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a ruler of an ethnic group).

The first wife of Archelaus is given by Josephus simply as Mariamne, perhaps Mariamne III, daughter of Aristobulus IV, whom he divorced to marry Glaphyra. She was the widow of Archelaus' brother Alexander, though her second husband, Juba, king of Mauretania, was alive. This violation of the Mosaic law, along with Archelaus' continued cruelty, roused the ire of the Jews, who complained to Augustus. Archelaus fell into disrepute and was deposed in his 10th year of reign as ethnarch, being banished to Vienna (today Vienne) in Gaul. Samaria, Judea proper, and Idumea became the Roman province of Judaea.

Biblical references

Archelaus is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew (chapter 2 verse 13–23). An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to get up and take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt to avoid the Massacre of the Innocents. When Herod the Great died, Joseph was told by an angel in a dream to return to the land of Israel (presumably to Bethlehem). However, upon hearing that Archelaus had succeeded his father as ruler of Judaea he "was afraid to go there" (Matthew 2:22), and was again warned in a dream by God "and turned aside to the region of" Galilee. This is Matthew's explanation of why Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea but grew up in Nazareth.

The beginning and conclusion of Jesus' parable of the minas in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 19, may refer to Archelaus' journey to Rome. Some interpreters conclude from this that Jesus' parables and preaching made use of events familiar to the people as examples for bringing his spiritual lessons to life. Others read the allusion as arising from later adaptations of Jesus' parables in the oral tradition, before the parables were recorded in the gospels.
A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return ... But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, "We do not want this man to reign over us." ... "But as for these enemies of mine," [said the nobleman,] "who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." (, , )

See also
 Herodian dynasty
 Herodian kingdom
 List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources

References

External links

ARCHELAUS by Abraham Schalit. Encyclopaedia Judaica article at Encyclopedia.com
Herod Archelaus at Livius.org
Archelaus by Richard Gottheil and Louis Ginzberg at The Jewish Encyclopedia

23 BC births
18 deaths
1st-century BC Herodian rulers
1st-century Herodian rulers
Jews and Judaism in the Roman Empire
Herodian dynasty
People in the canonical gospels
Roman client monarchs
Jewish royalty
1st-century monarchs in the Middle East
Herod the Great
Judea (Roman province)
1st-century BCE Jews
1st-century Jews
Census of Quirinius

Herod Archelaus


Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.

Appeals were technically not to the House of Lords, but rather to the King-in-Parliament. In 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act devolved the appellate functions of the House to an Appellate Committee, composed of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (informally referred to as Law Lords). They were then appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the same manner as other judges.

During the 20th and early 21st century, the judicial functions were gradually removed. Its final trial of a peer was in 1935, and the use of special courts for such trials was abolished in 1948. The procedure of impeachment became seen as obsolete. In 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom became the new court of final appeal in the UK, with the Law Lords becoming Supreme Court Justices.

History

Parliament's role in deciding litigation originated from the similar role of the Royal Court, where the king dispensed justice. Parliament grew out of the Court and took on many of its roles. As lower courts were established, the House of Lords came to be the court of last resort in criminal and civil cases, except that in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary remained the highest court in criminal matters (except for 1713–1781).

Parliament originally did not hear appeals as a court might; rather, it heard petitions for the judgments of lower courts to be reversed. The House of Commons ceased considering such petitions in 1399, leaving the House of Lords, effectively, as the nation's court of last resort. The Lords' jurisdiction later began to decline; only five cases were heard between 1514 and 1589, and no cases between 1589 and 1621. In 1621, the House of Lords resumed its judicial role when King James I sent the petition of Edward Ewer, a persistent litigant, to be considered by the House of Lords. Petitions for the House of Lords to review the decisions of lower courts began to increase once again. After Ewer, 13 further cases would be heard in 1621. The House of Lords appointed a Committee for Petitions. At first, the Clerk of the Parliaments would bring petitions to the House, and the whole House could decide if they should or should not be referred to the Committee. As the number of petitions increased, the Committee gained the power to reject petitions itself.

Petitions to the House of Lords did not have to seek reversal of lower court judgments; often, petitions were brought directly to the Lords without prior consideration in the inferior judiciary. The practice of bringing cases directly to the Lords, however, ended with the case of Thomas Skinner v East India Company. Skinner had established his business's trading base in Asia while few British restrictions on trade existed; later the base was seized by the Honourable East India Company which had been granted a monopoly. In 1667, the king, Charles II, referred the case to the Lords after failed attempts at arbitration.

Replying to Skinner's petition, the East India Company objected that the case was one of first instance, and that the Lords therefore should not have accepted it. Notwithstanding the Company's protests, the House of Lords proceeded with the matter. Though lawyers argued that the House could intervene only after the lower courts had failed to remedy the case, the Lords decided in Skinner's favour in 1668. The East India Company then petitioned the House of Commons, arguing that the acceptance of a case in the first instance by the Lords was "unusual" and "extraordinary".

A famous dispute then broke out between the two Houses; the Commons ordered the imprisonment of Thomas Skinner and the Lords retaliated by ordering the imprisonment of the Company Chairman. In 1670, Charles II requested both Houses to abandon the case. When they refused, he ordered that all references to the case be expunged from the Journals of both Houses and that neither body continue with the dispute. The House of Lords then ceased to hear petitions in the first instance, considering them only after the lower courts had failed to remedy them.

Even afterwards the Houses clashed over jurisdiction in 1675. The Commons felt that the upper House (as it was often accurately termed until 1911) had breached its privileges by considering cases with members of the Commons as defendant(s). After the Lords considered one of these, Shirley v Fagg (see Sir John Fagg), the Commons warned them to "have regard for their Privileges". Soon the dispute became worse when two more such cases emerged. These included Thomas Dalmahoy and Arthur Onslow (grandfather of Arthur Onslow, the noted Speaker (1728–1761)). One case was from the Court of Chancery, and the other was from the equity branch of the Court of the Exchequer. The Commons unsuccessfully contended the Lords could hear petitions challenging decisions of common law courts but not those from courts of equity.

The dispute rested during prorogation commencing 1675. After the Parliament reassembled in 1677, the cases involving members of the House of Commons were quietly dropped and neither House revisited the dispute.

In 1707, England united with Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. The question then arose as to whether or not appeals could be taken from Scottish Courts. The Acts of Union provided that "no causes in Scotland be  by the courts of Chancery, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas or any other court in Westminster Hall; and that the said courts or any other of the like nature after the union shall have no power to cognosce, review or alter the acts or sentences of judicatures in Scotland, or stop the execution of the same" (emphasis added). The Acts were silent on appeals to the House of Lords, unless they be deemed of 'like nature' to Westminster Hall, in which case it would be banned. In 1708, the first Scottish appeal to the Lords arrived, and it was accepted by the House. In 1709, the House ordered that no decree of the lower Scottish courts could be executed while an appeal was pending; that rule was reversed only by the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1808 empowering the lower Court to determine if an appeal justified the stay of its decree. In 1713, the House of Lords began to consider appeals from Scotland's highest criminal court, the High Court of Justiciary. In 1781, when deciding Bywater v Lord Advocate, the House recognised that before the Union, no further appeal lay. The House agreed not to hear further Scottish criminal appeals.

The Kingdom of Ireland was politically separate from Great Britain and subordinate to it. The Irish House of Lords regarded itself as the final court of appeal for Ireland, but the British Declaratory Act of 1719 asserted the right of further appeal from the Irish Lords to the British Lords. This was odious to the Irish Patriot Party and was eventually repealed as part of the Constitution of 1782. Appellate jurisdiction for Ireland returned to Westminster when the Acts of Union 1800 abolished the Parliament of Ireland.

A 1627 lunacy inquisition judgment was appealed from Chancery to the Privy Council of England rather than the House of Lords. Bypassing the Lords was repeated at the next such appeal, in 1826 from the Irish Chancery.

