OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 12/Moral Aspect of Treaties

Moral Aspect of Treaties
249. It is a recognised principle of International Law that the treaties for the duration of whose obligations no special period is fixed, are not to be understood as binding the contracting powers in the event of some material change in the conditions with reference to which they were concluded. An essential change of conditions—the term includes not only material but also moral facts—necessarily involves the obsolescence of treaty obligations. Dealing with this aspect of these engagements, Coupland has admirably summed up the position as follows:—
"The law can only take account of usage and sufferance, but there is also a moral proviso which is insusceptible of legal definition. No undertaking can be rightly interpreted without weighing the effect of lapse of time and change of circumstance. It is not only a question of material factors: it is also a question of morals. No compact can endure when, owing to the evolution of ideas, it has ceased to square with general conceptions of right and wrong. In this sense rebus sic stantibus is the implicit condition of every treaty. And certainly things no longer stand in India as they stood when most of the treaties were made. It was assumed, for instance, by those who made them, that British rule in India would continue. Indeed they were made on the British side solely for the purpose of maintaining it. Manifestly the whole situation is very different when the British Government has declared its intention of bringing British rule to an end as soon as possible. Pledges, again, to protect the dynastic rights of the Princes must needs read differently now from the way they read a century or more ago. When, for example, Metcalfe signed in 1818 a treaty which declared that the 'Maharajah (of Bikaner) and his heirs and successors shall be absolute rulers of their country' he was intending to safeguard the ruling dynasty primarily against British usurpation of its rights and possibly also against the claims of rivals to the throne. He was certainly not contemplating the possibility of democratic agitation. Democracy as practised now in Britain or in an Indian Province was almost as inconceivable to the British governing class in the early nineteenth century as it was to an Indian Prince. Thus, the development of Western political thought, quite as much as usage and sufferance arising from acts of interference by ​the British Government with a Prince's absolute authority, has made it impossible to construe such pledges literally. Is it conceivable that the British Government should lend its aid to prevent the development of constitutional government in the States when it has not only promoted that development in the neighbouring Provinces for many years past but actually brought it in recent years to its almost complete culmination by Act of Parliament?"
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 12/Nature of Treaty Obligations

Nature of Treaty Obligations
248. It was one of the principal contradictions of the British rule in India, that while in England and elsewhere, feudalisma had died long ago, in India feudal rights continued to be guaranteed as a British obligation. It was a rather curious notion of treaty obligations that engagements entered into a long time ago on the fields of battle or immediately afterwards between rival commanders or their chiefs should last for ever and hold up the march of history.
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 12/Inherent Impracticability of Lapse of Paramountcy

Inherent Impracticability of Lapse of Paramountcy
262. The Cabinet Mission's Memorandum on Paramountcy and subsequent declarations recognised the inherent impracticability of the decision whereby all links between the States and the Central Government were to terminate at one stroke of the pen. The British spokesmen endeavoured to mitigate the evils of this decision by advising the States to link their lot with the Dominion and recognised that federal or political relationship between the States and the Centre was inevitable. Lord Mountbatten, speaking at a Conference of the Princes on July 25, 1947, said "that link (with the British Crown) is now to be broken. If nothing can be put in its place, only chaos can result".
It is a plain fact that an India broken into hundreds of independent entities would have inevitably lapsed speedily into a state of chaos. An India hopelessly divided against herself could in no way discharge the responsibilities which her strategic position no less than her moral heritage imposed on her. Far from being a stabilising factor such an India ​﻿would have only proved a menace to world peace. Public opinion in India viewed this contingency with grave concern.
In justification of the decision for the lapse of paramountcy it was stated that the main purpose of this decision was to strengthen the bargaining capacity of the Rulers. Without doubt this bargaining had to be at the expense of either the basic rights of the people of the States or the collective interests of the Indian people as a whole. Be that as it may, the long-awaited Independence came to India associated with a threat of imminent chaos as a result of partition and the contemplated lapse of Central authority over a third of India.
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 12/Declaration of Lapse of Paramountcy; a Consequence of the Theory of Personal Contract

