document_title: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

question_text: what does excessive bail mean in the eighth amendment

text: Text[edit]

text: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[2]

text: Background[edit]

text: The Eighth Amendment was adopted, as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791. It is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like cases have usually done...that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."[3]

text: The provision was largely inspired by the case in England of Titus Oates who, after the ascension of King James II in 1685, was tried for multiple acts of perjury which had caused many executions of people whom Oates had wrongly accused. Oates was sentenced to imprisonment including an annual ordeal of being taken out for two days pillory plus one day of whipping while tied to a moving cart. The Oates case eventually became a topic of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.[4] The punishment of Oates involved ordinary penalties collectively imposed in a barbaric, excessive and bizarre manner.[5] The reason why the judges in Oates' perjury case were not allowed to impose the death penalty (unlike in the cases of those whom Oates had falsely accused) may be because such a punishment would have deterred even honest witnesses from testifying in later cases.[6]

text: England’s declaration against "cruel and unusual punishments" was approved by Parliament in February 1689, and was read to King William III and his wife Queen Mary II on the following day.[7] Members of Parliament then explained in August 1689 that "the Commons had a particular regard…when that Declaration was first made" to punishments like the one that had been inflicted by the King's Bench against Titus Oates.[7] Parliament then enacted the English Bill of Rights into law in December 1689.[7] Members of parliament characterized the punishment in the Oates case as not just "barbarous" and "inhuman" but also "extravagant" and "exorbitant".[8]

text: In England, the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause was a limitation on the discretion of judges, and required judges to adhere to precedent. According to the great treatise of the 1760s by William Blackstone entitled Commentaries on the Laws of England:

text: [H]owever unlimited the power of the court may seem, it is far from being wholly arbitrary; but its discretion is regulated by law. For the bill of rights has particularly declared, that excessive fines ought not to be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted: (which had a retrospect to some unprecedented proceedings in the court of king's bench, in the reign of king James the second)....[9]

text: Virginia adopted this provision of the English Bill of Rights in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, and the Virginia convention that ratified the U.S. Constitution recommended in 1788 that this language also be included in the Constitution.[10]

text: Virginians such as George Mason and Patrick Henry wanted to ensure that this restriction would also be applied as a limitation on Congress. Mason warned that, otherwise, Congress may "inflict unusual and severe punishments."[11] Henry emphasized that Congress should not be allowed to depart from precedent:

text: What has distinguished our ancestors?--That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany....[12]

text: Ultimately, Henry and Mason prevailed, and the Eighth Amendment was adopted. James Madison changed "ought" to "shall", when he proposed the amendment to Congress in 1789.[10]

text: Excessive bail[edit]

text: In England, sheriffs originally determined whether to grant bail to criminal suspects. Since they tended to abuse their power, Parliament passed a statute in 1275 whereby bailable and non-bailable offenses were defined. The King's judges often subverted the provisions of the law. It was held that an individual may be held without bail upon the Sovereign's command. Eventually, the Petition of Right of 1628 argued that the King did not have such authority. Later, technicalities in the law were exploited to keep the accused imprisoned without bail even where the offenses were bailable; such loopholes were for the most part closed by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. Thereafter, judges were compelled to set bail, but they often required impracticable amounts. Finally, the English Bill of Rights (1689) held that "excessive bail ought not to be required." Nevertheless, the Bill did not determine the distinction between bailable and non-bailable offenses. Thus, the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that bail may be denied if the charges are sufficiently serious. The Supreme Court has also permitted "preventive" detention without bail. In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the only limitation imposed by the bail clause is that "the government's proposed conditions of release or detention not be 'excessive' in light of the perceived evil." In Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), the Supreme Court declared that a bail amount is "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment if it were "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial.[13]

text: Excessive fines[edit]

text: Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas[edit]

text: In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are those which are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law." The Court wrote in its syllabus:

text: The fixing of punishment for crime and penalties for unlawful acts is within the police power of the state, and this Court cannot interfere with state legislation in fixing fines, or judicial action in imposing them, unless so grossly excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law. Where a state antitrust law fixed penalties at $5,000 a day, and, after verdict of guilty for over 300 days, a defendant corporation was fined over $1,600,000, this Court will not hold that the fine is so excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law where it appears that the business was extensive and profitable during the period of violation, and that the corporation has over $40,000,000 of assets and has declared dividends amounting to several hundred percent

text: The Court further stated in its opinion:

text: [I]t is contended that the fines imposed are so excessive as to constitute a taking of the defendant's property without due process of law. It is not contended in this connection that the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution against excessive fines operates to control the legislation of the states. The fixing of punishment for crime or penalties for unlawful acts against its laws is within the police power of the state. We can only interfere with such legislation and judicial action of the states enforcing it if the fines imposed are so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

text: In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas the Supreme Court set up a standard for judging whether or not a fine is "excessive." The standard set up is that a fine must not be "so grossly excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law." In other words, the government must not be able to confiscate such a large amount of property without following an established set of rules created by the legislature.[14]

text: Browning-Ferris v. Kelco[edit]

text: In Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, 492 U.S. 257 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply "when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded." While punitive damages in civil cases are not covered by the Excessive Fines Clause, such damages were held to be covered by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, notably in State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). [15]

text: United States v. Bajakajian[edit]

text: In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to confiscate $357,144 from Hosep Bajakajian who failed to report possession of over $10,000 while leaving the United States.[16] In what was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a fine to violate the Excessive Fines Clause,[17] the Court held that it was "grossly disproportional" to take all of the money which Mr. Bajakajian attempted to take out of the United States, in violation of a federal law that required him to report an amount in excess of $10,000. In describing what constituted "gross disproportionality," the Court could not find any guidance from the history of the Excessive Fines Clause and so relied on Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause case law:

text: We must therefore rely on other considerations in deriving a constitutional excessiveness standard, and there are two that we find particularly relevant. The first, which we have emphasized in our cases interpreting the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, is that judgments about the appropriate punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983) ("Reviewing courts ... should grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes"); see also Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393 (1958) ("Whatever views may be entertained regarding severity of punishment, ... these are peculiarly questions of legislative policy"). The second is that any judicial determination regarding the gravity of a particular criminal offense will be inherently imprecise. Both of these principles counsel against requiring strict proportionality between the amount of a punitive forfeiture and the gravity of a criminal offense, and we therefore adopt the standard of gross disproportionality articulated in our Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause precedents. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, supra, at 288; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271 (1980).

text: Thus the Court declared that, within the context of judicial deference to the legislature's power to set punishments, a fine would not offend the Eighth Amendment unless it were "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense." [13]

text: Cruel and unusual punishments[edit]

text: According to the Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some other punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime, or compared to the competence of the perpetrator.