Appeals

Jurisdiction

The judicial business of the House of Lords was regulated by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. Generally, only important or particularly complex appeals came before the House of Lords. The only further appeal from the House of Lords was to the European courts (the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights), and only then in matters concerning either European Community law or the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Law Lords did not have the power to exercise judicial review over Acts of Parliament. However, in 1972 the UK signed up to be a member of the European Union, and with this accepted European law to be supreme in certain areas so long as Parliament does not explicitly override it (see the Factortame case). The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty still applied – under UK constitutional law, Parliament could have at any time unilaterally decided to dismiss the supremacy of European law. In common with other courts in the European Union, however, the Law Lords referred points involving European Union law to the European Court of Justice. The Lords could also declare a law inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Whilst this power was shared with the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the High Court of Justiciary, the Court of Session, and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, such declarations were considered so important that the question would almost inevitably be determined in the House of Lords on appeal. However, the challenged law in question was not struck down, and the courts are required to enforce them; it remained up to Parliament to amend the law.

In civil cases, the House of Lords could hear appeals from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Court of Session. Alternatively, cases raising important legal points could leapfrog from the High Court of England and Wales or High Court in Northern Ireland. In England, Wales or Northern Ireland; leave (or permission) to appeal could be granted either by the court whose decision is appealed or the House of Lords itself. Leave to appeal is not a feature of the Scottish legal system and appeals proceeded when two Advocates certified the appeal as suitable.

In criminal cases, the House of Lords could hear appeals from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the High Court of England and Wales, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, but did not hear appeals from the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. In addition to obtaining leave to appeal, an appellant also had to obtain a certificate from the lower court stating that a point of general public importance was involved. The effect of this was that, in criminal matters, the House of Lords could not control its own docket.

Procedure

Selection of appeals

Permission to appeal could be granted by an Appeal Committee. The Committee consisted of three Lords of Appeal or Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.  Appeal Committees normally convened fifteen to twenty times per year, and their members were selected by the Principal Clerk of the Judicial Office of the House of Lords.  Appeal Committees could not meet while Parliament was prorogued or dissolved.  Formerly, leave to appeal was unnecessary if two solicitors certified the reasonableness of the case. This procedure was abolished in English cases in 1934 and in Northern Irish cases in 1962; Scottish cases continued to come before the House of Lords in a similar manner.

As of 1982, the House of Lords had relatively little control of its caseload.  About 80% of the civil caseload and 60% of the criminal caseload came to the House of Lords either by right or by leave of a lower court, rather than by leave of an Appeal Committee.

Hearing of appeals

An Appellate Committee, normally consisting of five Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or Lords of Appeal, heard the actual appeals. It was not a standing committee, and hence there was no one Appellate Committee; a separate Appellate Committee was formed to hear each appeal.  There was no formal attempt to ensure that any of the Law Lords who had sat on the Appeal Committee which granted leave to hear the appeal would also sit on the Appellate Committee which heard the merits of the appeal; the overlap could be anywhere from zero to all three.  The Lord Chancellor was technically responsible for the selection of membership of Appellate Committees, but delegated this duty to his Permanent Secretary, who then escalated only the hardest selection questions back to the Lord Chancellor.  At the end of each legal term, the Permanent Secretary met with the Principal Clerk of the Judicial Office and the Judicial Clerk to the Privy Council to discuss the appeals coming to the House of Lords and the Privy Council.  Then the Secretary would put together the Appellate Committees for the appeals to be heard in the upcoming term, while keeping in mind that the Law Lords would also be hearing Privy Council appeals.

Appellate Committees could meet while Parliament was prorogued. Additionally, if the Sovereign authorised the same, the Committee could meet while Parliament was dissolved.

The minimum number of Law Lords that could form an Appellate Committee was four. Seven Lords could sit in particularly important cases. On 4 October 2004 a Committee of nine Lords, including both the Senior Law Lord Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Second Senior Law Lord Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, was convened to hear challenges to the indefinite detention of suspects under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and on 16 December it announced an 8–1 ruling against the Government. Only five Appellate Committees ever comprised nine members. Three of these occurred after 2001.

The determination of each Appellate Committee was normally final, but the House of Lords (in common with the Court of Appeal and High Court of England and Wales) retained an inherent jurisdiction to reconsider any of its previous decisions; this includes the ability to vacate that decision and make a new one. It was exceptional for the House of Lords to exercise this power, but a number of important cases such as Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (a seminal case on bias in England and Wales) proceeded in this way.

A recent example of the House of Lords reconsidering an earlier decision occurred in 1999, when the judgment in the case on the extradition of Augusto Pinochet, the former President of Chile, was overturned on the grounds that one of the Lords on the committee, Lord Hoffmann, was a director of a charity closely allied with Amnesty International, which was a party to the appeal and had an interest to achieve a particular result. The matter was reheard by a panel of seven Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.

Formerly, appeals were heard in the House of Lords Chamber. The Lords would sit for regular sessions after four in the evening, and the judicial sessions were held prior to that time. During the Second World War, the Commons Chamber was bombed, so the Commons began to conduct their debates in the Lords Chamber. The judicial sessions of the House were temporarily moved to a Committee room, which escaped the noise of building repairs. The temporary move later became permanent, and appeals continued to be heard in Committee rooms.

No judicial robes were worn by the judges during hearings; they wore ordinary business suits.  The manner in which the Appellate Committees conducted their hearings was agonizingly slow, as observed by an American lawyer in 1975.  In an appeal in a patent infringement case, it took almost seven days to go through opening argument because counsel for the appellant was expected to read out loud all relevant portions of the Court of Appeal opinion and the trial court record (all of which had already been provided in advance to the Committee in hard copy format), while interpolating extensive comment and argument, and digressing into lengthy exchanges with the Committee members.  Next, the respondent delivered their response and then the appellant delivered their rebuttal, while again digressing into back-and-forth exchanges with the Committee members.  As long as the appellant's opening had fairly summarized all relevant facts in the record (both favorable and adverse), as they were expected to do, these latter arguments were more closely focused on the law and the application of law to fact.  The appellant submitted on the ninth day with the words, "My Lords, those are my submissions."  On behalf of the House of Lords, the Committee took the appeal under "advisement", and the usher shouted, "Clear the bar!"  This was a signal that all barristers, solicitors, and others present for the hearing were expected to leave the room immediately, so the Committee could begin its deliberations.

Delivery of judgment

Although each Appellate Committee was essentially acting as an appellate court, it could not issue judgments in its own name, but could only recommend to the House of Lords how to dispose of an appeal. This is why all the Law Lords framed their opinions in the form of recommendations (for example, "I would dismiss the appeal" or "I would allow the appeal"). In British constitutional theory, the Law Lords' opinions were originally intended to be individually delivered as speeches in debate before the full House of Lords, upon a motion to consider the Committee's "report" on a particular appeal. The actual reading of full speeches before the House was abandoned in 1963, after which it became possible for a deceased Law Lord to give a speech.

Judgment was given in the main House of Lords Chamber during a full sitting. Sittings for the purposes of giving judgment were normally held at two o'clock on Thursday afternoons; non-judicial matters were not dealt with during these sittings. The House of Lords' staff would notify counsel that judgment was imminent about five or six days before the relevant sitting, and provide advance copies of the Committee's written report (the Lords' written speeches) and the House minutes (in plain English, a script of the pro forma questions to be raised and voted upon) to counsel when they arrived for the sitting.

Only the Law Lords on the relevant Appellate Committee spoke, but other Lords were free to attend, although they rarely did so.  By the 1970s, the procedure had become such an arid formality that the same Law Lord who presided over the Appellate Committee also presided over the full sitting in which judgment was given.  Thus, he would repeatedly move away from the Woolsack to make a motion in his capacity as a member of the Appellate Committee, and then move back to the Woolsack in his capacity as the presiding officer of the House of Lords to recite the traditional formula which meant that a majority had voted for the motion: "As many as are of that opinion will say 'Content', to the contrary, 'Not Content'. The contents have it."

After the abandonment of reading speeches in full, each Law Lord who had heard the appeal would rise only to acknowledge they "have had the advantage of reading the speech" (or speeches) prepared by the other Law Lords on the Appellate Committee, and to state they would allow the appeal or would dismiss the appeal for the reasons given in their own speech or in another Law Lord's speech. After all five members of the Committee had spoken, the question was put to the House: "That the report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to." The House then voted on that question and on other questions related thereto; the decisions on these questions constituted the House's formal judgment. In theory, the full House was voting on the recommendations of the Appellate Committee, but by custom only the Law Lords on the Appellate Committee actually voted, while all other Lords (including all other Law Lords) always abstained.

