OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper/Volume 18/Number 451/Secessionville, James Island, South Carolina

SECESSIONVILLE, JAMES ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Secessionville, as its name implies, is a place which has received its name since the war began, and if our present military operations do not miscarry, may soon adopt some other appellation, and its present name never be enshrined in a gazetteer.
It is on James island and was one of the points strongly entrenched by the rebels to prevent our advance, and not far from the scene of one of our disastrous attacks. The sketch was made from a signal station on Long island, and beside the picturesque village, beyond the marsh and water, may be seen the frowning batteries of rebellion.
In the foreground is a redoubt for infantry with a dry ditch.
# Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper/Volume 18/Number 451/Deacons

​Two deacons were once disputing about the proposed site for a new graveyard, when the first remarked, "I'll never be buried in that ground as long as I live." "What an obstinate man!" said the second; "if my life is spared, I will."
# Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper/Volume 18/Number 451/Miscellany 2

​If men will but amuse the world, it will freely forgive them for cheating it.
When men are long indifferent towards us, we grow indifferent to their indifference.
# Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper/Volume 18/Number 451/On Broadway

ON BROADWAY.
By Etta W. Pierce
A wave of streamers—a stifled hum, Then the ringing of cheers throughout the welkin high, And the sound of bugle and fife and drum, As proudly the troops came marching by.
Marching by with their measured tread, All bronzed by the sun of the Southern land, Bayonets gleaming and banners spread— The dauntless of heart and the strong of hand. Oh, the old blood warmed in my veins that day, And the tears leaped up so thick and so proud I scarcely could see the street or the crowd, As home came the regiment up Broadway.
For you see it was two long years before— Ah me! they had seemed so many more— When the leaves were green on the tender thorn, And the linnets were singing amid the corn, When my boy Charlie went marching away With the gallant hundred of Company A. He was young of mien—he was slender and fair, With his laughing eyes and his yellow hair; But dauntless as any, as loyal and true, The lad of my heart in his soldier blue! 'Twas a dark and dreadful day, you know, And what could I do but to bid him go, And pray that God would take care of the rest? Though he was my all, and 'twas hard at best. Ah, there was never a doubt or a pause When he pledged his fresh young life to the cause— 'Twas a heart's free gift, but I knew, at last, The pain was over—the waiting past, And that was why I was glad that day, when I heard the sound of bugle and drum, When I saw them coming so gallantly home— My brave boy's regiment up Broadway!
Steadily—steadily, ah, what a sight For my old dim eyes, when the noonday light Fell on them close in the crowded way– I looked for the banner of Company A. It was there—high-waving, I saw it again From the battle's baptism of purple rain, Pierced with the bullet, and rent with the ball; And the faces beneath it—I looked at them all— I looked at them all, but the sunny hair And the eyes of my darling, they were not there. They were not there with their sparkle and shine, Nor anywhere gleaming along the line, And reeling backward to and fro The street and the crowd they seemed to go. I pressed through the ranks so brown and tall, I asked where my gallant lad might be— "Killed in the trenches!" they answered me "Killed in the trenches!"—and that was all. Under the light of that noonday sky, Where the cheers of the crowd rang long and high, To the sound of the music, so gallant and gay, On went the regiment up Broadway.
I never shall look on my darling again When the linnets are singing amid the grain. Oh gallant head, oh ringlets of gold, Oh blue eyes hid in the trenches' mould, All that the wide world had for me I have laid at the shrine of Liberty!
# Freeport-McMoRan Inc. v. K N Energy Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
498 U.S. 426
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. v. K N Energy Inc.
No. 90-655
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Freiburg v. Dreyfus