text: In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947), the Supreme Court assumed arguendo that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Court ruled that it did apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson was the first case in which the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment against the state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Before Robinson, the Eighth Amendment had only been applied previously in cases against the federal government.[18]

text: Justice Potter Stewart's opinion for the Robinson Court held that "infliction of cruel and unusual punishment is in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as John Bingham, had discussed this subject:

text: Many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.[19]

text: In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

text:
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

text: Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty."[20]

text: Punishments forbidden regardless of the crime[edit]

text: In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment constituted cruel and unusual punishment.[21] In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment if the defendant is under age 16 when the crime was committed. Furthermore, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Court barred the executing of people who were under age 18 when the crime was committed. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Court declared that executing people who are mentally handicapped constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

text: Punishments forbidden for certain crimes[edit]

text: The case of Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), marked the first time that the Supreme Court exercised judicial review to overturn a criminal sentence as cruel and unusual.[22] The Court overturned a punishment called cadena temporal, which mandated "hard and painful labor," shackling for the duration of incarceration, and permanent civil disabilities. This case is often viewed as establishing a principle of proportionality under the Eighth Amendment.[23] However, others have written that "it is hard to view Weems as announcing a constitutional requirement of proportionality."[24]

text: In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), the Supreme Court held that punishing a natural-born citizen for a crime by revoking his citizenship is unconstitutional, being "more primitive than torture" because it involved the "total destruction of the individual's status in organized society."

text: In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Court decided that a California law authorizing a 90-day jail sentence for "be[ing] addicted to the use of narcotics" violated the Eighth Amendment, as narcotics addiction "is apparently an illness," and California was attempting to punish people based on the state of this illness, rather than for any specific act. The Court wrote:

text: To be sure, imprisonment for ninety days is not, in the abstract, a punishment which is either cruel or unusual. But the question cannot be considered in the abstract. Even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the 'crime' of having a common cold.

text: However, in Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), the Court upheld a statute barring public intoxication by distinguishing Robinson on the basis that Powell dealt with a person who was drunk in public, not merely for being addicted to alcohol.[25]

text: Traditionally, the length of a prison sentence was not subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, regardless of the crime for which the sentence was imposed. It was not until the case of Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), that the Supreme Court held that incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it were "disproportionate" in duration to the offense. The Court outlined three factors that were to be considered in determining if the sentence is excessive: "(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." The Court held that in the circumstances of the case before it and the factors to be considered, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for cashing a $100 check on a closed account was cruel and unusual.

text: However, in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), a fractured Court retreated from the Solem test and held that for non-capital sentences, the Eighth Amendment only constrains the length of prison terms by a "gross disproportionality principle." Under this principle, the Court sustained a mandatory sentence of life without parole imposed for possession of 672 grams (1.5 pounds) or more of cocaine. The Court acknowledged that a punishment could be cruel but not unusual, and therefore not prohibited by the Constitution.[26][27] Additionally, in Harmelin, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, said "the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality guarantee," and that "what was 'cruel and unusual' under the Eighth Amendment was to be determined without reference to the particular offense." Scalia wrote "If 'cruel and unusual punishments' included disproportionate punishments, the separate prohibition of disproportionate fines (which are certainly punishments) would have been entirely superfluous." Moreover, "There is little doubt that those who framed, proposed, and ratified the Bill of Rights were aware of such provisions [outlawing disproportional punishments], yet chose not to replicate them."

text: In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the Supreme Court declared that a life sentence without any chance of parole, for a crime other than murder, is cruel and unusual punishment for a minor.[28][29] Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), the Court went further, holding that mandatory life sentences without parole cannot be imposed on minors, even for homicide.[30]

text: Death penalty for rape[edit]

text: In Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), the Court declared that the death penalty was unconstitutionally excessive for rape of a woman and, by implication, for any crime where a death does not occur. The majority in Coker stated that "death is indeed a disproportionate penalty for the crime of raping an adult woman." The dissent countered that the majority "takes too little account of the profound suffering the crime imposes upon the victims and their loved ones." The dissent also characterized the majority as "myopic" for only considering legal history of "the past five years".

text: In Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), the Court extended the reasoning of Coker by ruling that the death penalty was excessive for child rape "where the victim’s life was not taken."[31] The Supreme Court failed to note a federal law, which applies to military court-martial proceedings, providing for the death penalty in cases of child rape.[32] On October 1, 2008, the Court declined to reconsider its opinion in this case, but did amend the majority and dissenting opinions in order to acknowledge that federal law. Justice Scalia (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) wrote in dissent that "the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read 'no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.'"[33]

text: Special procedures for death penalty cases[edit]

text: The first significant general challenge to capital punishment that reached the Supreme Court was the case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of Furman for murder, as well as two other defendants for rape. Of the five justices voting to overturn the death penalty, two found capital punishment to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, while three found that the statutes at issue were implemented in a random and capricious fashion, discriminating against blacks and the poor. Furman v. Georgia did not hold – even though it is sometimes claimed that it did – that capital punishment is per se unconstitutional.[34]

text: States with capital punishment rewrote their laws to address the Supreme Court's decision, and the Court then revisited the issue in a murder case: Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). In Gregg, the Court found, in a 7–2 ruling, that Georgia's new death penalty laws passed Eighth Amendment scrutiny: the statutes provided a bifurcated trial in which guilt and sentence were determined separately; and, the statutes provided for "specific jury findings" followed by state supreme court review comparing each death sentence "with the sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants to ensure that the sentence of death in a particular case is not disproportionate." Because of the Gregg decision, executions resumed in 1977.

text: Some states have passed laws imposing mandatory death penalties in certain cases. The Supreme Court found these laws to be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, in the murder case of Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976), because these laws remove discretion from the trial judge to make an individualized determination in each case.[35] Other statutes specifying factors for courts to use in making their decisions have been upheld. Some have not: in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980), the Supreme Court overturned a sentence based upon a finding that a murder was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman," as it deemed that any murder may be reasonably characterized in this manner. Similarly, in Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988), the Court found that an "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" standard in a homicide case was too vague. However, the meaning of this language depends on how lower courts interpret it. In Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), the Court found that the phrase "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" was not vague in a murder case, because the state supreme court had expounded on its meaning.[36]

text: The Court has generally held that death penalty cases require extra procedural protections. As the Court said in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), which involved the murder of a police officer, "the Eighth Amendment requires increased reliability of the process..."