If the House of Lords was in recess, the Lord Chancellor or Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary could recall the House to give judgment. Judicial sittings could occur while Parliament was prorogued, and, with the authorisation of the Sovereign, dissolved. In the latter case, the meeting was not of the full House, but was rather of the Law Lords acting in the name of the full House. Judgment could not be given between the summoning of a Parliament and the State Opening. No Parliamentary business is conducted during that time, except the taking of oaths of allegiance and the election of a Speaker by the House of Commons.

Related courts

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which included the twelve Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (now the Justices of the Supreme Court) as well as other senior judges in the Privy Council, has little domestic jurisdiction. The Committee hears appeals from the appellate courts of many independent Commonwealth nations and crown dependencies. The Judicial Committee's domestic jurisdiction was very limited, hearing only cases on the competency of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. Precedents set in devolution cases, but not in other matters, are binding on all other courts, which included the House of Lords. The 'devolution issues' were transferred from the Privy Council to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; however, the former continues to hear Commonwealth appeals.

Trials of peers

In mediaeval times, feudal courts had jurisdiction only in their subjects; peers of the realm were subjects directly to the king, so could only be tried by what would become the House of Lords. The right of peers to be tried by peers, rather than directly by royal justice, was one ceded reluctantly from the Crown, and eventually only applied to treason and felony.

Peers of Scotland were granted the privilege of trial by the House after the union of 1707; peers of Ireland were, after the union of 1801, entitled to be elected to the Commons, but during such service their privileges, including the privilege of trial in the House of Lords, abated. Peeresses in their own right and wives or widows of peers were also entitled to trial in such a court, though they were never members of the House of Lords. Widows of peers who later married commoners lost the privilege.

Procedure
After a peer was indicted by the normal criminal process, the case was brought before the Court of King's/Queen's Bench. The judges of that court could not accept any plea of guilty or not guilty, except a plea that the crime in question was previously pardoned. If pardon was not pleaded, the court issued a writ of certiorari moving the indictment to the House of Lords. The Lord High Steward presided, but the entire House could decide all legal, factual or procedural disputes. At the end, the Lords then voted, starting with the most junior baron, and proceeding in order of precedence, ending with the Lord High Steward. Jurors vote on (after making) oath or affirmation; a lord voted (up)on his honour. Bishops could not be tried in the House, because they were not peers, but they could participate as judges in a trial, except in the verdict. If Parliament was not sitting the case would be referred to the Lord High Steward's Court. He as president was sole judge of questions of law or procedure, but a jury of Lords Triers determined the verdict. (He selected, at his discretion, any 23 or more peers to be Lords Triers.) A simple majority of votes was enough to convict, but this could not be less than 12. Since the Crown appointed the Lord High Steward, peers lamented that in what may well be a political persecution this procedure put the accused at great disadvantage (since the Crown could appoint a hostile Lord High Steward who could select hostile peers as Lords Triers), and in the late 17th century made repeated efforts to ameliorate this.

Abolition
A peer's trial for treason or felony in the House of Lords was as much an obligation as it was a privilege; from 1391 it could not be disclaimed in favour of a trial by jury. A peerage trial offered significant disadvantages over a jury trial. Whereas a commoner could, and can, challenge the members of his or her trial's jury, peers had no such right since all lords temporal participated in the verdict; furthermore, since the House was itself the highest court of the land, no appeals were possible from the decision except for royal pardon, in contrast to the criminal court system for commoners. Nor was there leniency for any convicted peer compared to a commoner convicted of the same sentencethe privilege of a peer to be excused for a first offence was abolished in 1841, and the Lords' decisions on punishment were constrained to those provided by law. In any event, the Lords relied almost exclusively on the advice tendered by royal justices, who were the same people presiding over standard criminal cases. The sole deliberation taken by the House for its final trial of a peerthat of Lord de Clifford for vehicular manslaughter in 1935was to ask for the attorney's opinion of the case before unanimously voting to acquit de Clifford based on it.

The practice's persistence was in large part because so few trials occurred after the Glorious Revolutiononly two in the 20th century. By the late 1930s, the opinion of the House had turned solidly against continuing the privilege; the majority in favour of its abolition were largely holders of newly-created privileges resenting the inconvenience it caused accused peers, whereas the minority who still supported it were those holding old peerages who saw it as a privilege of the House as a whole. In 1936, a year after the de Clifford trial, the Lords voted to abolish the privilege but the legislation was not given time in the Commons by the government before the session ended.

In 1948, the First Attlee ministry introduced the Criminal Justice Act 1948 to abolish penal servitude. While the bill was in the Lords, Viscount Simon added an amendment to abolish the trial of peers by the House of Lords, which was agreed to in both houses and became law.

In popular culture
The novel Clouds of Witness (1926) by Dorothy L. Sayers depicts in the House of Lords the fictional trial of a duke who is accused of murder. Sayers researched and used the then current trial procedures. Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) comedy from Ealing Studios features an almost identical scene.

Impeachment

Theoretical device of impeachment
The UK constitutional institutions since early Victorian Britain have been careful to uphold a Diceyan emphasis on separation of powers (finalised with the Lord Chancellor's ending of his judicial office thwarted by a change of government in the 1870s, which that took place in the 2000s). The Lords legally has power to try impeachments after the House of Commons agrees and words "Articles of Impeachment", which it forwards.

Mechanism of impeachment
Originally, the Lords held that it applied only to peers and only for certain crimes. In 1681 the Commons passed a resolution that it may forward articles against anyone for any crime. The Lords tries/tried impeachment by simple majority. When the Commons demand judgment, the Lords may proceed to pronounce the sentence against the accused. The Commons may refuse to press for judgment whereupon the accused, convicted, faces no punishment.

The accused could not, under the Act of Settlement 1701, obtain and plead a pardon to avoid trial in the House of Lords; but could if liable to trial before the lesser courts. Any convict could be pardoned (absolutely) by the Sovereign. In Britain the House of Lords trials were in direct substitution of regular trial; they could impose the same sentences, and the Sovereign could pardon the convict like any other. This combined jurisdiction differs from many other nations. For instance, in the United States, impeachment serves only as a mechanism for removing officials in the executive and judicial branches; the Senate can only remove the accused from office and optionally bar them from future offices of public trust or honour, the President may not issue pardons in cases of impeachment, and an impeached officeholder remains liable to subsequent trial and punishment in the ordinary courts.

Incidence
Impeachment was originally used to try those who were too powerful to come before the ordinary courts. During the reign of the Lancastrians, impeachments were very frequent, but they reduced under the Tudors, when bills of attainder became the preferred method. During the reign of the Stuarts, impeachment was revived; Parliament used it as a tool against the king's ministers during a time when it felt it needed to resist the tyranny of the Crown. The last impeachment trials were the impeachment of Warren Hastings from 1788 to 1795 and the impeachment of Viscount Melville in 1806.

Peerage claims

Such claims and disputes were in early centuries a matter for the monarch alone; Erskine and May states (2019) the House is regarded as guardian of its own privileges and membership. Theoretically, the Crown, as fount of honour, is entitled to decide all questions relating to such disputes. In practice such decisions are made where disputed only after full reference to the House of Lords.

Since the taking effect of the House of Lords Act 1999, the House of Lords may declare the law on matters of peerage
by reference from the Crown (with whom the power at root resides, arranged by the Lord Chancellor considering all such regular claims via the Crown Office);
in any petition to enter the register for by-elections (those with a view to entering the House);

where the Lord Chancellor has recommended it is proper to be considered by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. Once the latter reports to the House, the House usually issues a concurring resolution which is reported to the Crown which by custom confirms the decision by directing entries on the Roll of Peerage. Each decision is deemed to turn on its own facts and is not of binding precedent value for other cases.

Constitution of the Lords

Appeals
At first, all members of the House of Lords could hear appeals. The role of lay members of the House in judicial sittings faded in the early nineteenth century. Soon, only "Law Lords"—the Lord Chancellor and Lords who held judicial office—came to hear appeals. The last time that lay members voted on a case was in 1834. The Lords later came close to breaching this convention a decade later, when the House was considering the case of Daniel O'Connell, an Irish politician. A panel of Law Lords—the Lord Chancellor, three former Lord Chancellors, a former Lord Chancellor of Ireland and a former Lord Chief Justice—opined on the matter. Immediately thereafter, lay members began to make speeches about the controversial case. The Lord President of the Privy Council then advised that lay members should not intervene after the Law Lords had announced their opinions. The last time a lay peer attempted to intervene was in 1883; in that case, the Lord's vote was ignored.