Declaration of Lapse of Paramountcy: A Consequence of the Theory of Personal Contract
261. The decision regarding the lapse of paramountcy was a direct consequence of the theory of personal contract and of the 'non-transferability' of treaty rights without the consent of the Rulers. The doctrine of lapse of paramountcy over Indian States was developed by British legal acumen for conserving the "comradeship in danger and difficulty" between the Imperial power and the Rulers in a context when complete withdrawal of British Power had not been envisaged as a real possibility. However, even after an irrevocable decision had been taken by the British to withdraw from India, the theory that history could be reversed and that with the withdrawal of the British, Indian States comprising two-fifths of the land must return to a state of unorganised political isolation, was persevered in with a determination bordering on recklessness.
# Who's Who in the Far East/JELF, Arthur Selborne

Layout 2
​ JELF, Arthur Selborne (KUALA LANGAT), B.A., Oxon.; F.M.S. Civil Service; b. Oct. 10, 1876. Acting 2nd assistant District Officer, Kuala Kubu, 1900, and filled other positions in service until appointed assistant Secretary to Resident and acting District Officer, Kuala Langat, in 1905. Address: Kuala Langat, Selangor, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/JERNIGAN, Thomas R.

Layout 2
​ JERNIGAN, Thomas R. (SHANGHAI), Solicitor; b. Feb. 24, 1857. Educ.: University of Virginia, U.S.A. Native born American citizen; a State Senator; a Presidential elector; Consul at Kobe, Japan; Consul-General at Shanghai; now engaged in practise of Law. Publications:" China in Law and Commerce." Club: Shanghai. Address: Shanghai, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/JAPAN (WEST), Bishop of

Layout 2
​ JAPAN (WEST), Bishop of (see: FOSS RT. REV. HUGH JAMES).
# Who's Who in the Far East/JEFFRIES, H. U.

Layout 2
​ JEFFRIES, H. U. (HONGKONG), Merchant. Resided in Colony between thirty and forty years; resigned as agent of Mit.-u Bishi Goshi-Kwaisha, March, 1906. Club: Hongkong. Address: 2, Peddar Street, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/JEME TIEN-YOU, or CHAN TIEN-YU

Layout 2
​ JEME TIEN-YOU, or CHAN TIEN-YU (SHANGHAI), A.M.I.C.E., London; Special Advisor on Railway Affairs to the Shangpu (Treasury). Educ. Yale University and Sheffield Scientific Department; was member of Chinese Educational Mission ta America in 1872; Superintending Engineer of Peking-Changchiakou railway, in course of construction in 1906.
# Who's Who in the Far East/JEANNIN, Colonel Gabriel

Layout 2
​ JEANNIN, Colonel Gabriel (HANOI), Commandant, 2e Regiment de Tirailleurs Tonkinois. Decoration: Officier de la Le'gion d'Houneur. Address: Hanoi, Tonkin, Indo-China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/JEBSON, J.

Layout 2
​ JEBSON, J. (HONGKONG), Merchant. Head of Jebson and Co., agents for Jebsen steamship line. Resident in Colony over 10 years. Club: Hongkong; Germania. Address: King's Buildings, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/JENKINS, Dr. H. Stanley

Layout 2
​ JENKINS, Dr. H. Stanley (HSIAN-FU), M.D., London, F.R.C.S., England. L.R.C.P., London; Medical Missionary; b. June 17, 1874. Educ.: Bristol; King's College, London; London Hospitals. Member of British Medical Association and ​Society for Study of Inebriety. Address: English Baptist Mission, Hsian-fu, Sheusi, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/JAPAN (SOUTH), Bishop of

Layout 2
​ JAPAN (SOUTH), Bishop of (see: EVINGTON, RT. REV. HENRY).
# Who's Who in the Far East/JEANNERAT, Gabriel

Layout 2
​ JEANNERAT, Gabriel (DK KANDAL), Resident; Administrator, 2nd class; I. Sept. 5, 1862. Joined Indo-China Civil Service, April 29, 1893; Administrator, 4th class, Jan. 1, 1895; Administrator, 3rd class, Jan. 1, 1897; Administrator. 2nd class, Aug. 2, 1900. Address: De Kandal, Cambodge, Indo-China.
# Veto Message for H.R. 3043

