“And again. I have already mentioned the suspicion to be excited by the
fact that the articles in question were suffered to remain at all in
the thicket where discovered. It seems almost impossible that these
evidences of guilt should have been accidentally left where found. There
was sufficient presence of mind (it is supposed) to remove the corpse;
and yet a more positive evidence than the corpse itself (whose features
might have been quickly obliterated by decay,) is allowed to lie
conspicuously in the scene of the outrage--I allude to the handkerchief
with the name of the deceased. If this was accident, it was not
the accident of a gang. We can imagine it only the accident of an
individual. Let us see. An individual has committed the murder. He
is alone with the ghost of the departed. He is appalled by what lies
motionless before him. The fury of his passion is over, and there is
abundant room in his heart for the natural awe of the deed. His is none
of that confidence which the presence of numbers inevitably inspires.
He is alone with the dead. He trembles and is bewildered. Yet there is
a necessity for disposing of the corpse. He bears it to the river, but
leaves behind him the other evidences of guilt; for it is difficult, if
not impossible to carry all the burthen at once, and it will be easy to
return for what is left. But in his toilsome journey to the water his
fears redouble within him. The sounds of life encompass his path. A
dozen times he hears or fancies the step of an observer. Even the very
lights from the city bewilder him. Yet, in time and by long and frequent
pauses of deep agony, he reaches the river’s brink, and disposes of
his ghastly charge--perhaps through the medium of a boat. But now what
treasure does the world hold--what threat of vengeance could it hold
out--which would have power to urge the return of that lonely murderer
over that toilsome and perilous path, to the thicket and its blood
chilling recollections? He returns not, let the consequences be what
they may. He could not return if he would. His sole thought is immediate
escape. He turns his back forever upon those dreadful shrubberies and
flees as from the wrath to come.
“But how with a gang? Their number would have inspired them with
confidence; if, indeed confidence is ever wanting in the breast of the
arrant blackguard; and of arrant blackguards alone are the supposed
gangs ever constituted. Their number, I say, would have prevented the
bewildering and unreasoning terror which I have imagined to paralyze the
single man. Could we suppose an oversight in one, or two, or three, this
oversight would have been remedied by a fourth. They would have left
nothing behind them; for their number would have enabled them to carry
all at once. There would have been no need of return.
“Consider now the circumstance that in the outer garment of the corpse
when found, ‘a slip, about a foot wide had been torn upward from the
bottom hem to the waist wound three times round the waist, and secured
by a sort of hitch in the back.’ This was done with the obvious design
of affording a handle by which to carry the body. But would any number
of men have dreamed of resorting to such an expedient? To three or four,
the limbs of the corpse would have afforded not only a sufficient, but
the best possible hold. The device is that of a single individual; and
this brings us to the fact that ‘between the thicket and the river, the
rails of the fences were found taken down, and the ground bore evident
traces of some heavy burden having been dragged along it!’ But would a
number of men have put themselves to the superfluous trouble of taking
down a fence, for the purpose of dragging through it a corpse which they
might have lifted over any fence in an instant? Would a number of men
have so dragged a corpse at all as to have left evident traces of the
dragging?
“And here we must refer to an observation of Le Commerciel; an
observation upon which I have already, in some measure, commented. ‘A
piece,’ says this journal, ‘of one of the unfortunate girl’s petticoats
was torn out and tied under her chin, and around the back of her
head, probably to prevent screams. This was done by fellows who had no
pocket-handkerchiefs.’
“I have before suggested that a genuine blackguard is never without a
pocket-handkerchief. But it is not to this fact that I now especially
advert. That it was not through want of a handkerchief for the purpose
imagined by Le Commerciel, that this bandage was employed, is rendered
apparent by the handkerchief left in the thicket; and that the object
was not ‘to prevent screams’ appears, also, from the bandage having been
employed in preference to what would so much better have answered
the purpose. But the language of the evidence speaks of the strip in
question as ‘found around the neck, fitting loosely, and secured with
a hard knot.’ These words are sufficiently vague, but differ materially
from those of Le Commerciel. The slip was eighteen inches wide, and
therefore, although of muslin, would form a strong band when folded or
rumpled longitudinally. And thus rumpled it was discovered. My inference
is this. The solitary murderer, having borne the corpse, for some
distance, (whether from the thicket or elsewhere) by means of the
bandage hitched around its middle, found the weight, in this mode
of procedure, too much for his strength. He resolved to drag the
burthen--the evidence goes to show that it was dragged. With this object
in view, it became necessary to attach something like a rope to one of
the extremities. It could be best attached about the neck, where the
head would prevent its slipping off. And, now, the murderer bethought
him, unquestionably, of the bandage about the loins. He would have used
this, but for its volution about the corpse, the hitch which embarrassed
it, and the reflection that it had not been ‘torn off’ from the garment.