No provision stood whereby the number of Law Lords could be regulated. In 1856, it was desired to increase their number by creating a life peerage. The House, however, ruled that the recipient, Sir James Parke, was not entitled thereby to sit as a Lord of Parliament.

Under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, the Sovereign nominated a number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to sit in the House of Lords. In practice, they were appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister (they were not covered by the Judicial Appointments Commission established in 2006). Only lawyers who had held high judicial office for a minimum of two years or barristers who had been practising for fifteen years were to be appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. By convention, at least two were Scottish and at least one from Northern Ireland.

Lords of Appeal in Ordinary held the rank of Baron and seats in the House for life. Under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 they ceased to be such at 70, but could be permitted by ministerial discretion to hold office as old as 75. The Act provided for appointment of only two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but as of 2009 twelve could be appointed; this number could have been further raised by a Statutory Instrument approved by both Houses of Parliament. They were, by custom, appointed to the Privy Council if not already members. They served on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, highest court of appeal in certain cases such as from some Commonwealth countries. They were often called upon to chair important public inquiries, such as the Hutton inquiry.

Two of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were designated the Senior and Second Senior of their type. Formerly, the most senior of the Law Lords took these posts. Since 1984, however, the Senior and Second Senior Lords were appointed independently.

Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were joined by Lords of Appeal. These were lawyers who are already members of the House under other Acts (including the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the House of Lords Act 1999) who held or had held high judicial office. High judicial officers included judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the Inner House of the Court of Session and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Additionally, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary who had reached the age of seventy could become a Lord of Appeal. Between 1996 and 2001, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, a retired judge of an overseas appellate court (the Court of Appeal of New Zealand), served as a Lord of Appeal.

Judicial appeals were heard by Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Lords of Appeal under the age of seventy-five. Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were entitled to emoluments. Thus, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary ceased to be paid at the time they ceased to hold office and became Lords of Appeal. The Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary received £185,705 as of 2009 (the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales was the only judicial figure who received a higher salary). The other Lords of Appeal in Ordinary received £179,431.

By convention, only the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Lords of Appeal participated in judicial matters. When the House gave judgment, the regular quorum of three applied, but these had to be Law Lords. Normally, only the Law Lords on the Appellate Committee who were deciding the case voted when the House gave judgment.

Trials
The Lord High Steward presided over the House of Lords in trials of peers, and also in impeachment trials when a peer was tried for high treason; otherwise, the Lord High Chancellor presided. The post of Lord High Steward was originally hereditary, held by the Earls of Leicester. After the rebellion of one of the Lord High Stewards, the position was forfeited and re-granted to Edmund Crouchback, but it later merged in the Crown. The position was created again, but its holder died without heirs in 1421, and the post has since been left vacant. Whenever a Lord High Steward became necessary—at certain trials and at coronation—one was appointed for the occasion only. Once the trial or coronation concluded, the Lord High Steward would break his white staff of office, thereby symbolising the end of his service in that position. Often, when a Lord High Steward was necessary for trials of peers, the Lord Chancellor was appointed to the post.

The Lord High Steward merely presided at trials, and the whole House could vote. The position of the Lords Spiritual (the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England with seats in the House), however, was unclear. The Lords Spiritual, though members of the House, were not considered "ennobled in blood" like the temporal peers. Though they retained the right to vote in both trials of peers and impeachment trials, it was customary for them to withdraw from the chamber immediately before the House pronounced judgment. This convention was followed only before the final vote on guilt and not on procedural questions arising during the trial.

When the House was not officially in session, trials were heard by the Court of the Lord High Steward.

Peerage claims

If the claim is a difficult one, or if the Lord Chancellor is not satisfied that the claimant has established a right to succession, the matter is referred to the Lords, which then refers it to its Committee. In hearing such claims it sits with three current holders of high judicial office, who are granted the same speaking and voting rights as members of the Committee.

Reform
In 1873, the Government introduced a bill to abolish the judicial role of the House of Lords Judicial Committee in English cases (Scottish and Irish appeals were to be preserved). The bill passed, and was to come into force in November 1874. Before that date, however, the Liberal Government of William Ewart Gladstone fell. The new Conservative Government, led by Benjamin Disraeli, passed a bill to postpone the coming-into-force of the bill until 1875. By then, however, the sentiments of the Parliament had changed. The relevant provisions of the bill were repealed, and the jurisdiction of the House of Lords came to be regulated under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.

Concerns were chiefly around the Lord Chancellor, able and prone to sit in judicial and legislative/executive bodies (judicial committee and house). The other Law Lords would not participate in the latter. In the final 42 years of such office holder's possible participation in judicial sittings this was for a minority of their sessions:

Lord Chancellors tended to recuse themselves (not sit) when the Government had a stake in the outcome; during a debate in the Lords, Lord Irvine said, "I am unwilling to lay down any detailed rules because it is ever a question of judgment combined with a need to ensure that no party to an appeal could reasonably believe or suspect that the Lord Chancellor might, because of his other roles, have an interest in a specific outcome. Examples might be where the lawfulness of a decision or action by any Minister or department might be at issue." Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Lord Chancellor is no longer a judge.

Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which came into force on 1 October 2009, abolished the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and transferred it to a new body, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Among the initial Justices of the Supreme Court were ten of the twelve then existing Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords). One of the Law Lords (Lord Scott of Foscote) had retired on 30 September 2009 and the 12th, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, became the Master of the Rolls (one of two sub-head judges, that for civil justice, in England and Wales). The 11th place on the Supreme Court was filled by Lord Clarke (previously the Master of the Rolls), a member of the House of Lords who was the first Justice to be appointed directly to the Supreme Court. The 12th place was initially vacant. Formally addressed as (customarily styled) "My Lord" or "My Lady", later appointees are not elevated to the House of Lords.

See also
List of law life peerages
List of Lords of Appeal
List of House of Lords cases

Footnotes

Citations

References
"The Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords." (2009).
Blackstone, Sir William. (1765) Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

External links
 The records of the House of Lords Judicial Office are held by the Parliamentary Archives

House of Lords
Former courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom

2009 disestablishments in the United Kingdom
Courts and tribunals disestablished in 2009
1876 establishments in the United Kingdom
Courts and tribunals established in 1876

Judicial functions of the House of Lords


Reginald Philip Carr (born 20 February 1946) is an English librarian, who was Bodley's Librarian (head of the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford) from 1997 until his retirement in 2006. He is a member of the Christadelphian church.

Life and writings
Carr was born in Manchester and educated at Manchester Grammar School before studying French and German at the University of Leeds (obtaining a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1968 with first class honours) and the University of Manchester (obtaining a Master of Arts degree in 1971).  He worked as an Assistant Librarian in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester between 1970 and 1976, and was also Librarian-in-Charge of the School of Education Library at Manchester from 1972 to 1976.  After two years as Sub-Librarian (Reader Services) at the University of Surrey, he was Deputy Librarian at the University of Aston (1978 to 1980) and of the University of Cambridge (1980 to 1986). Between 1986 and 1996, Carr was University Librarian and Keeper of the Brotherton Collection in the University of Leeds, before being appointed as the 23rd holder of the position of Bodley's Librarian in Oxford from January  1997. In 2000 he established Oxford University Library Services, a new organisation that formally integrated Oxford's centrally-funded libraries, and he was its first director. Other work during his time as Director of Oxford University Library Services and Bodley's Librarian included setting up the Oxford Digital Library, extending the scope of legal deposit to cover electronic publications, and significant work on buildings and fundraising. During his time as Bodley's Librarian, he was also a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. He retired in December 2006, and was given the title of Bodley's Librarian Emeritus. A book of essays in his honour was published in 2008.

In retirement Carr continued until 2010 as a Member of the Harvard University Library Visiting Committee, and until 2012 as a Trustee of the Chawton House Library and as a Member of the Council of Management of the Friends of the Bodleian Library. Since 2007 he has served as the Book Editor for The Testimony magazine, and in 2011 he edited a special issue of the magazine to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible.