text: Punishments specifically allowed[edit]

text: In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), the Court stated that death by firing squad was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

text: In Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole imposed per Texas's three strikes law for fraud crimes totaling $230. A few months after pleading guilty Rummel was released.[37]

text: In Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), the Court upheld a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of 672 grams (1.5 pounds) of cocaine.

text: In Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), the Court upheld a 50 years to life sentence with the possibility of parole imposed under California's three strikes law when the defendant was convicted of shoplifting videotapes worth a total of about $150.

text: In Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), the Court upheld Kentucky's execution protocol using a three drugs cocktail.

text: In Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) the Court upheld the use of lethal injections using the drug midazolam.

text: Evolving standards of decency[edit]

text: In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), Chief Justice Earl Warren said: "The [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Subsequently, the Court has looked to societal developments, as well as looking to its own independent judgment, in determining what are those "evolving standards of decency".[38]

text: Originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia argue that societies may rot instead of maturing, and may decrease in virtue or wisdom instead of increasing. Thus, they say, the framers wanted the amendment to be understood as it was written and ratified, instead of morphing as times change, and in any event legislators are more competent than judges to take the pulse of the public as to changing standards of decency.[39]

text: The "evolving standards" test is not without its scholarly critics as well. For example, Professor John Stinneford asserts that the "evolving standards" test misinterprets the Eighth Amendment:

text: The Framers of the Bill of Rights understood the word "unusual" to mean "contrary to long usage." Recognition of the word’s original meaning will precisely invert the "evolving standards of decency" test, and ask the Court to compare challenged punishments with the longstanding principles and precedents of the common law, rather than shifting and nebulous notions of "societal consensus" and contemporary "standards of decency.[40]

text: On the other hand, Professor Dennis Baker defends the evolving standards of decency test as advancing the moral purpose of the Eighth Amendment to ban all forms of unjust punishment.[41]

text: Proportionality[edit]

text: The Court has applied evolving standards not only to say what punishments are inherently cruel, but also to say what punishments that are not inherently cruel are nevertheless "grossly disproportionate" to the offense in question.[38] An example can be seen in Jackson v. Bishop (8th Cir., 1968), an Eighth Circuit decision outlawing corporal punishment in the Arkansas prison system: "The scope of the Amendment is not static....[D]isproportion, both among punishments and between punishment and crime, is a factor to be considered...."[42]

text: Professor Stinneford asserts that the Eighth Amendment forbids punishments that are very disproportionate to the offense, even if the punishment by itself is not intrinsically barbaric, but Stinneford argues that "proportionality is to be measured primarily in terms of prior practice" according to the word "unusual" in the amendment, instead of being measured according to shifting and nebulous evolving standards.[8] Similarly, Professor John Bessler points to "An Essay on Crimes and Punishments," written by Cesare Beccaria in the 1760s, which advocated proportionate punishments; many of the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, read Beccaria's treatise and were influenced by it.[43][44]

text: Thus, Stinneford and Bessler disagree with the view of Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, in Harmelin v. Michigan where they denied that the Punishments Clause contains any proportionality principle.[45] With Scalia and Rehnquist, Richard Epstein argues that the amendment does not refer broadly to the imposition of penalties, but rather refers more narrowly to the penalties themselves; Epstein says that judges who favor the broad view tend to omit the letter "s" at the end of the word "punishments".[46]


document_title: Return address

question_text: where do you write return address on envelope

root

text: Return address

text: In postal mail, a return address is an explicit inclusion of the address of the person sending the message. It provides the recipient (and sometimes authorized intermediaries) with a means to determine how to respond to the sender of the message if needed. The return address need not include a sender's name, but should include address or P.O. box details in the same way as the delivery address should. In some countries, the return address is conventionally located in the upper left hand corner of the envelope, card, or label. In the United Kingdom, the return address is usually placed on the reverse of the envelope, near the top.[1]

tag: p

text: Businesses often use envelopes preprinted with a return address. Many individuals have sheets of adhesive labels preprinted with their home address to affix to their correspondence. Charities sometimes include such sheets in mailshots. Rolls of Return Address Labels can be purchased from companies that sell personalized labels to provide individuals an easy way to peel and stick return address labels to their envelopes.

text: The return address is not required on postal mail. However, lack of a return address prevents the postal service from being able to return the item if it proves undeliverable; such as from damage, postage due, or invalid destination. Such mail may otherwise become dead letter mail.[2]

text: Should the return address be of a different state or country, the mail may be routed through that location for ease of return.

text: History[edit]

text: The return address has been used on U. S. postage since the 1880s. As pressure printing became more commonplace during the early 1900s, labels became cheaper and more easily distributed. The profession involved with producing these labels was known as lithography. During the 1950s in the United States, more and more mail was not arriving at intended recipients, and as a result of the lack of a return address, said mail ended up in the dead letter office. With this rise in dead mail, the post office pleaded for people to use a return address. Even after this, the public still tended to neglect adding a return address. This prompted the postmaster to inform the public that mail without a return address would be less of a priority than mail with a return address. Still, the public did not widely use a return address until the 1960s when companies began to offer deals for preprinted return labels such as 2,500 labels for $2.00. They became more popular with the invention of label dispensers. With the invention of the personal computer, software enabled people to print their own labels. As e-mail began to overtake written mail, the return address became automatic in an e-mail.[3]


document_title: List of state leaders in 1952

question_text: who became new zealand's head of state in 1952

question_tokens: who became new zealand 's head of state in 1952

text: List of state leaders in 1952

text: Africa[edit]

text:
Egypt

Monarch -

Farouk I, King of Egypt and the Sudan (1936–1952)
Fuad II, King of Egypt and the Sudan (1952–1953)

Regent - Prince Muhammad Abdel Moneim, Chairman of the Council of Regency of Egypt (1952–1953)
Prime Minister -

Mostafa El-Nahas, Prime Minister of Egypt (1950–1952)
Aly Maher Pasha, Prime Minister of Egypt (1952)
Ahmed Naguib el-Hilaly, Prime Minister of Egypt (1952)
Hussein Serry Pasha, Prime Minister of Egypt (1952)
Ahmed Naguib el-Hilaly, Prime Minister of Egypt (1952)
Aly Maher Pasha, Prime Minister of Egypt (1952)
Mohammed Naguib, Prime Minister of Egypt (1952–1954)

Ethiopia

Monarch - Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia (1930–1974)[1]
Prime Minister - Makonnen Endelkachew, Prime Minister of Ethiopia (1942–1957)

Liberia

President - William Tubman, President of Liberia (1944–1971)

Libya

Monarch - Idris, King of Libya (1951–1969)
Prime Minister - Mahmud al-Muntasir, Prime Minister of Libya (1951–1954)