It was easier to tear a new slip from the petticoat. He tore it, made
it fast about the neck, and so dragged his victim to the brink of the
river. That this ‘bandage,’ only attainable with trouble and delay, and
but imperfectly answering its purpose--that this bandage was employed
at all, demonstrates that the necessity for its employment sprang from
circumstances arising at a period when the handkerchief was no longer
attainable--that is to say, arising, as we have imagined, after quitting
the thicket, (if the thicket it was), and on the road between the
thicket and the river.
“But the evidence, you will say, of Madame Deluc, (!) points especially
to the presence of a gang, in the vicinity of the thicket, at or about
the epoch of the murder. This I grant. I doubt if there were not a dozen
gangs, such as described by Madame Deluc, in and about the vicinity of
the Barrière du Roule at or about the period of this tragedy. But the
gang which has drawn upon itself the pointed animadversion, although the
somewhat tardy and very suspicious evidence of Madame Deluc, is the
only gang which is represented by that honest and scrupulous old lady
as having eaten her cakes and swallowed her brandy, without putting
themselves to the trouble of making her payment. Et hinc illæ iræ?
“But what is the precise evidence of Madame Deluc? ‘A gang of miscreants
made their appearance, behaved boisterously, ate and drank without
making payment, followed in the route of the young man and girl,
returned to the inn about dusk, and recrossed the river as if in great
haste.’
“Now this ‘great haste’ very possibly seemed greater haste in the eyes
of Madame Deluc, since she dwelt lingeringly and lamentingly upon her
violated cakes and ale--cakes and ale for which she might still have
entertained a faint hope of compensation. Why, otherwise, since it was
about dusk, should she make a point of the haste? It is no cause for
wonder, surely, that even a gang of blackguards should make haste to
get home, when a wide river is to be crossed in small boats, when storm
impends, and when night approaches.
“I say approaches; for the night had not yet arrived. It was only about
dusk that the indecent haste of these ‘miscreants’ offended the sober
eyes of Madame Deluc. But we are told that it was upon this very evening
that Madame Deluc, as well as her eldest son, ‘heard the screams of a
female in the vicinity of the inn.’ And in what words does Madame Deluc
designate the period of the evening at which these screams were heard?
‘It was soon after dark,’ she says. But ‘soon after dark,’ is, at least,
dark; and ‘about dusk’ is as certainly daylight. Thus it is abundantly
clear that the gang quitted the Barrière du Roule prior to the screams
overheard (?) by Madame Deluc. And although, in all the many reports of
the evidence, the relative expressions in question are distinctly and
invariably employed just as I have employed them in this conversation
with yourself, no notice whatever of the gross discrepancy has, as yet,
been taken by any of the public journals, or by any of the Myrmidons of
police.
“I shall add but one to the arguments against a gang; but this one has,
to my own understanding at least, a weight altogether irresistible.
Under the circumstances of large reward offered, and full pardon to
any King’s evidence, it is not to be imagined, for a moment, that some
member of a gang of low ruffians, or of any body of men, would not long
ago have betrayed his accomplices. Each one of a gang so placed, is not
so much greedy of reward, or anxious for escape, as fearful of betrayal.
He betrays eagerly and early that he may not himself be betrayed. That
the secret has not been divulged, is the very best of proof that it is,
in fact, a secret. The horrors of this dark deed are known only to one,
or two, living human beings, and to God.
“Let us sum up now the meagre yet certain fruits of our long analysis.