Carr's academic and professional publications include Anarchism in France: the case of Octave Mirbeau (1977) (based on his M.A. thesis), The Mandrake Press, 1929-30 (Cambridge University Library, 1985), An Introduction to University Library Administration (Clive Bingley, 1987, joint publication) and The Academic Research Library in a Decade of Change (Chandos, 2007), as well as numerous articles in both professional and academic journals. He has co-authored a comprehensive analysis of the use of the word 'Spirit' in the New Testament, and has written a study guide to the Biblical book of Micah, a collection of essays on Christadelphian faith, life and history, and several tracts about issues of Christian faith (The Miracle of the Bible: The word of God in print and The Christian and Politics).

References

External links
 Archival Material at Leeds University Library

Living people
1946 births
English librarians
Bodley's Librarians
People educated at Manchester Grammar School
Alumni of the University of Leeds
Alumni of the University of Manchester
Christadelphians
English Christians
People associated with the University of Surrey
People associated with Aston University

Reginald Carr (librarian)


Leonid Denysenko is a Ukrainian Australian artist living in Sydney, Australia. He is notable for the introduction of the graphic art technique of "literography". He is the only surviving founding member of the Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia.

Biography and career

Born in Warsaw in 1926 of Ukrainian émigré parents, Leonid studied art in Poland. After World War II he worked as an artist with the United States armed forces in Germany.

After arriving in Australia in 1949 with his family, he was sent to a migrant reception and training camp at Bathurst, NSW. As part of the 'assisted passage' Leonid and his brother, Yurij were under a contract to the Australian Government to work where the Government sent them, and the two young men learnt they were to be sent to Queensland as sugar cane cutters. As related by Leonid himself in a 2-page article in the Australian Women's Weekly:

In time, the Denysenkos left the camp and Leonid with his mother and brother Yurij, helped stage a number of Ukrainian arts and craft shows in Australia. By 1950 Leonid Denysenko was already being featured in Australian media as a "migrant artist from Ukraine", and "a young Ukrainian whose pen-and- ink work is much above the ordinary".

Leonid completed the necessary examinations which allowed him to teach art in secondary and high schools and his varied career saw him work as a stage and set designer for the theatre and films, a cartoonist and illustrator of books and periodicals, a stamp designer, a leading dancer in a ballet company, an art teacher and principal and a freelance journalist.

He holds a degree in graphic art, a certificate in education and a diploma in fine arts.

Commonwealth Jubilee Exhibition of New Australian Arts and Crafts

In 1951 Denysenko was chosen to be in charge of the New Australian Arts and Crafts Exhibition, which was part of the celebrations for the Jubilee of Australia's Federation. Denysenko's pen-and-ink sketches of Australian towns visited during the exhibition's tour were also part of the show. This touring exhibition visited capital cities and towns in all the states of Australia, including Queensland and Tasmania.

Works

Leonid Denysenko pioneered a new graphic art technique called "literography", which uses letters from words to form detailed pictures. His most famous work is the icon "God is Love", which features an image of Jesus Christ using letters of the word Love written in 79 different languages.

In December 1955, the Australian Department of Immigration announced a public competition to obtain designs for a suitable stamp about migration. Designs also were sought from a further 10 artists and designers including from Leonid Denysenko. About 300 entries were received.

Despite the great response to the competition and much discussion, a stamp on the theme of migration was never issued. Instead, the Department of Immigration used many of the entries in its touring immigration and citizenship promotional displays. In 1989 the two entries by Denysenko were featured in an exhibition of these "forgotten works" at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney.

Together with his brother Jurij, an architect, Leonid won a competition for the design of the International Monument in Fairfield in Western Sydney, that celebrates migration and the multi-ethnic community in that local government area.

Denysenko's designed the mosaics adorning the church at the Ukrainian Orthodox Centre in Canberra.

Exhibitions

Leonid Denysenko has exhibited in group exhibitions of the Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia in both Australia, and Ukraine, and his work "God is Love" has featured in many exhibitions throughout Australia.

Group exhibitions

 1973 – International Eucharistic Congress – Arts Festival, Exhibition Building, Melbourne, 15–25 February 1973
 2001 — "Devotion: the Religious, the Domestic and the Pacific", Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre, 12 September – 18 October 2001
 2010 — "Text as Spiritual Imagery" Exhibition, McGlade Gallery, Strathfield, September – October 2010

Notes and references

External links
 Pen and ink graphic by Leonid Denysenko "Poor neighborhood of the city of Ipswich, Queensland, Australia", 1951 in Ukrainian Art Digest, No. 18, December 1978, с. 75

Australian people of Ukrainian descent
Australian cartoonists
Mosaic artists
Postcard artists
Religious artists
Christian artists
Polish emigrants to Australia
Living people
1926 births
Polish expatriates in Germany

Leonid Denysenko


William DeVaughn Lucas (January 25, 1936 – May 5, 1979) was an American professional baseball infielder who became the first African-American general manager in Major League Baseball (MLB) with the Atlanta Braves from mid-September 1976 until his death in early May 1979. A member of the Braves' organization for 23 years, he was inducted into the Ivan Allen Jr. Braves Museum and Hall of Fame in 2006.

Biography
Lucas was born in Jacksonville, Florida. A graduate of Florida A&M University, he signed as an infielder with the Milwaukee Braves in 1957 and played in the Class C California League. He then served two years as an officer in the United States Army. Lucas returned to the Braves' farm system in 1960, reached the Triple-A level with the Denver Bears of the Pacific Coast League in 1963, and finished his minor league career with the Austin Senators of the Double-A Texas League in 1964. Overall, Lucas played professionally for six seasons, batting .273 in 655 games.

Lucas joined the Braves' front office in 1965, working in sales and promotions during the team's relocation to Atlanta before he switched to the player development department in 1967. Lucas was named the director of the Braves' farm system in 1972 and promoted to GM responsibilities on September 17, 1976.  At the time, the Braves were in last place in the National League West Division,  games behind the division leader. Owner Ted Turner gave Lucas, whose official title was vice president of player personnel, all the duties of a general manager, while Turner kept the official title himself.

With players like Dale Murphy coming up through Lucas' minor league system, and the selection of Bob Horner as the top pick in the 1978 MLB draft, the Braves began assembling the team that would win the 1982 division title.

The job of rebuilding the Braves was compounded by Turner's tempestuous behavior. On May 11, 1977, the owner appointed himself the Braves' field manager during a losing streak. Turner's dugout reign drew national headlines but lasted only one day before the president of the National League ruled that Turner, as an owner, could not appoint himself manager. Starting in 1978, Lucas found himself caught between Turner and players like rookie Horner and veteran pitcher Phil Niekro, a future Hall of Famer, during contentious contract negotiations.

On the evening of May 1, 1979, with the Braves on the road facing the Pittsburgh Pirates at Three Rivers Stadium, Lucas watched on television from his Atlanta home as Niekro won his 200th major league game, 5–2. Hours after congratulating Niekro by phone, Lucas was stricken with cardiac arrest and a massive cerebral hemorrhage.  He died three days later without regaining consciousness at age 43. At his passing, he was still the highest-ranking black executive in professional baseball. Said Murphy at Lucas' funeral, "Bill's dream was for this organization to become a success. It is our sacred honor to be chosen to fulfill his dream."

Lucas' widow, Rubye, later served on the board of directors of the Turner Broadcasting System and as president of the William D. Lucas Fund, which helps send young baseball players to college. Lucas' sister, Barbara, was the former wife of Hall of Fame inductee Hank Aaron; the two were married from 1953 to 1971.

References

Further reading

External links

1936 births
1979 deaths
20th-century American businesspeople
20th-century African-American sportspeople
African-American baseball players
Atlanta Braves executives
Austin Senators players
Baseball players from Jacksonville, Florida
Boise Braves players
Denver Bears players
Florida A&M Rattlers baseball players
Florida A&M University alumni
Major League Baseball executives
Major League Baseball farm directors
Major League Baseball general managers
Salinas Packers players
United States Army officers
Yakima Braves players

Bill Lucas (baseball)


The 7th Ohio Infantry Regiment was an infantry regiment formed in northeastern Ohio for service in the Union Army during the American Civil War. It served in the Eastern Theater in a number of campaigns and battles with the Army of Virginia and the Army of the Potomac, and was then transferred to the Western Theater, where it joined the Army of the Cumberland besieged at Chattanooga. It was noted for its holding the high ground at the center of the line at Antietam as part of Tyndale's 1st Brigade, Greene's 2nd Division of Mansfield's XII Corps. It is of the 7th regiment that a war historian wrote, "All in all, considering the number of its battles, its marches, its losses, its conduct in action, it may be safely said that not a single regiment in the United States gained more lasting honor or deserved better of its country than the Seventh Ohio Volunteer Infantry."