South Africa

Monarch -

George VI, King of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas (1936–1952)
Elizabeth II, Queen of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas (1952–1961)

Governor-General - Ernest George Jansen, Governor-General of South Africa (1951–1959)
Prime Minister - Daniel François Malan, Prime Minister of South Africa (1948–1954)

tag: ul

text: Asia[edit]

text:
Afghanistan

Monarch - Mohammed Zahir Shah, King of Afghanistan (1933–1973)
Prime Minister - Shah Mahmud Khan, Prime Minister of Afghanistan (1946–1953)

Bhutan

Monarch -

Jigme Wangchuck, King of Bhutan (1926–1952)
Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, King of Bhutan (1952–1972)

Prime Minister -

Sonam Topgay Dorji, Chief Minister of Bhutan (1917–1952)
Jigme Palden Dorji, Prime Minister of Bhutan (1952–1964)

Burma

President -

Sao Shwe Thaik, President of Burma (1948–1952)
Ba U, President of Burma (1952–1957)

Prime Minister - U Nu, Prime Minister of Burma (1948–1956)

Ceylon

Monarch -

George VI, King of the British Dominions beyond the Seas (1948–1952)
Elizabeth II, Queen of the British Dominions beyond the Seas (1952–1972)

Governor-General - Herwald Ramsbotham, Baron Soulbury, Governor-General of Ceylon (1949–1954)
Prime Minister -

D. S. Senanayake, Prime Minister of Ceylon (1947–1952)[2]
Dudley Senanayake, Prime Minister of Ceylon (1952–1953)

China (People's Republic of China)

Communist Party Leader - Mao Zedong, Chairman of the Communist Party of China (1935–1976)
Head of State - Mao Zedong, Chairman of China (1949–1959)
Premier - Zhou Enlai, Premier of the Government Administration Council of the Central People's Government of China (1949–1976)

India

President - Rajendra Prasad, President of India (1950–1962)
Prime Minister - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India (1947–1964)

Indonesia

President - Sukarno, President of Indonesia (1945–1967)
Prime Minister -

Soekiman Wirjosandjojo, Prime Minister of Indonesia (1951–1952)
Wilopo, Prime Minister of Indonesia (1952–1953)

Islamic State of Indonesia (unrecognized secessionist state)

Leader - Sekarmadji Maridjan Kartosuwirjo, Imam of the Islamic State of Indonesia (1949–1962)

Iran

Monarch - Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (1941–1979)
Prime Minister -

Mohammad Mosaddegh, Prime Minister of Iran (1951–1952)
Ahmad Qavam, Prime Minister of Iran (1952)
Mohammad Mosaddegh, Prime Minister of Iran (1952–1953)

Iraq

Monarch - Faisal II, King of Iraq (1939–1958)
Regent - Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, Regent of Iraq (1941–1953)
Prime Minister -

Nuri as-Said, Prime Minister of Iraq (1950–1952)
Mustafa Mahmud al-Umari, Prime Minister of Iraq (1952)
Nureddin Mahmud, Prime Minister of Iraq (1952–1953)

Israel

President -

Chaim Weizmann, President of Israel (1948–1952)
Yosef Sprinzak, Interim President of Israel (1952)
Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, President of Israel (1952–1963)

Prime Minister - David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel (1948–1954)

Japan

the occupation of Japan ended on 28 April 1952
Monarch - Hirohito, Emperor of Japan (1926–1989)
Prime Minister - Shigeru Yoshida, Prime Minister of Japan (1948–1954)
Military Governor - Matthew Ridgway, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (1951–1952)

Jordan

Monarch -

Talal, King of Jordan (1951–1952)
Hussein, King of Jordan (1952–1999)

Regent - Queen Zein al-Sharaf Talal, Head of the Regency Council of Jordan (1952–1953)
Prime Minister - Tawfik Abu al-Huda, Prime Minister of Jordan (1951–1953)

North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

Communist Party Leader - Kim Il-sung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Korean Workers' Party (1949–1994)
Head of State - Kim Tu-bong, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea (1947–1957)[3]
Prime Minister - Kim Il-sung, Prime Minister of the Cabinet of North Korea (1946–1972)[4]

South Korea (Republic of Korea)

President - Syngman Rhee, President of South Korea (1948–1960)
Prime Minister -

Chang Myon, Prime Minister of South Korea (1950–1952)
Yi Yun-yong, Acting Prime Minister of South Korea (1952)
Jang Taek-sang, Prime Minister of South Korea (1952)
Baek Du-jin, Prime Minister of South Korea (1952–1954)

Lebanon

President -

Bechara El Khoury, President of Lebanon (1943–1952)
Fuad Chehab, Acting President of Lebanon (1952)
Camille Chamoun, President of Lebanon (1952–1958)

Prime Minister -

Abdallah El-Yafi, President of the Council of Ministers of Lebanon (1951–1952)
Sami as-Solh, President of the Council of Ministers of Lebanon (1952)
Nazem Akkari, President of the Council of Ministers of Lebanon (1952)
Saeb Salam, President of the Council of Ministers of Lebanon (1952)
Abdallah El-Yafi, President of the Council of Ministers of Lebanon (1952)
Khaled Chehab, President of the Council of Ministers of Lebanon (1952–1953)

Mongolia

Communist Party Leader - Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal, General secretary of the Central Committee of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (1940–1954)
Head of State - Gonchigiin Bumtsend, Chairman of the Presidium of the State Little Hural of Mongolia (1940–1953)
Premier -

Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Mongolia (1939–1952)
Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Mongolia (1952–1974)

Muscat and Oman

Monarch - Said Bin Taimur, Sultan of Muscat and Oman (1932–1970)

Nepal

Monarch - Tribhuvan, King of Nepal (1951–1955)
Prime Minister -

Matrika Prasad Koirala, Prime Minister of Nepal (1951–1952)
Tribhuvan, Prime Minister of Nepal (1952–1953)

Pakistan

Monarch -

George VI, King of Pakistan (1947–1952)
Elizabeth II, Queen of Pakistan (1952–1956)

Governor-General - Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Governor-General of Pakistan (1951–1955)
Prime Minister - Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin, Prime Minister of Pakistan (1951–1953)

Philippines

President - Elpidio Quirino, President of the Philippines (1948–1953)

Saudi Arabia

Monarch - Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia (1902–1953)[5]

Syria

Head of State - Fawzi Selu, Head of State of Syria (1951–1953)
Prime Minister - Fawzi Selu, Prime Minister of Syria (1951–1953)

Taiwan (Republic of China)

President - Chiang Kai-shek, President of Taiwan (1950–1975)
Premier - Chen Cheng, President of the Executive Yuan of Taiwan (1950–1954)