We have attained the idea either of a fatal accident under the roof of
Madame Deluc, or of a murder perpetrated, in the thicket at the Barrière
du Roule, by a lover, or at least by an intimate and secret associate of
the deceased. This associate is of swarthy complexion. This complexion,
the ‘hitch’ in the bandage, and the ‘sailor’s knot,’ with which the
bonnet-ribbon is tied, point to a seaman. His companionship with the
deceased, a gay, but not an abject young girl, designates him as
above the grade of the common sailor. Here the well written and urgent
communications to the journals are much in the way of corroboration. The
circumstance of the first elopement, as mentioned by Le Mercurie, tends
to blend the idea of this seaman with that of the ‘naval officer’ who is
first known to have led the unfortunate into crime.
“And here, most fitly, comes the consideration of the continued
absence of him of the dark complexion. Let me pause to observe that the
complexion of this man is dark and swarthy; it was no common swarthiness
which constituted the sole point of remembrance, both as regards Valence
and Madame Deluc. But why is this man absent? Was he murdered by the
gang? If so, why are there only traces of the assassinated girl? The
scene of the two outrages will naturally be supposed identical. And
where is his corpse? The assassins would most probably have disposed
of both in the same way. But it may be said that this man lives, and is
deterred from making himself known, through dread of being charged with
the murder. This consideration might be supposed to operate upon him
now--at this late period--since it has been given in evidence that he
was seen with Marie--but it would have had no force at the period of the
deed. The first impulse of an innocent man would have been to announce
the outrage, and to aid in identifying the ruffians. This policy would
have suggested. He had been seen with the girl. He had crossed the river
with her in an open ferry-boat. The denouncing of the assassins would
have appeared, even to an idiot, the surest and sole means of relieving
himself from suspicion. We cannot suppose him, on the night of the fatal
Sunday, both innocent himself and incognizant of an outrage committed.
Yet only under such circumstances is it possible to imagine that he
would have failed, if alive, in the denouncement of the assassins.
“And what means are ours, of attaining the truth? We shall find these
means multiplying and gathering distinctness as we proceed. Let us sift
to the bottom this affair of the first elopement. Let us know the
full history of ‘the officer,’ with his present circumstances, and
his whereabouts at the precise period of the murder. Let us carefully
compare with each other the various communications sent to the evening
paper, in which the object was to inculpate a gang. This done, let us
compare these communications, both as regards style and MS., with
those sent to the morning paper, at a previous period, and insisting so
vehemently upon the guilt of Mennais. And, all this done, let us again
compare these various communications with the known MSS. of the officer.
Let us endeavor to ascertain, by repeated questionings of Madame Deluc
and her boys, as well as of the omnibus driver, Valence, something more
of the personal appearance and bearing of the ‘man of dark complexion.’
Queries, skilfully directed, will not fail to elicit, from some of
these parties, information on this particular point (or upon
others)--information which the parties themselves may not even be aware
of possessing. And let us now trace the boat picked up by the bargeman
on the morning of Monday the twenty-third of June, and which was
removed from the barge-office, without the cognizance of the officer
in attendance, and without the rudder, at some period prior to the
discovery of the corpse. With a proper caution and perseverance we shall
infallibly trace this boat; for not only can the bargeman who picked
it up identify it, but the rudder is at hand. The rudder of a sail-boat
would not have been abandoned, without inquiry, by one altogether at
ease in heart. And here let me pause to insinuate a question. There was
no advertisement of the picking up of this boat. It was silently
taken to the barge-office, and as silently removed. But its owner or
employer--how happened he, at so early a period as Tuesday morning, to
be informed, without the agency of advertisement, of the locality of
the boat taken up on Monday, unless we imagine some connexion with the
navy--some personal permanent connexion leading to cognizance of its
minute in interests--its petty local news?
“In speaking of the lonely assassin dragging his burden to the shore,
I have already suggested the probability of his availing himself of a
boat. Now we are to understand that Marie Rogêt was precipitated from a
boat. This would naturally have been the case. The corpse could not have
been trusted to the shallow waters of the shore. The peculiar marks on
the back and shoulders of the victim tell of the bottom ribs of a boat.