Three-months regiment
On 27 April 1861, orders were given to form the 7th Ohio Infantry Regiment from independent companies gathered at Camp Taylor in Cleveland.

The regiment elected its own field officers, and Erastus B. Tyler of Ravenna became colonel, William R. Creighton of Cleveland as lieutenant colonel, and John S. Casement of Painesville as major. Among the original officers was Captain John W. Sprague of Sandusky; he would later be a brigadier general and Medal of Honor recipient while serving in the 63rd Ohio Infantry.

On 6 May 1861, the Seventh left Camp Taylor and traveled to Cincinnati, where the new soldiers trained at Camp Dennison. In mid-June, the term of enlistment expired, and the men were asked to re-enlist for three-years' service. The vast majority did so, with their ranks augmented by fresh recruits.

Three-years regiment

Western Virginia

On 26 June 1861, the reconstituted regiment departed Camp Dennison for western Virginia, where the men would see their first action of the war. On 26 August, Brig. Gen. John B. Floyd, commanding Confederate forces in the Kanawha Valley, crossed the Gauley River to attack the 7th Ohio Infantry encamped at Kessler's Cross Lanes. The Seventh was surprised and routed with severe loss, the two wings of Tyler's line retreating in opposite directions. Throughout the rout and carnage Major Jack Casement, at the head of Tyler's left wing, commenced a retrograde march through Confederate territory over mountain ranges and rivers to Charleston, West Virginia without the capture of a single man. Floyd then withdrew to the river and took up a defensive position at Carnifex Ferry. During the month, General Robert E. Lee arrived in western Virginia and attempted to coordinate his forces. On 13 November, the Seventh was involved in fighting at Cotton Hill.

Virginia
On 5 January 1862, the regiment was engaged at the Blue's Gap Affair. On 23 March, it was at Kernstown, the opening battle of Confederate Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's campaign through the Shenandoah Valley. The battle was a Union victory, later proving to be Jackson's only defeat in the war. The last battle of Jackson's Valley Campaign was the Battle of Port Republic, which took place on 9 June. Here, the Seventh fought very effectively. With less than three thousand muskets, Jackson's force of fourteen thousand was held at bay for five hours. The Union forces however, were finally forced to retreat.

On 5 July, the regiment was issued new Model 1861 Springfield rifles to replace the obsolete Model 1816 muskets they had been carrying until then.

On 9 August, at the Battle of Cedar Mountain, the regiment was again at the front and engaged in a fierce hand-to-hand conflict. Of the three hundred men engaged, only one hundred escaped unhurt. The Seventh suffered more than any other Union regiment in this battle. On 21 August, the men experienced a brief engagement at Snicker's Gap. During the subsequent campaign, which lasted until 2 September and culminated in the Second Battle of Manassas, the Seventh was held in reserve guarding the railroads.

Antietam
On 17 September 1862, the 7th Ohio Infantry made the farthest advance of any Union regiment. With Tyndale's brigade of Greene's division, they first formed in the East Woods and came upon a line of Confederates. After the rebels were driven back, Tyndale's brigade began their movement at the edge of the Cornfield and proceeded through the fields along Smoketown Road until they were in front of the Dunker Church. They then moved forward into the West Woods, contesting the enemy. After the altercation, the division and brigade were forced to withdraw, leaving all of the ground they had gained. This was reflective of most Union units at Antietam.

After the battle, the Confederate army retreated back across the Potomac River and into Virginia. During the hesitant march south against Lee and his army, the Seventh camped at Loudoun Heights and then Bolivar Heights near Harpers Ferry.

Chancellorsville
The Seventh crossed the Rapidan River at Germanna Ford on 30 April 1863, and advanced to Chancellorsville by way of the Germanna Plank Road and Orange Plank Road. It took position just south of the Chancellor house, in support of a Union artillery battery that had unlimbered just across the intersection from the house. On 1 May, along with the rest of the 12th Corps, it moved eastward along the Plank Road. In the vicinity of the Catharpin Road, it encountered Stonewall Jackson's Confederates. In the evening, it beat off a probing attack by Confederate troops up the Plank Road.

During Jackson's famous flank march on 2 May, the Seventh held its position near the Chancellor house and did not take part in this action. The Confederates renewed their attacks the following morning, and the regiment found itself in a crossfire from Major General Lafayette McLaws' Confederates, who were attacking it from the east, and from Jackson's men attacking from the west. The converging fire from Confederate artillery batteries contributed to the Buckeye regiment's casualties. By 10 a.m., Hooker decided to retreat. Candy's brigade fell back through the regiment, which, along with several other regiments, helped cover the withdrawal. Once the rest of the army had fallen back, the Seventh joined the retreat, passing through the Chancellorsville clearing and retreating to a point on the United States Ford Road about two miles north of the battlefield. It moved back to the front later that afternoon, occupying a point near the apex of Hooker's final line. That evening, Hooker reshuffled his line, placing the Twelfth Corps on his left flank, next to the Rappahannock River. The regiment was among the last regiments to retreat, crossing the river just before daylight on 6 May.

Gettysburg

The 7th Ohio Infantry arrived on the fields near Gettysburg in the late afternoon of 1 July 1863. They camped in the area of Little Round Top for the night. On 2 July, they were sent to Culp's Hill and helped build breastworks with the rest of the division. Later in the day, the division was sent to the southern end of the battlefield to support the Union left. They ended up getting lost along Baltimore Pike and never reached the area they intended. That night, they returned to Culp's Hill.

On 3 July, at about 6 a.m., the Seventh was chosen to relieve the 60th New York at the left of Greene's line. It would be the first time the regiment had ever fought behind breastworks. Sherman R. Norris of Company D found that the Rebel formation in the 7th Ohio Infantry's front "melted away before our volleys, and after they had been broken, numbers of the enemy took refuge behind trees and rocks." At 8 a.m., the 60th New York again exchanged places with the 7th Ohio Infantry. Creighton's Ohioans were back in the breastworks by 9:45 a.m., relieving an unspecified regiment to the left of the 29th Ohio. This is when Confederate Maj. Gen. Edward Johnson flung his last assault at Culp's Hill. Among the attacking Confederates were the five regiments of the vaunted Stonewall Brigade. After an attempt to storm the right center of Greene's line, some Rebels became stranded on the hillside.

About 11:00 a.m., Creighton noticed a makeshift white flag thrown out from behind rocks in front of the 7th Ohio Infantry's entrenchments. He shouted for his men to stop shooting. The Buckeyes then observed a mounted officer in gray at the foot of the hill. He spurred his horse forward hoping to stop any attempt of surrender. Partway up the slope, he was met by a fusillade of bullets. Rider and horse both tumbled to the ground, dead. The officer proved to be Major Benjamin W. Leigh, Johnson's chief of staff. Afterwards, 78 Rebel soldiers surrendered to the 7th Ohio Infantry, many of them members of the 4th Virginia Infantry. The next morning, Company H Corporal John Pollock climbed over the works and picked up the 4th Virginia's rumpled colors, one of three battle flags captured by Geary's division at Culp's Hill.

Gettysburg was the last battle for the 7th Ohio Infantry in the Army of the Potomac. After pursuing the Army of Northern Virginia back into Virginia, the 11th and 12th corps were transferred west as reinforcements in order to support the besieged Union Army of the Cumberland in Chattanooga, Tennessee. They were placed under the command of Joseph Hooker.

Chattanooga

On 24 November 1863, the regiment marched with Geary's Division from Wauhatchie early in the morning, crossed Lookout Creek about 9:30 a.m. and formed the left of Geary's line when the latter was formed for advance toward the northern slope of Lookout Mountain. Ireland's brigade was on their right about 50 paces in front, a march of a mile and a quarter uncovered the fords by which Grose's Brigade of Cruft's Division joined the left of the line. In the general attack, they pushed on to Cravens' house, and continued in action on the front line throughout the afternoon, and then participated in the heavy skirmishing of the night.