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
135 U.S. 478
Freiburg v. Dreyfus
D. C. Labatt, for appellants.
R. H. Browne and C. B. Singleton, for appellees.
BREWER, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fay v. Crozer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 455
Fay v. Crozer
Argued: April 21, 22, 1910. --- Decided: May 2, 1910
Mr. George E. Price for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. James F. Brown, W. W. Hughes, and D. J. F. Strother for defendants in error.
Per Curiam:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fay v. Noia (370 U.S. 907)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 907
Edward M. FAY, Warden, et al., petitioners, v. Charles NOIA.
Leon B. Polsky, for respondent.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fay v. Crozer/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 455
Fay v. Crozer
Argued: April 21, 22, 1910. --- Decided: May 2, 1910
This is a writ of error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of West Virginia, brought directly to this court, and as such falls within the rule that the controversy must be substantial and the question open to discussion. Tested by that rule, we think the writ of error must be dismissed on the authority of King v. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404, 43 L. ed. 214, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 925; King v. West Virginia, 216 U.S. 92, 54 L. ed. --, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225. And see King v. Panther Lumber Co. 171 U.S. 437, 43 L. ed. 227, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573; Swann v. West Virginia, 188 U.S. 739, 47 L. ed. 677, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 848. It is contended that the question of the forfeiture of plaintiffs' title under the Constitution of West Virginia was not ruled in those cases, because they also involved the statute of the state referred to, while this case presents the validity of the forfeiture provision of the state Constitution alone. But it was pointed out in King v. West Virginia, 216 U.S. 100, 54 L. Ed. --, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225, that the right to redeem, given by the statute, was not coextensive with the forfeiture under the state Constitution, and yet the Constitution was upheld, as it was in King v. Mullins, supra. It follows, therefore, that the state Constitution must be upheld in the present case. The only hearing that could be necessary would be whether the facts constitute a forfeiture; and that question, when it arises between a former owner and a claimant under the state, can be tried in a case between those parties, as it was here. There is no greater objection under the Constitution of the United States to the forfeiture of land for five years' neglect to pay taxes than there is to a similar forfeiture by the statute of limitations for neglect to assert title against one by whom the former owner has been disseised. We think that the question suggested is so plainly covered by the preceding cases that the writ of error must be dismissed.
It is so ordered.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fay v. Noia

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Fay v. Noia."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Fay v. Noia (370 U.S. 907)
* Fay v. Noia (372 U.S. 391)
# Fay v. Noia (370 U.S. 907)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 907
Edward M. FAY, Warden, et al., petitioners, v. Charles NOIA.
The motion of the respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fay v. Cordesman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
109 U.S. 408
Fay v. Cordesman
Robt. H. Parkinson, for appellants.
E. E. Wood and E. Boyd, for appellees.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fay v. New York ex rel. Bove

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 261
Fay v. New York ex rel. Bove
Argued: and Submitted April 3, 1947. --- Decided: June 23, 1947
Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1947. See 68 S.Ct. 27.
[Syllabus from pages 261-263 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Harold R. Medina, of New York City, for petitioner Fay.
Messrs. Moses Polakoff and Samuel Mezansky, both of New York City, for petitioner Bove.
Mr. Whitman Kanpp, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Furies

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Furies."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Furies, a play by Aeschylus. Multiple English translations exist.
* "Furies," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911).

## See also

* Eumenides
# Fugitive Poetry. 1600–1878/Warnings

Warnings.
Let him who hates dancing ne'er go to a ball, Nor him to the ocean, whom dangers appal; Nor him to a feast, who already has dined, Nor him to a Court, who will speak out his mind.
# Fugitive Poetry. 1600–1878/What's Honour?

What's Honour?
Not to be captious; not unjustly fight; 'Tis to confess what's wrong—and do what's right?
# Fugitive Poetry. 1600–1878/Where is God?

Where Is God?
Where is He? Ask His emblem, The glorious, glorious sun, Who glads the round world with his beams Ere his day's course is run.
Where is He? Ask the stars that keep Their nightly watch on high. Where is He? Ask the pearly dew, The tear-drops of the sky.
Where is He? Ask the secret founts That feed the boundless deep, The dire simoom, or soft night-breeze That lulls the world to sleep.
Where is He? Ask the storm of fire That bursts from Etna's womb; And ask the glowing lava flood That makes the lands a tomb.
Where is He? Ask the Maelstrom's whirl, Shivering tall pines like glass; Ask the great oak, the graceful flower, Or simplest blade of grass.
Where is He? Ask the Behemoth, Who drinketh rivers dry; The' ocean king Leviathan, Or scarce seen atom fly.
Where is He? Ask the awful calm On mountain-tops that rests; And bounding, thundering avalanche, Rent from their rugged crests.
Ask the wide-wasting hurricane, Careering in its might; The thunder crash, the lightning blaze, Earth all convulsed with fight.
Where is He? Ask the crystal isles On Arctic seas that sail; Or ask from lands of balm and spice, The perfume-breathing gale.
Where on the universe is found, That presence-favoured spot?— All, all proclaim His dwelling-place! But say, where is He not?
# Fugitive Poetry. 1600–1878/Wit and Genius