That the body was found without weight is also corroborative of the
idea. If thrown from the shore a weight would have been attached. We can
only account for its absence by supposing the murderer to have neglected
the precaution of supplying himself with it before pushing off. In the
act of consigning the corpse to the water, he would unquestionably have
noticed his oversight; but then no remedy would have been at hand.
Any risk would have been preferred to a return to that accursed shore.
Having rid himself of his ghastly charge, the murderer would have
hastened to the city. There, at some obscure wharf, he would have leaped
on land. But the boat--would he have secured it? He would have been
in too great haste for such things as securing a boat. Moreover, in
fastening it to the wharf, he would have felt as if securing evidence
against himself. His natural thought would have been to cast from him,
as far as possible, all that had held connection with his crime. He
would not only have fled from the wharf, but he would not have permitted
the boat to remain. Assuredly he would have cast it adrift. Let us
pursue our fancies.--In the morning, the wretch is stricken with
unutterable horror at finding that the boat has been picked up and
detained at a locality which he is in the daily habit of frequenting
--at a locality, perhaps, which his duty compels him to frequent. The
next night, without daring to ask for the rudder, he removes it. Now
where is that rudderless boat? Let it be one of our first purposes
to discover. With the first glimpse we obtain of it, the dawn of our
success shall begin. This boat shall guide us, with a rapidity which
will surprise even ourselves, to him who employed it in the midnight of
the fatal Sabbath. Corroboration will rise upon corroboration, and the
murderer will be traced.”
[For reasons which we shall not specify, but which to many readers will
appear obvious, we have taken the liberty of here omitting, from the
MSS. placed in our hands, such portion as details the following up of
the apparently slight clew obtained by Dupin. We feel it advisable only
to state, in brief, that the result desired was brought to pass; and
that the Prefect fulfilled punctually, although with reluctance, the
terms of his compact with the Chevalier. Mr. Poe’s article concludes
with the following words.--Eds. (*23)]
It will be understood that I speak of coincidences and no more. What
I have said above upon this topic must suffice. In my own heart there
dwells no faith in præter-nature. That Nature and its God are two, no
man who thinks, will deny. That the latter, creating the former, can, at
will, control or modify it, is also unquestionable. I say “at will;” for
the question is of will, and not, as the insanity of logic has assumed,
of power. It is not that the Deity cannot modify his laws, but that we
insult him in imagining a possible necessity for modification. In their
origin these laws were fashioned to embrace all contingencies which
could lie in the Future. With God all is Now.
I repeat, then, that I speak of these things only as of coincidences.
And farther: in what I relate it will be seen that between the fate of
the unhappy Mary Cecilia Rogers, so far as that fate is known, and the
fate of one Marie Rogêt up to a certain epoch in her history, there has
existed a parallel in the contemplation of whose wonderful exactitude
the reason becomes embarrassed. I say all this will be seen. But let it
not for a moment be supposed that, in proceeding with the sad narrative
of Marie from the epoch just mentioned, and in tracing to its dénouement
the mystery which enshrouded her, it is my covert design to hint at an
extension of the parallel, or even to suggest that the measures adopted
in Paris for the discovery of the assassin of a grisette, or measures
founded in any similar ratiocination, would produce any similar result.
For, in respect to the latter branch of the supposition, it should be
considered that the most trifling variation in the facts of the
two cases might give rise to the most important miscalculations,
by diverting thoroughly the two courses of events; very much as,
in arithmetic, an error which, in its own individuality, may be
inappreciable, produces, at length, by dint of multiplication at all
points of the process, a result enormously at variance with truth. And,
in regard to the former branch, we must not fail to hold in view that
the very Calculus of Probabilities to which I have referred, forbids all
idea of the extension of the parallel:--forbids it with a positiveness
strong and decided just in proportion as this parallel has already been
long-drawn and exact. This is one of those anomalous propositions which,
seemingly appealing to thought altogether apart from the mathematical,
is yet one which only the mathematician can fully entertain. Nothing,
for example, is more difficult than to convince the merely general
reader that the fact of sixes having been thrown twice in succession by
a player at dice, is sufficient cause for betting the largest odds that
sixes will not be thrown in the third attempt. A suggestion to this
effect is usually rejected by the intellect at once. It does not
appear that the two throws which have been completed, and which lie now
absolutely in the Past, can have influence upon the throw which exists
only in the Future. The chance for throwing sixes seems to be precisely
as it was at any ordinary time--that is to say, subject only to the
influence of the various other throws which may be made by the dice. And
this is a reflection which appears so exceedingly obvious that attempts
to controvert it are received more frequently with a derisive smile
than with anything like respectful attention. The error here involved--a
gross error redolent of mischief--I cannot pretend to expose within the
limits assigned me at present; and with the philosophical it needs
no exposure. It may be sufficient here to say that it forms one of an
infinite series of mistakes which arise in the path of Reason through
her propensity for seeking truth in detail.