The next day, they were in the pursuit of the Confederates towards the Rossville Gap on Missionary Ridge. They captured many men and guns without losing a single man in the regiment. On 27 November, with General Hooker, the Seventh charged up a series of hills in which the Confederates were holding called Taylor's Ridge in the battle of Ringgold. In this battle, the Seventh lost their colonel, William R. Creighton, as well as many officers and many of their men. This would be the Seventh's harshest experience throughout the war.

Once the campaign concluded and the siege had been lifted, the Seventh encamped at Chattanooga for the winter.

Atlanta Campaign
The 7th Ohio Infantry joined the campaign against Atlanta on 1 May 1864. First, it had an engagement at Rocky Face Ridge from 8–11 May. Then they took part in the Battle of Resaca on the 14th and 15th. Next, it had an engagement at Cassville on the 19th and then participated in reconnaissance at Pumpkin Vine Creek on the 25th. Later that day, they were in the Battle of Dallas and in the engagement at New Hope Church. Finally on 5 June, they fought at Allatoona Hills. Before Sherman's forces entered Atlanta, the Seventh was removed from the front because their three-year term of service had reached its expiration.

Withdrawal
On 11 July 1864, with the regiment's term of enlistment having expired, men who wished to continue serving in the army were transferred to the 5th Ohio, while the others left the front for their withdrawal from active service. The regiment was mustered out in Cleveland on 6–7 July.

Commemoration

On 4 May 1885, the Ohio General Assembly passed an Act "To appropriate money to purchase land upon which to erect a monument to the memory of the soldiers of Ohio who died upon the battlefield of Gettysburg." The Act appropriated $5,000 to be spent for the purpose under the direction of the Battlefield Memorial Commission. To see that this Act would be carried out in the best means, a meeting of the surviving Ohio soldiers was held at the State Capitol on 4 July 1885. At that same meeting, it was agreed upon that a committee would accompany the Adjutant-General to Gettysburg, and assist him in locating the positions in which Ohio troops fought.

After inspecting the field, the committee declared that $2,000 would be appropriated for each Ohio regiment, battery, or other organization which took part in the battle. This sum would be for the proper placement of monuments and tablets, and for keeping the grounds and memorials in good condition. On 15 and 16 July 1886, after careful inspection and examination of the positions occupied by Ohio organizations during the battle, it was decided that each organization should have its own special monument. No two would be alike in pattern and design, and each would be $1,500. On 14 September 1887, they were formally dedicated and turned over to the Gettysburg Battlefield Commission for future care and protection.

The 7th Ohio Infantry's monument is located near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in Adams County. It is a simple stone structure located at the intersection of Slocum Avenue and Williams Avenue, on the right when traveling north on Slocum Avenue. It lies on the "saddle" between the lower and upper crest of Culp's Hill in Gettysburg National Military Park. Dedicated on 14 September 1887, it marks the position held by the regiment on 2 and 3 July 1863. It is vertical with mostly rough-hewn surfaces and an apexed top. There is a polished inscription stone on each one of its sides. On two faces, towards the top, are State Seal and unit reliefs. A relief of crossed muskets with a wreath in the center is on the lower front sloped surface. A Corps star insignia appears on the top of the front inscription tablet. It was constructed by Smith Granite Company.

(Front)
- 7th Ohio Infantry – 1st Brigade 2d Division – 12th Corps – 1, 2 July 3, 1863

(Left)
- Dulce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mori – 7th Ohio Infantry – Arrived near Little Round Top evening of 1 July on 2 July, held positions on Culp's Hill from morning until 6 p.m. then moved with Brigade to support the left. Returned at midnight to Culp's Hill and remained there until the close of the battle.

(Back)
- 7th Ohio Infantry – Mustered in for –  3 months 30 April 1861 – Mustered in for – 3 years 21 June 1861 – Mustered out in June 1864

(Right)
- Ohio honors her brave sons – 7th Ohio Infantry – Served with the national armies in Virginia and the Antietam and Gettysburg Campaigns. Was transferred in September 1863 to the Army of the Cumberland and served with that Army until June 1864.

Today, the lineage and honors of the 7th Ohio Infantry are carried on by the 145th Armored Regiment, Ohio National Guard.

Notes

References

 Ohio in the Civil War: 7th OVI by Larry Stevens
 Home Camp of The Seventh Regiment, Ohio Volunteer Infantry
 CWSAC Battle Summaries, National Park Service
National Park Service battle description
 NPS report on battlefield condition
 Seventh Ohio Infantry
 Itinerary of the Seventh Ohio Volunteer Infantry 1861-1864

External links

Civil War Index: 7th Ohio Infantry – 3 Months Service in the American Civil War
Civil War Index: 7th Ohio Infantry – 3 Years Service in the American Civil War

Units and formations of the Union Army from Ohio
1861 establishments in Ohio
Military units and formations established in 1861
Military units and formations disestablished in 1864
1864 disestablishments in Ohio

7th Ohio Infantry Regiment


Alex Phillips is an assistant professor and director of assessment and curriculum development at Commonwealth College, the honors college at the University of Massachusetts. His poetry and translations have appeared in journals such as Poetry, Open City, and jubilat, and in Ted Kooser's newspaper column "American Life in Poetry". His book-length poem, Crash Dome, is published by Factory Hollow Press. Crash Dome was voted one of the top 20 poetry books of 2010 by readers of The Believer.

References

Year of birth missing (living people)
Living people
American male poets
American translators

Alex Phillips (poet)


was a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) built by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) for exploration of the deep sea. Kaikō was the second of only five vessels ever to reach the bottom of the Challenger Deep, as of 2019. Between 1995 and 2003, this 10.6 ton unmanned submersible conducted more than 250 dives, collecting 350 biological species (including 180 different bacteria), some of which could prove to be useful in medical and industrial applications. On 29 May 2003, Kaikō was lost at sea off the coast of Shikoku Island during Typhoon Chan-Hom, when a secondary cable connecting it to its launcher at the ocean surface broke.

Another ROV, Kaikō7000II, served as the replacement for Kaikō until 2007. At that time, JAMSTEC researchers began sea trials for the permanent replacement ROV, ABISMO (Automatic Bottom Inspection and Sampling Mobile).

Challenger Deep

Bathymetric data obtained during the course of the expedition (December 1872 – May 1876) of the British Royal Navy survey ship  enabled scientists to draw maps, which provided a rough outline of certain major submarine terrain features, such as the edge of the continental shelves and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This discontinuous set of data points was obtained by the simple technique of taking soundings by lowering long lines from the ship to the seabed.

Among the many discoveries of the Challenger expedition was the identification of the Challenger Deep. This depression, located at the southern end of the Mariana Trench near the Mariana Islands group, is the deepest surveyed point of the World Ocean. The Challenger scientists made the first recordings of its depth on 23 March 1875 at station 225. The reported depth was 4,475 fathoms (8184 meters) based on two separate soundings.

On 23 January 1960, Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard were the first men to descend to the bottom of the Challenger Deep in the Trieste bathyscaphe. Though the initial report claimed the bathyscaphe had attained a depth of 37,800 feet, the maximum recorded depth was later calculated to be . At this depth, the water column above exerts a barometric pressure of , over one thousand times the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level. Since then, only one manned vessel has ever returned to the Challenger Deep, the Deepsea Challenger, which was piloted by director James Cameron on March 26, 2012, to the bottom of the trench.

In March 1995, Kaikō became the second vessel ever to reach the bottom of the Challenger Deep, and the first craft to visit this location since the Trieste mission. The maximum depth measured on that dive was 10,911.4 meters, marking the deepest dive for an unmanned submersible to date. On 31 May 2009, Nereus became the third vessel to visit the bottom of the Challenger Deep, reaching a maximum recorded depth of 10,902 meters.

RV Kairei

RV Kairei (かいれい) is a deep sea research vessel that served as the support ship for Kaikō, and for its replacement ROV, Kaikō7000II. It now serves as the support ship for ABISMO. Kairei uses ABISMO to conduct surveys and observations of oceanic plateaus, abyssal plains, oceanic basins, submarine volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, oceanic trenches and other underwater terrain features to a maximum depth of 11,000 meters. Kairei also conducts surveys of the structure of deep sub-bottoms with complicated geographical shapes in subduction zones using its on-board multi-channel reflection survey system.