Thailand

Monarch - Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand (1946–2016)
Prime Minister - Plaek Phibunsongkhram, Prime Minister of Thailand (1948–1957)

Turkey

President - Celâl Bayar, President of Turkey (1950–1960)
Prime Minister - Adnan Menderes, Prime Minister of Turkey (1950–1960)

North Vietnam (Democratic Republic of Vietnam)

Communist Party Leader - Trường Chinh, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (1941–1956)
President - Hồ Chí Minh, President of North Vietnam (1945–1969)
Premier - Hồ Chí Minh, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of North Vietnam (1945–1955)

South Vietnam (State of Vietnam)

Head of State - Bảo Đại, Chief of State of South Vietnam (1949–1955)
Prime Minister -

Trần Văn Hữu, Prime Minister of South Vietnam (1950–1952)
Nguyễn Văn Tâm, Prime Minister of South Vietnam (1952–1953)

Yemen

Monarch - Ahmad bin Yahya, King of Yemen (1948–1955)
Prime Minister - Hassan ibn Yahya, Prime Minister of Yemen (1948–1955)

text: Europe[edit]

text:
Albania

Communist Party Leader - Enver Hoxha, First Secretary of the Albanian Party of Labor (1944–1985)
Head of State - Omer Nishani, Chairman of the Presidium of the People's Assembly of Albania (1944–1953)
Premier - Enver Hoxha, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Albania (1944–1954)

Andorra

Monarchs -

French Co-Prince - Vincent Auriol, French Co-Prince of Andorra (1947–1954)

Co-Prince's Representative -

André Bertrand (1947–1952)
Guy Henri Victor Menant (1952–1956)

Episcopal Co-Prince - Ramon Iglesias i Navarri, Episcopal Co-Prince of Andorra (1943–1969)

Co-Prince's Representative - Jaume Sansa Nequí (1937–1972)

First Syndic - Francesc Cairat Freixes, First Syndic of Andorra (1937–1960)

Austria (under Allied occupation)

President - Theodor Körner, Federal President of Austria (1951–1957)
Chancellor - Leopold Figl, Federal Chancellor of Austria (1945–1953)
American high commissioner -

Walter J. Donnelly (1950–1952)
Llewellyn Thompson (1952–1955)

British high commissioner - Harold Caccia (1950–1954)
French high commissioner - Jean Payart (1950–1955)
Soviet high commissioner - Vladimir Sviridov (1949–1953)

Belgium

Monarch - Baudouin, King of the Belgians (1951–1993)
Prime Minister -

Joseph Pholien, Prime Minister of Belgium (1950–1952)
Jean Van Houtte, Prime Minister of Belgium (1952–1954)

Bulgaria

Communist Party Leader - Vulko Chervenkov, General Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party (1949–1954)
Head of State - Georgi Damyanov, Chairman of the Presidium of the National Assembly of Bulgaria (1950–1958)
Premier - Vulko Chervenkov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bulgaria (1950–1956)

Czechoslovakia

Communist Party Leader - Klement Gottwald, Chairman of the Communisty Party of Czechoslovakia (1929–1953)[6]
President - Klement Gottwald, President of Czechoslovakia (1948–1953)
Prime Minister - Antonín Zápotocký, Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia (1948–1953)

Denmark

Monarch - Frederick IX, King of Denmark (1947–1972)
Prime Minister - Erik Eriksen, Prime Minister of Denmark (1950–1953)

Finland

President - Juho Kusti Paasikivi, President of Finland (1946–1956)
Prime Minister - Urho Kekkonen, Prime Minister of Finland (1950–1953)

France

President - Vincent Auriol, President of France (1947–1954)
Prime Minister -

René Pleven, President of the Council of Ministers of France (1951–1952)
Edgar Fauré, President of the Council of Ministers of France (1952)
Antoine Pinay, President of the Council of Ministers of France (1952–1953)

East Germany (German Democratic Republic)

Communist Party Leader - Walter Ulbricht, General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (1950–1971)
President - Wilhelm Pieck, President of East Germany (1949–1960)
Premier - Otto Grotewohl, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of East Germany (1949–1964)

West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany)

President - Theodor Heuss, Federal President of West Germany (1949–1959)
Chancellor - Konrad Adenauer, Federal Chancellor of West Germany (1949–1963)
West Berlin (Western Allies-occupied free city)

Governing Mayor - Ernst Reuter, Governing Mayor of Berlin (1948–1953)

Greece

Monarch - Paul, King of the Hellenes (1947–1964)
Prime Minister -

Nikolaos Plastiras, President of the Ministerial Council of Greece (1951–1952)
Dimitrios Kiousopoulos, President of the Ministerial Council of Greece (1952)
Alexandros Papagos, President of the Ministerial Council of Greece (1952–1955)

Hungary

Communist Party Leader - Mátyás Rákosi, First Secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party (1945–1956)
Head of State -

Sándor Rónai, Chairman of the Presidential Council of Hungary (1950–1952)
István Dobi, Chairman of the Presidential Council of Hungary (1952–1967)

Premier -

István Dobi, President of the Council of Ministers of Hungary (1948–1952)
Mátyás Rákosi, President of the Council of Ministers of Hungary (1952–1953)

Iceland

President -

Sveinn Björnsson, President of Iceland (1944–1952)[7]
Ásgeir Ásgeirsson, President of Iceland (1952–1968)

Prime Minister - Steingrímur Steinþórsson, Prime Minister of Iceland (1950–1953)

Ireland

President - Seán T. O'Kelly, President of Ireland (1945–1959)
Prime Minister - Éamon de Valera, Taoiseach of Ireland (1951–1954)

Italy

President - Luigi Einaudi, President of Italy (1948–1955)
Prime Minister - Alcide De Gasperi, President of the Council of Ministers of Italy (1945–1953)

Liechtenstein

Monarch - Franz Joseph II, Prince Regnant of Liechtenstein (1938–1989)
Prime Minister - Alexander Frick, Head of Government of Liechtenstein (1945–1962)

Luxembourg

Monarch - Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg (1919–1964)[8]
Prime Minister - Pierre Dupong, President of the Government of Luxembourg (1937–1953)[9]

Monaco

Monarch - Rainier III, Sovereign Prince of Monaco (1949–2005)
Head of Government - Pierre Voizard, Minister of State of Monaco (1950–1953)

Netherlands

Monarch - Juliana, Queen of the Netherlands (1948–1980)
Prime Minister - Willem Drees, Prime Minister of the Netherlands (1948–1958)

Norway

Monarch - Haakon VII, King of Norway (1905–1957)[10]
Prime Minister - Oscar Torp, Prime Minister of Norway (1951–1955)