Wit and Genius.
True wit is like the "brilliant stone Dug from the Indian mine, Which boasts wo different powers in one— To cut as well as shine. Genius, like that, if polished right, With the same gifts abounds, Appears at once both keen and bright, And sparkles while it wounds.
# Furst v. Brewster

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 493
Furst v. Brewster
Argued: Jan. 27, 28, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1931
Messrs. Frank Nesbit and Jesse C. Adkins, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fears in Solitude (Coleridge)

FEARS IN SOLITUDE,
WRITTEN IN 1798, DURING THE ALARM OF AN INVASION.
To which are added,
FRANCE, AN ODE;
AND
FROST AT MIDNIGHT.
[Price One Shilling and Six-pence.]
page
FEARS IN SOLITUDE,
WRITTEN IN 1798, DURING THE ALARM OF AN INVASION.
To which are added,
FRANCE, AN ODE;
AND
FROST AT MIDNIGHT.
By S. T. COLERIDGE.
LONDON: Printed for J. Johnson, in St. Paul's Church-yard.
1798.
page
* Fears in Solitude
* France, an Ode
* Frost at Midnight
Advert
# Fearchair

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Fearchair."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Fearchair I
* Fearchair Fada II
# Fears in Solitude (Coleridge)/Advert

Just published,
New Editions, with Additions not before printed, of
POEMS,
By W. COWPER,
OF THE INNER TEMPLE, ESQ.
I. An elegant Edition in a small size, in 2 vols, price 6s. in boards.
II. An elegant Edition in 2 vols, with 10 plates from Stothard's designs, engraved by Heath, Parker, Medland, Neagle, Angus, &c. price 14s. in boards.
III. A cheap Edition in 2 vols, price 5s. sewed.
Printed for J. Johnson, in St. Paul's Church-yard.
# Fears in Solitude

Fears in Solitude written in April 1798, is one of the conversation poems by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. It was composed while France threatened to invade Great Britain. Although Coleridge was opposed to the British government, the poem sides with the British people in a patriotic defence of their homeland. The poem also emphasizes a desire to protect one's family and to live a simple life in harmony with nature. The critical response to the poem was mixed, with some critics claiming that the work was "alarmist" and anti-British. Warning: template has been deprecated.
* Fears in Solitude, in Fears in Solitude (1798)
* Fears in Solitude, in Sibylline Leaves (1817)
# Feast of the Assumption of the B. V. Mary

This translation of the Latin hymn Cantant hymnos caelites was first published in Henry Formby's Catholic Hymns, 1853.
* "Feast of the Assumption of the B. V. Mary" in Catholic Hymns (1st ed.), 1853.
* "Feast of the Assumption of the B. V. Mary" in Catholic Hymns (2nd ed.), 1860.
# Febre v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 1225
Febre v. United States
Solicitor General Griswold, for the United States.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, Circuit Justice.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Garuda Emblem Act, BE 2534 (1991)
## The Act

| # | Versions | As amended by | Status |
| 2 | 14 February 1992 | Translation:Garuda Emblem Act (No. 2), BE 2535 (1992) | In force |
| 1 | 15 November 1991 | — | Defunct |

## Subordinate laws
### Rules

| # | Name | As amended by | Status |
| 1 | Translation:Rules of the Office of the Prime Minister on Creation or Use of Garuda Emblem in State Affairs, BE 2544 (2001) | — | In force |
# Gas Company v. Pittsburgh/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 219
Gas Company v. Pittsburgh
Sect. 94 of the Internal Revenue Act of 1864 (13 Stat. 264), levying taxes on illuminating gas, to be paid by the manufacturer thereof, as amended in 1866 (14 id. 128), contained the following provision:--
'All gas companies whose price is fixed by law are authorized to add the tax herein imposed to the price per thousand feet on gas sold; and all such companies which have heretofore contracted to furnish gas to municipal corporations are in like manner . . . authorized to add such tax to such contract price.'
This, we think, does not make a municipal corporation liable for the tax in a case where a gas company has, for a valuable consideration, contracted to furnish the corporation with gas 'free of charge.'
Judgment offirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gartner v. Overholser/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 973
Gartner v. Overholser
Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Garzot v. De Rubio