Timeline and fate of Kaikō

In February 1996, Kaikō returned to Challenger Deep, this time collecting sediment and microorganisms from the seabed at a depth of 10,898 meters. Among the novel organisms identified and collected was Moritella yayanosii and Shewanella benthica. These two species of bacteria appear to be obligately barophilic. The optimal pressure conditions for growth of S. benthica is 70 Megapascals (MPa), while M. yayanosii grows best at 80 MPa; no growth at all was detected at pressures of less than 50 MPa with either strain. Both species appear to contain high levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), omega-3 fatty acids which could prove to be useful in the treatment of hypertension and even cancer.

In December 1997, Kaikō located the wreck of Tsushima Maru on the sea floor off the coast of Okinawa. Tsushima Maru was an unmarked Japanese passenger/cargo ship that was sunk during World War II by , a United States Navy submarine.

In May 1998, Kaikō returned again to Challenger Deep, this time collecting specimens of Hirondellea gigas. Hirondellea gigas (Birstein and Vinagradov, 1955) is a crustacean of the Uristidae family of marine amphipods.

In October 1999, Kaikō performed a robotic mechanical operation at a depth of 2,150 meters off the coast of Okinawa near the Ryukyu Trench, connecting measuring equipment with underwater cables on the sea floor. On this mission, another bacterial species, Shewanella violacea, was discovered at a depth of 5,110 meters. This organism is notable for its brilliant violet-colored pigment. Certain compounds found in S. violacea may have applications in the cosmetics industry (development of products for lightening of skin tone) and also in the semiconductor industry (development of chemicals to be used in production of semiconductors).

In late November 1999, Kaikō located the wreckage of H-2 No. 8, a NASDA rocket (satellite launch system), on the sea floor at a depth of 2,900 meters off the Ogasawara Islands. H-2 flight F8 was conducted on 15 November 1999. The rocket, which was carrying a Multi-Functional Transport Satellite (MTSAT) payload, self-destructed after experiencing an engine malfunction shortly after it was launched.

In August 2000, Kaikō discovered hydrothermal vents and their associated deep sea communities at a depth of 2,450 meters near the Central Indian Ridge. The Central Indian Ridge is a divergent tectonic plate boundary between the African Plate and the Indo-Australian Plate located in the western Indian Ocean.

On 29 May 2003, Kaikō was lost at sea during Typhoon Chan-Hom, when a steel secondary cable connecting it to its launcher at the surface broke off the coast of Shikoku Island.

In May 2004, JAMSTEC resumed its research operations, using a converted ROV as its vehicle. The ROV, formerly known as UROV 7K, was rechristened Kaikō7000II. The 7000 designation indicates that this vessel is rated for diving to a maximum depth of 7,000 meters.

Development of ABISMO

While the temporary replacement ROV (Kaikō7000II) has a remarkable performance record, it is only rated to 7,000 meters and cannot reach the deepest oceanic trenches. For this reason, JAMSTEC engineers began work on a new 11,000-meter class of ROV in April 2005. The project is called ABISMO (Automatic Bottom Inspection and Sampling Mobile), which translates to abyss in Spanish. Initial sea trials of ABISMO were conducted in 2007. The craft successfully reached a planned depth of 9,760-meters, the deepest part of Izu–Ogasawara Trench, where it collected core samples of sediment from the seabed.

See also

References

Further reading

External links
 JAMSTEC's Kaikō page
 Marine Biology: The Deep Sea – General resource on deep sea creatures
 Autonomous Benthic Explorer AUV (ABE)
 R.I.P.  A.B.E: The pioneering Autonomous Benthic Explorer is lost at sea

Deep sea fish
Marine biology
Research submarines of Japan
Physical oceanography
Remotely operated underwater vehicles
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology

Kaikō ROV


Cody Jay Canada (born May 25, 1976) is an American rock/alt-country musician who currently is the lead singer and lead guitarist of the rock band The Departed since 2010. From 1994 to 2010, Canada was the lead singer of rock/alt country band Cross Canadian Ragweed.

Early life
Canada was born in Pampa, TX in 1976. He acquired a taste for music after attending a George Strait concert with his parents at the age of four. The next day he asked for a guitar.  Canada first started playing guitar at the age of eight. While Cody was a teen, the Canada family relocated to Yukon, Oklahoma and as a teenager was drawn to rock bands such as Nirvana and Pearl Jam and also outlaw country.

Cross Canadian Ragweed

In 1994, Canada along with fellow musicians Matt Weidemann (bass), Grady Cross (guitar), and Randy Ragsdale (percussion) formed Cross Canadian Ragweed in Yukon, Oklahoma. The band was named after the original members with Canada taking on the role of lead guitarist, lead vocals, and prominent songwriter. They would later move to Stillwater, Oklahoma. From the time of Ragweed's formation until its end in 2010, the band released seven studio albums as well as three live albums.

In 2010, the band went on an extended hiatus due to slight tensions inside the band, and Ragsdale's family responsibilities, eventually breaking up in late 2010.

The Departed

In 2011, Canada and Plato formed a new band, initially called Cody Canada & the Departed. The band originally consisted of Canada (guitar/vocals), Plato (bass guitar/vocals), Seth James (guitar/vocals), Steve Littleton (keyboards) and Chris Doege (drums) who replaced original drummer, Dave Bowen. They released their first album in June 2011 titled This Is Indian Land, consisting of covers written by Oklahoma songwriters.

On August 24, 2012, the band, now billing themselves as The Departed, announced through their website and social media that they would release their first original album titled Adventus. The album was released on November 13, 2012.

In September 2012, the band announced that they would release one song from Adventus every Monday leading up until the album's release on their Facebook artist profile.

In 2014 the band announced a third studio album.  Hippielovepunk was released on January 13, 2015.  The album debut at No. 9 on the Billboard US Country chart as well as No. 9 on the US Indie chart.  The first single was a return to the Red Dirt sound of CCR titled Inbetweener.

Solo work and collaborations
On November 19, 2013, Cody Canada released a solo acoustic 2-disc album Some Old, Some New, Maybe a Cover or Two.  The album was recorded live at Third Coast Music in Port Aransas, Texas, with 19 songs from throughout Canada's career, including works with Cross Canadian Ragweed and The Departed.

On November 13, 2015, Cody Canada released a two-disc, 35-track album with Mike McClure, Chip and Ray, Together Again for the First Time.  The album was recorded in Port Aransas, Texas, and features songs they worked on or recorded together.

Personal life
Canada is married to Shannon Canada, who also manages The Departed and their label Underground Sound. He has two sons, Dierks Cobain Canada (named after personal friend and country singer Dierks Bentley and former Nirvana lead singer Kurt Cobain), and Willy Vedder Canada (named after Reckless Kelly member Willy Braun and Pearl Jam's long time lead singer Eddie Vedder). Dierks plays in a band called Waves, and has been featured in live shows with Cody. He is also the brother in law of fellow red dirt musician Wade Bowen, who married his sister-in-law Shelby. Canada is also a Christian, and has mentioned his faith and Jesus Christ in Ragweed songs Highway 377, Carry You Home (from 2002's Purple Album), Down (2004's Soul Gravy), and When it All Goes Down (Garage, 2005). He lives in New Braunfels, Texas with his family.

Discography

Studio albums

References

1976 births
American rock singers
American alternative country singers
Living people
People from Pampa, Texas
People from New Braunfels, Texas
Musicians from New Braunfels, Texas
Songwriters from Texas
21st-century American singers

Cody Canada


Princess lace is a tape lace. It is made of straight machine-made lace tapes also called princess lace.  The lacemaker bends and folds these into the shape of flowers and leaves, and sews them into position.

History
Princess lace was introduced at the end of the 19th century in Belgium.  The most famous cities for princess lace were Aalst, Ninove, Geraardsbergen, Dendermonde and Liedekerke. It is reputed to be called Princess lace because the Belgium Royal Family used it.

Princess lace was mostly a home industry. In 1993, there were still 15 lace merchants who asked lacemakers to make princess lace.

References

Tape lace

Princess lace