Poland

Communist Party Leader - Bolesław Bierut, First Secretary of the Central Committee of Polish United Workers' Party (1948–1956)
Head of State -

Bolesław Bierut, President of Poland (1944–1952)
Aleksander Zawadzki, Chairman of the Council of State of Poland (1952–1964)

Premier -

Józef Cyrankiewicz, President of the Council of Ministers of Poland (1947–1952)
Bolesław Bierut, President of the Council of Ministers of Poland (1952–1954)

Portugal

President - Francisco Craveiro Lopes, President of Portugal (1951–1958)
Premier - António de Oliveira Salazar, President of the Council of Ministers of Portugal (1932–1968)

Romania

Communist Party Leader - Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, General Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party (1945–1954)
Head of State -

Constantin Ion Parhon, Chairman of the Presidium of the Great National Assembly of Romania (1947–1952)
Petru Groza, Chairman of the Presidium of the Great National Assembly of Romania (1952–1958)

Premier -

Petru Groza, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Romania (1945–1952)
Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Romania (1952–1955)

San Marino

Captains Regent -

Domenico Forcellini and Giovanni Terenzi, Captains Regent of San Marino (1951–1952)
Domenico Morganti and Mariano Ceccoli, Captains Regent of San Marino (1952)
Arnaldo Para and Eugenio Bernardini, Captains Regent of San Marino (1952–1953)

Soviet Union

Communist Party Leader - Joseph Stalin, Senior Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1953)
Head of State - Nikolay Shvernik, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union (1946–1953)
Premier - Joseph Stalin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953)

Spain

Head of State - Francisco Franco, Head of State of Spain (1936–1975)
Prime Minister - Francisco Franco, President of the Government of Spain (1938–1973)

Sweden

Monarch - Gustaf VI Adolf, King of Sweden (1950–1973)
Prime Minister - Tage Erlander, Prime Minister of Sweden (1946–1969)

Switzerland

Federal Council:[11]

Philipp Etter (1934–1959), Karl Kobelt (1940–1954, President), Max Petitpierre (1944–1961), Rodolphe Rubattel (1947–1954), Josef Escher (1950–1954), Max Weber (1951–1953), Markus Feldmann (1951–1958)

Trieste

Military Governor -

Zone A - Sir John Winterton, Governor of Zone A of Trieste (1951–1954)
Zone B - Miloš Stamatović, Governor of Zone B of Trieste (1951–1954)

United Kingdom

Monarch -

George VI, King of the United Kingdom (1936–1952)
Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom (1952–present)

Prime Minister - Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1951–1955)

Vatican City

Monarch - Pope Pius XII, Sovereign of Vatican City (1939–1958)
Governor - Marquis Camillo Serafini, Governor of Vatican City (1929–1952)
President of the Governorate - Cardinal Nicola Canali, President of the Governorate of Vatican City (1939–1961)
Holy See (sui generis subject of public international law)

Secretary of State - Domenico Tardini, Pro-Secretary of State (1952–1961)

Yugoslavia

Communist Party leader - Josip Broz Tito, General Secretary of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia[12] (1936–1980)
Head of State - Ivan Ribar, President of the Presidium of the National Assembly of Yugoslavia (1943–1953)
Prime Minister - Josip Broz Tito, Prime Minister of Yugoslavia (1943–1963)

text: North America[edit]

text:
Canada

Monarch -

George VI, King of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas (1936–1952)
Elizabeth II, Queen of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas (1952–present)

Governor General -

Harold Alexander, Viscount Alexander of Tunis, Governor General of Canada (1946–1952)
Thibaudeau Rinfret, Administrator of the Government of Canada (1952)
Vincent Massey, Governor General of Canada (1952–1959)

Prime Minister - Louis St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada (1948–1957)

Costa Rica

President - Otilio Ulate Blanco, President of Costa Rica (1949–1953)

Cuba

President -

Carlos Prío Socarrás, President of Cuba (1948–1952)
Fulgencio Batista, President of Cuba (1952–1959)

Prime Minister -

Óscar Gans, Prime Minister of Cuba (1951–1952)
Fulgencio Batista, Prime Minister of Cuba (1952)

Dominican Republic

De facto Head of State - Rafael Trujillo, de facto ruler of the Dominican Republic (1930–1961)
President -

Rafael Trujillo, President of the Dominican Republic (1942–1952)
Héctor Trujillo, President of the Dominican Republic (1952–1960)

El Salvador

President - Óscar Osorio, President of El Salvador (1950–1956)

Guatemala

President - Jacobo Árbenz, President of Guatemala (1951–1954)

Haiti

President - Paul Magloire, President of Haiti (1950–1956)

Honduras

President - Juan Manuel Gálvez, President of Honduras (1949–1954)

Mexico

President -

Miguel Alemán Valdés, President of Mexico (1946–1952)
Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, President of Mexico (1952–1958)

Nicaragua

President - Anastasio Somoza García, President of Nicaragua (1950–1956)

Panama

President -

Alcibíades Arosemena, President of Panama (1951–1952)
José Antonio Remón Cantera, President of Panama (1952–1955)

United States of America

President - Harry S. Truman, President of the United States (1945–1953)

text: Oceania[edit]

text:
Australia

Monarch -

George VI, King of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas (1936–1952)
Elizabeth II, Queen of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas (1952–present)

Governor-General - Sir William McKell, Governor-General of Australia (1947–1953)
Prime Minister - Robert Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia (1949–1966)

New Zealand

Monarch -

George VI, King of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas (1936–1952)
Elizabeth II, Queen of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas (1952–present)

Governor-General -

Bernard Freyberg, Baron Freyberg, Governor-General of New Zealand (1946–1952)
Sir Humphrey O'Leary, Administrator of the Government of New Zealand (1952)
Sir Willoughby Norrie, Governor-General of New Zealand (1952–1957)

Prime Minister - Sidney Holland, Prime Minister of New Zealand (1949–1957)

text: South America[edit]

text:
Argentina

President - Juan Perón, President of Argentina (1946–1955)

Bolivia

President -

Hugo Ballivián, Chairman of the Military Junta of Bolivia (1951–1952)
Hernán Siles Zuazo, Provisional President of Bolivia (1952)
Víctor Paz Estenssoro, President of Bolivia (1952–1956)

Brazil

President - Getúlio Vargas, President of Brazil (1951–1954)

Chile

President -

Gabriel González Videla, President of Chile (1946–1952)
Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, President of Chile (1952–1958)

Colombia

President - Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez, President of Colombia (1951–1953)

Ecuador

President -

Galo Plaza, President of Ecuador (1948–1952)
José María Velasco Ibarra, President of Ecuador (1952–1956)