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
209 U.S. 283
Garzot v. De Rubio
Argued: February 27, 28, 1908. --- Decided: April 6, 1908
Messrs. N. B. K. Pettingill and George H. Lamar for appellants.
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney and Francis H. Dexter for appellee.
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gaskins v. McKellar

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
500 U.S. 961
Gaskins v. McKellar
No. 90-7469
See U.S., 112 S.ct. 14.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Opinion of Justice STEVENS, respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.
One of the questions presented in the certiorari petition is whether our per curiam decision in Cage v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), announced a new rule. This question, however, would only be presented by the record if the instructions in this case contained the same flaw as the instructions in Cage. In Cage, the jury was instructed that a reasonable doubt "must be a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty. . . ." Id., at ----, 111 S.Ct., at 329. Because the instructions to the jury in this case did not contain this improper language, the question whether Cage announced a new rule is not actually presented here. For this reason, I think the Court has correctly decided not to grant certiorari to review that question.
Justice MARSHALL, dissenting:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gary Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Note: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
THACKER ET UX. v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17–1201. Argued January 14, 2019—Decided April 29, 2019
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a Government-owned corporation, provides electric power to millions of Americans. In creating the TVA, Congress decided that the corporation could “sue and be sued in its corporate name,” 16 U. S. C. §831c(b), thus waiving at least some of the sovereign immunity from suit that it would have enjoyed as a Federal Government entity. Congress subsequently waived immunity from tort suits involving agencies across the Government in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), but it carved out an exception for claims based on a federal employee’s performance of a “discretionary function.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(a). Congress specifically excluded from the FTCA’s provisions—including the discretionary function exception—“[a]ny claim arising from the activities of the [TVA].” §2680(l).
In this case, TVA employees were raising a downed power line that was partially submerged in the Tennessee River when petitioner Gary Thacker drove his boat into the area at high speed. Thacker’s boat collided with the power line, seriously injuring him and killing his passenger. He sued for negligence. The TVA moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity, and the District Court granted the motion. Affirming, the Eleventh Circuit used the same test it applies when evaluating whether the Government is immune from suit under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, and it held that Thacker’s suit was foreclosed because the challenged actions were “a matter of choice.”
Held:
2. The courts below, which wrongly relied on the discretionary function exception, should have the first chance to address the issues this Court finds relevant in deciding whether this suit may go forward. To determine if the TVA has immunity, the court on remand must first decide whether the conduct alleged to be negligent is governmental or commercial in nature. If it is commercial, the TVA cannot invoke sovereign immunity. If it is governmental, the court might decide that an implied limitation on the clause bars the suit, but only if it finds that prohibiting the “type of suit [at issue] is necessary to avoid grave interference” with that function’s performance. Burr, 309 U. S., at 245. Pp. 10–11.
868 F. 3d 979, reserved and remanded.
Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gems of Chinese Literature/Têng Ch‘un-Painting Buddhas

TÊNG CH‘UN.
12th century a.d.
[Author of the Hua Chi “The Development or Painting.”]
PAINTING BUDDHAS.
IN India, at the temple of Nalanda, the priests paint many Buddhas, Bôdhisatvas, and Lohans, using the linen of the West. The features of their Buddhas are very different from Chinese features; the eyes are larger and the mouths and ears are curiously shaped; the figures wear girdles and have the right shoulder bare, and are either in sitting or standing attitudes. The artist begins by drawing the heart, liver, stomach, lungs, and kidneys, at the back of the picture; on the other side he paints the figure in colours, using gold or vermilion as a ground. They object to ox-glue as too noticeable, and take the gum from peach-trees mixed with the juice of the willow, which is very strong and clear, but quite unknown in China.