Footnotes--Marie Rogêt
(*1) Upon the original publication of “Marie Roget,” the foot-notes now
appended were considered unnecessary; but the lapse of several years
since the tragedy upon which the tale is based, renders it expedient
to give them, and also to say a few words in explanation of the general
design. A young girl, Mary Cecilia Rogers, was murdered in the
vicinity of New York; and, although her death occasioned an intense and
long-enduring excitement, the mystery attending it had remained
unsolved at the period when the present paper was written and published
(November, 1842). Herein, under pretence of relating the fate of
a Parisian grisette, the author has followed in minute detail, the
essential, while merely paralleling the inessential facts of the real
murder of Mary Rogers. Thus all argument founded upon the fiction is
applicable to the truth: and the investigation of the truth was the
object. The “Mystery of Marie Roget” was composed at a distance from the
scene of the atrocity, and with no other means of investigation than the
newspapers afforded. Thus much escaped the writer of which he could have
availed himself had he been upon the spot, and visited the localities.
It may not be improper to record, nevertheless, that the confessions of
two persons, (one of them the Madame Deluc of the narrative) made, at
different periods, long subsequent to the publication, confirmed, in
full, not only the general conclusion, but absolutely all the chief
hypothetical details by which that conclusion was attained.
(*2) The nom de plume of Von Hardenburg.
(*3) Nassau Street.
(*4) Anderson.
(*5) The Hudson.
(*6) Weehawken.
(*7) Payne.
(*8) Crommelin.
(*9) The New York “Mercury.”
(*10) The New York “Brother Jonathan,” edited by H. Hastings Weld, Esq.
(*11) New York “Journal of Commerce.”
(*12) Philadelphia “Saturday Evening Post,” edited by C. I. Peterson,
Esq.
(*13) Adam
(*14) See “Murders in the Rue Morgue.”
(*15) The New York “Commercial Advertiser,” edited by Col. Stone.
(*16) “A theory based on the qualities of an object, will prevent its
being unfolded according to its objects; and he who arranges topics in
reference to their causes, will cease to value them according to their
results. Thus the jurisprudence of every nation will show that, when law
becomes a science and a system, it ceases to be justice. The errors
into which a blind devotion to principles of classification has led the
common law, will be seen by observing how often the legislature has
been obliged to come forward to restore the equity its scheme had
lost.”--Landor.
(*17) New York “Express”
(*18) New York “Herald.”
(*19) New York “Courier and Inquirer.”
(*20) Mennais was one of the parties originally suspected and arrested,
but discharged through total lack of evidence.
(*21) New York “Courier and Inquirer.”
(*22) New York “Evening Post.”
(*23) Of the Magazine in which the article was originally published.
?--------------------------------------------------------
THE BALLOON-HOAX
[Astounding News by Express, via Norfolk!--The Atlantic
crossed in Three Days! Signal Triumph of Mr. Monck Mason’s Flying
Machine!--Arrival at Sullivan’s Island, near Charlestown, S.C., of
Mr. Mason, Mr. Robert Holland, Mr. Henson, Mr. Harrison Ainsworth,
and four others, in the Steering Balloon, “Victoria,” after a passage
of Seventy-five Hours from Land to Land! Full Particulars of the
Voyage!
The subjoined jeu d’esprit with the preceding heading in
magnificent capitals, well interspersed with notes of admiration, was
originally published, as matter of fact, in the “New York Sun,” a
daily newspaper, and therein fully subserved the purpose of creating
indigestible aliment for the quidnuncs during the few hours
intervening between a couple of the Charleston mails. The rush for
the “sole paper which had the news,” was something beyond even the
prodigious; and, in fact, if (as some assert) the “Victoria” did
not absolutely accomplish the voyage recorded, it will be difficult
to assign a reason why she should not have accomplished it.]