Paraguay

President - Federico Chávez, President of Paraguay (1949–1954)

Peru

President - Manuel A. Odría, President of Peru (1950–1956)
Prime Minister - Zenón Noriega Agüero, President of the Council of Ministers of Peru (1950–1954)

Uruguay

Head of State - Andrés Martínez Trueba, President of the National Council of Government of Uruguay (1951–1955)

Venezuela

Head of State -

Germán Suárez Flamerich, Chairman of the Military Junta of Venezuela (1950–1952)
Marcos Pérez Jiménez, President of Venezuela (1952–1958)


document_title: The Westing Game

question_text: how many restaurants did gracie wexler end up owning by the end of the novel

text: The Westing Game

text: Premise[edit]

text: Sunset Towers is a new apartment building on Lake Michigan, north of Milwaukee and just down the shore from the mansion owned by reclusive self-made millionaire Samuel W. Westing. (Despite the name, Sunset Towers faces east – into the sunrise.)

text: As the story opens, a man named Barney Northrup is selling apartments to a carefully selected group of tenants. It soon emerges that most of the tenants – regardless of age or occupation – are named as heirs in Westing's will. The will is structured as a puzzle, with the 16 heirs challenged to find the solution. Each of the eight pairs, assigned seemingly at random, is given $10,000 cash and a different set of baffling clues. The pair that solves the mystery will inherit Westing's entire $200 million fortune and control of his company.

text: Characters[edit]

text: Sam Westing was an extremely rich businessman who made his fortune in paper products. He was very patriotic and never smoked, drank, or gambled.

text: Pair One[edit]

text:
Jacob "Jake" Wexler is a Jewish podiatrist, and a bookie on the side. He is married to Grace Wexler, whom he loves, but he also knows that she might never be happy with their life or financial situation. Jake is the father of Angela Wexler and Turtle Wexler. He later becomes a state crime commissioner.
Madame Sun Lin Hoo is the much-younger Chinese immigrant wife of James Shin Hoo. She barely speaks English and can usually be found working in Mr Hoo's restaurant. It is rumoured that Mr Hoo married her for her 100-Year-old sauce recipe. Madame Hoo also steals various items throughout the story in order to sell them and buy a trip back to China. Madame Hoo is the step-mother of Doug Hoo. Although she is an heir, she doesn't really contribute to the game.

text: Pair Two[edit]

text:
Judge J.J. Ford, an intelligent and serious African-American woman in her forties who rarely smiles. She is suspicious of the game created by Sam Westing. Instead of winning, her goal is to discover the past of every heir. She prefers to work on her own, but uses her partner's ear for gossip to her advantage. Her connection to Westing is that she is the daughter of his former servants. Growing up, Westing would play chess with Ford and funded her education. As Sandy, Westing suggested that he did so as he saw her potential instead of pity as she believes.
Alexander "Sandy" McSouthers was a doorman in Sunset Towers. That was his disguise, as he was actually one of the four identities of Sam Westing. His description says that he previously worked at Westing Paper Products Corporation and claims to have been fired by Sam Westing himself for attempting to organize the workers. McSouthers is notable for his knowledge of Sunset Towers' gossip.

text: Pair Three[edit]

text:
Grace Wexler, married to Jake Wexler and mother of Angela and Turtle, is a self-centred woman who is obsessed with her own image. She favors Angela while largely ignoring Turtle. She claims to be Mr Westing's niece, and she purports her name as Grace Windsor Wexler, although it is actually Gracie Windkloppel Wexler. Grace wants to be an interior designer. However, as the game goes on, she develops a growing interest in her partner's restaurant and the restaurant business in general.
James Shin "Jimmy" Hoo is a middle-aged Chinese man, owner of Shin Hoo's restaurant and former entrepreneur, as well as Madame Hoo's husband and Doug's father. He claims Mr Westing stole his patent for the disposable diaper and appears bitter and moody for this reason. He suffers from ulcers, and he can often be seen yelling at his son to study.

text: Pair Four[edit]

text:
Tabitha-Ruth Wexler, known as Turtle or "Alice", is a highly intelligent 13-year-old girl. She is very protective of her long, dark braid of hair and kicks anyone who pulls it. She excels at playing the stock market. She is very fond of both Sandy McSouthers and her partner Flora Baumbach, and she also loves her family, even though her sister Angela seems to be favoured. She has a slight crush on Doug Hoo.
Flora Baumbach is a shy 60-year-old dressmaker who becomes a maternal figure to her partner, Turtle. Her daughter, Rosalie, had Down syndrome and died of pneumonia at age 19. Her husband disappeared, and it is unknown whether he died or if there was a divorce. Flora is kind to everyone and prefers to see the best in people. Turtle refers to her as "Baba," while she refers to Turtle as "Alice." At the end, she becomes friends with Julian Eastman and therefore Sam Westing himself. She is an heir because she made the wedding dress for Westing's deceased daughter.

text: Pair Five[edit]

text:
Christos "Chris" Theodorakis is a 15-year-old boy who uses a wheelchair due to a degenerative muscle disease. He is very intelligent and enjoys birdwatching. His brother, Theo, is very protective of him. Chris's disease causes muscle spasms and affects his speech, but he is much more observant than he lets on – in part because he is often dismissed by others. Chris also develops a temporary friendship with Sydelle Pulaski.Chris is observant of others and is ready for any challenge given, by the game
Dr. Denton Deere is a 25-year-old medical intern. He is engaged to Angela. Dr Deere is arrogant and extremely proud of the medical industry. He has an obsession with giving diagnoses to almost everyone. He later becomes a neurologist, gaining fame for his treatment of Chris's condition.

text: Pair Six[edit]

text:
Berthe Erica Crow, usually referred to as simply Crow, is an extremely religious 57-year-old woman. Tight and introverted, she works as a cleaning woman for Sunset Towers, while also operating a downtown soup kitchen for the homeless. She plays a major role in Westing's plot, as it is revealed that she was formerly Mr Westing's wife. She was put in jail but J.J Ford was ready to defend Crow.
Otis J. Amber is a 62-year-old "delivery boy." Even outside of the game, he is often seen with Berthe Erica Crow, in part because he is actually a private investigator whom Sam Westing tasked with watching Crow. He assists Berthe with her soup kitchen. At the beginning of the story, he tells the tale of the bloody bet that a boy once made involving the Westing mansion, which becomes an eerie theme throughout the book, using two words: "purple waves."

text: Pair Seven[edit]

text:
Theo Theodorakis is a smart high school student, and very loyal to his family. He is protective of his brother Chris and works hard in his parents' coffee shop. He is interested in becoming a writer, and also becomes friends with his partner, Doug Hoo.
Doug Hoo, son of Jimmy Hoo, is a high school track star, one of the best mile-runners in the state. Running is his passion, but his father often criticizes him for not studying. Doug's partner Theo tells Doug to follow Otis Amber because they were suspicious of him. At the end, he wins two Olympic gold medals and sets the 1500m record as well

text: Pair Eight[edit]

text:
Angela Wexler is a beautiful 20-year-old girl: fair, blonde, and very pretty. She is considered the 'perfect' daughter, often getting more attention than her sister Turtle. However, people only acknowledge her as an attractive object to be married to Dr. Denton Deere, and not an intelligent woman in her own right. Throughout the book, Angela grows in her independence and her distaste for being objectified. Not that many characters realize that she is scared of not obeying Grace's every command. She wants to do more than sitting still and looking pretty. She is the bomber that causes several catastrophes through the book though only Turtle is aware of this.
Sydelle Pulaski is a mysterious character who seems to have no connection to Mr. Westing or the other heirs. No one pays any attention to her, so she tries hard to be noticed. She seems to have an affinity for Chris Theodorakis. Eventually, it is revealed that she truly does not have a connection to Sam Westing, as Westing's lawyer mistakenly recruited her instead of a woman named Sybil Pulaski.

text: Other characters[edit]

text:
Barney Northrup is a mysterious figure who sells all of the apartments in Sunset Towers to the various heirs. After this, he is rarely seen by any of the tenants. ( Sam Westing )
Julian R. Eastman runs Westing Paper Products in Mr Westing's absence. He was a witness to Mr Westing's will. (Sam Westing)
Dr. Sidney Sikes is a good friend of Samuel Westing and a witness to his will. Was the one who declared both Westing and Sandy McSouthers (Sam Westing ) dead and appears to be in on Westing's plan.
Edgar J. Plum is the young and fairly incompetent lawyer in charge of handling Samuel Westing's estate. Aside from reading Westing's will to the players, Plum has no part in the game.
Mr. and Mrs Theodorakis run the Sunset Towers coffee shop. They have no role in the game, though their sons Chris and Theo do.

text: Epilogue[edit]

text: The epilogue of the story is told in the book's last three chapters, which depicts the heirs growing older and more successful, many of them changing their lives as a result of the game.

text:
Crow and Otis Amber fall in love and are married, both leaving their jobs at Sunset Towers to work at Crow's soup kitchen, which many of the heirs leave donations to. Both die within a week of one another after several years of life together.
Flora Baumbach leaves the dressmaking business a few years after the game's conclusion, becoming Turtle's close friend and later Alice's nanny.
Denton Deere and Angela Wexler both question their life choices and ultimately separate. Denton becomes a neurologist due to his success in treating Chris Theodorakis' disease, and Angela returns to medical school to become a surgeon. Five years after the game's conclusion, the two are reunited, marry, and have a daughter named Alice.
Judge Ford agrees to finance Chris' education in homage to her mentor, Sam Westing. She is elected to the US Court of Appeals and later the Supreme Court.
Sunny Hoo ultimately never leaves her husband and adopts the nickname "Sunny." She becomes fluent in English and becomes James' secretary in his new company. After he dies she finally takes her trip to China but returns to take up the family business.
James Hoo leaves the restaurant business and gives "Hoo's on First" to Grace. He patents his shoe-sole idea and becomes a multimillionaire, and moves out of Sunset Towers with his family. He dies briefly before the book's conclusion and is succeeded in the company by his wife.
Doug Hoo wins his first Olympic gold medal and set a new record for the 1500-meter run shortly after the game ends, and goes on to win two more. Retiring from athletics, he becomes a popular sports announcer.
Chris Theodorakis is ultimately able to manage the effects of his disease thanks to Denton's extensive research. However, he remains unable to walk and uses a wheelchair for the rest of his life. His college education is financed by Judge Ford, and he meets a girl named Shirley during his first year. The two later marry and become professors at the local university. Chris discovers and names a new breed of parrot (the "something-Christos parrot") during an expedition in Central America.
Sydelle Pulaski returns to her old job at Schultz Sausages and discovers that Mr Schultz has a crush on her. She later marries him. The pair moves to Hawaii, though Sydelle stays in touch with Angela. She gives up using crutches to get attention but requires the use of them on various occasions near the end of the novel.
Jake Wexler becomes unsatisfied with his job as a podiatrist, quits, and is recommended to a political position by Judge Ford. He becomes the Chairman of the State Gambling Commission and then the Wisconsin State Crime Commissioner, though the jobs give him little time to spend with his wife.
Grace Wexler takes control of Jimmy Hoo's restaurant, renaming it "Hoo's on First" and giving it a theme of local sports stars. It gets rave reviews. The success of "Hoo's on First" ultimately results in a chain of ten such restaurants, the latest of which allows her to work close to her husband in the state capital of Madison.
Theo Theodorakis attends a literary college, becoming an assistant to the reporter who writes the article about Doug's first gold medal. He later becomes a novelist. His first novel does not sell well, but at the book's end, he has almost finished his second book. Theo marries Turtle, though they agree not to have children lest the children inherit Chris' disease. Theo and Chris' parents move to Florida after retiring from their coffee shop business.
Turtle Wexler, having solved the game by discovering Sam Westing's secret life, is dedicated to becoming his successor – and, ultimately, the president of Westing Paper Products. She takes on the nickname of T.R. (real name: Tabitha-Ruth Wexler), attends college early (she is only 18 in her second year of college), and makes over $5 million in the stock market. Turtle marries Theo and begins teaching Angela and Denton's daughter Alice how to play chess.
Sandy McSouthers, who supposedly died after the game's conclusion, is revealed as Samuel Westing, Barney Northrup, and (primarily) Julian Eastman. He becomes Turtle Wexler's mentor, pays for her expensive education, and plays chess with her every Saturday, although she tells people she is "at the library." He dies on the Fourth of July.
Sam Westing, died from old age and was not murdered.

text: More information[edit]

text: This book breaks the stereotypes of what the typical mystery book is like as the investigators are the suspects. This book is sharp, clever and funny, and this highly original book will surely pique your interest as soon as you pick it up.

text: Other media[edit]

text: The Westing Game, adapted by Darian Lindle[3] and directed by Terry Brino-Dean,[4] was first produced at Prime Stage Theatre in Pittsburgh in 2009. The script is published by Dramatic Publishing.[5]

text: Get a Clue, adapted by Dylan Kelsey Hadley and directed by Terence H. Winkless was produced for television in 1997.