THE great problem is at length solved! The air, as well as the earth
and the ocean, has been subdued by science, and will become a common and
convenient highway for mankind. The Atlantic has been actually crossed
in a Balloon! and this too without difficulty--without any great
apparent danger--with thorough control of the machine--and in the
inconceivably brief period of seventy-five hours from shore to shore!
By the energy of an agent at Charleston, S.C., we are enabled to be
the first to furnish the public with a detailed account of this most
extraordinary voyage, which was performed between Saturday, the 6th
instant, at 11, A.M., and 2, P.M., on Tuesday, the 9th instant, by Sir
Everard Bringhurst; Mr. Osborne, a nephew of Lord Bentinck’s; Mr. Monck
Mason and Mr. Robert Holland, the well-known æronauts; Mr. Harrison
Ainsworth, author of “Jack Sheppard,” &c.; and Mr. Henson, the
projector of the late unsuccessful flying machine--with two seamen from
Woolwich--in all, eight persons. The particulars furnished below may be
relied on as authentic and accurate in every respect, as, with a slight
exception, they are copied verbatim from the joint diaries of Mr.
Monck Mason and Mr. Harrison Ainsworth, to whose politeness our agent is
also indebted for much verbal information respecting the balloon itself,
its construction, and other matters of interest. The only alteration in
the MS. received, has been made for the purpose of throwing the hurried
account of our agent, Mr. Forsyth, into a connected and intelligible
form.
“THE BALLOON.
“Two very decided failures, of late--those of Mr. Henson and Sir George
Cayley--had much weakened the public interest in the subject of aerial
navigation. Mr. Henson’s scheme (which at first was considered very
feasible even by men of science,) was founded upon the principle of an
inclined plane, started from an eminence by an extrinsic force, applied
and continued by the revolution of impinging vanes, in form and number
resembling the vanes of a windmill. But, in all the experiments made
with models at the Adelaide Gallery, it was found that the operation of
these fans not only did not propel the machine, but actually impeded
its flight. The only propelling force it ever exhibited, was the mere
impetus acquired from the descent of the inclined plane; and this
impetus carried the machine farther when the vanes were at rest, than
when they were in motion--a fact which sufficiently demonstrates their
inutility; and in the absence of the propelling, which was also the
sustaining power, the whole fabric would necessarily descend.
This consideration led Sir George Cayley to think only of adapting
a propeller to some machine having of itself an independent power of
support--in a word, to a balloon; the idea, however, being novel,
or original, with Sir George, only so far as regards the mode of its
application to practice. He exhibited a model of his invention at the
Polytechnic Institution. The propelling principle, or power, was here,
also, applied to interrupted surfaces, or vanes, put in revolution.
These vanes were four in number, but were found entirely ineffectual in
moving the balloon, or in aiding its ascending power. The whole project
was thus a complete failure.
“It was at this juncture that Mr. Monck Mason (whose voyage from Dover
to Weilburg in the balloon, “Nassau,” occasioned so much excitement in
1837,) conceived the idea of employing the principle of the Archimedean
screw for the purpose of propulsion through the air--rightly
attributing the failure of Mr. Henson’s scheme, and of Sir George
Cayley’s, to the interruption of surface in the independent vanes.
He made the first public experiment at Willis’s Rooms, but afterward
removed his model to the Adelaide Gallery.
“Like Sir George Cayley’s balloon, his own was an ellipsoid. Its
length was thirteen feet six inches--height, six feet eight inches. It
contained about three hundred and twenty cubic feet of gas, which, if
pure hydrogen, would support twenty-one pounds upon its first inflation,
before the gas has time to deteriorate or escape. The weight of the
whole machine and apparatus was seventeen pounds--leaving about four
pounds to spare. Beneath the centre of the balloon, was a frame of light
wood, about nine feet long, and rigged on to the balloon itself with
a network in the customary manner. From this framework was suspended a
wicker basket or car.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500