This is H. Doc. No. 110-76, and was printed in the Congressional Record at 2007 H13825.
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 3043, the "Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008."
This bill spends too much. It exceeds the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I proposed to balance the budget by 2012. The Congress is on a path to spend $205 billion more over the next 5 years than I requested. This puts a balanced budget in jeopardy and risks future tax increases. This year, the Congress plans to overspend my budget by $22 billion, of which $10 billion is for increases in this bill. Health care, education, job training, and other goals can be achieved without this excessive spending if the Congress sets priorities.
This bill continues to fund programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The Congress continues to fund 56 programs totaling more than $3.2 billion that I proposed to terminate because they are duplicative, narrowly focused, or not producing results.
This bill does not sufficiently fund programs that are delivering positive outcomes. For example, Reading First, a critical initiative that is demonstrating results, receives a 61 percent cut, even though low-income students enrolled in Reading First schools posted a more than 10-point improvement in reading proficiency from 2004 to 2006.
This bill has too many earmarks. I set out clear goals for the Congress to reform the earmarking process. The Congress chose not to put earmarks in bill text, instead including nearly all in report language, and they did not reach the goal of cutting the cost and number of earmarks by at least half. This bill contains more than 2,200 earmarks totaling nearly $1 billion. Congressional earmarks divert Federal taxpayer funds to localities without the benefit of a merit-based process, resulting in fewer resources for national priorities or unnecessary spending above the requested level.
I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars. Because the legislation violates that commitment, I must veto this bill.
GEORGE W. BUSH.
THE WHITE HOUSE, November 13, 2007.
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
# Veto Message for H.R. 1591

This is H. Doc. No. 110-31, and was printed in the Congressional Record at 2007 H4315.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney) laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1591, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007."
This legislation is objectionable because it would set an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground; it would micromanage the commanders in the field by restricting their ability to direct the fight in Iraqi; and it contains billions of dollars of spending and other provisions completely unrelated to the war.
Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the region or to make our people safer here at home. The mandated withdrawal in this bill could embolden our enemies—and confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. It could lead to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack America and freedom-loving people around the world, and is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the region. Ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal could increase the probability that American troops would have to one day return to Iraq—to confront an even more dangerous enemy.
The micromanagement in this legislation is unacceptable because it would create a series of requirements that do not provide the flexibility needed to conduct the war. It would constrict how and where our Armed Forces could engage the enemy and defend the national interest, and would provide confusing guidance on which of our enemies the military could engage. The result would be a marked advantage for our enemies and greater danger for our troops, as well as an unprecedented interference with the judgments of those who are charged with commanding the military.
Beyond its direction of the operation of the war, the legislation is also unacceptable for including billions of dollars in spending and other provisions that are unrelated to the war, are not an emergency, or are not justified. The Congress should not use an emergency war supplemental to add billions in spending to avoid its own rules for budget discipline and the normal budget process. War supplemental funding bills should remain focused on the war and the needs of our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to defend our freedoms and preserve our Nation's security.
Finally, this legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. For these reasons, I must veto this bill.
GEORGE W. BUSH,
THE WHITE HOUSE, May 1, 2007.
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
# Veto Message for H.R. 2631

This is H. Doc. No. 105-172 and was printed in the Congressional Record at 1997 H10942.
The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2631, "An Act disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-45."
Under the authority of the Line Item Veto Act, on October 6, 1997, I canceled 38 military construction projects to save the taxpayers $287 million. The bill would restore all of the 38 projects.
The projects in this bill would not substantially improve the quality of life of military service members and their families, and most of them would not likely use funds for construction in FY 1998. While the bill does restore funding for projects that were canceled based on outdated information provided by the Department of Defense, I do not endorse restoration of all 38 projects.
The Administration remains committed to working with the Congress to restore funding for those projects that were canceled as a result of data provided by the Department of Defense that was out of date.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON.
THE WHITE HOUSE, November 13, 1997.

## Notes

* The line item veto mechanism used in this veto was declared unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
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
# Veto Message for H.R. 2646

This was printed in the Congressional Record at 1998 H6052.
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States.
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2646, the "Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998."
As I have said before, we must prepare our children for the 21st century by providing them with the best education in the world. To help meet this goal, I have sent the Congress a comprehensive agenda for strengthening our public schools, which enroll almost 90 percent of our students. My plan calls for raising standards, strengthening accountability, and promoting charter schools and other forms of public school choice. It calls for reducing class size in the early grades, so our students get a solid foundation in the basic skills, modernizing our schools for the 21st century, and linking them with the Internet. And we must strengthen teaching and provide students who need additional help with tutoring, mentoring, and after-school programs. We must take these steps now.
By sending me this bill, the Congress has instead chosen to weaken public education and shortchange our children. The modifications to the Education IRAs that the bill would authorize are bad education policy and bad tax policy. The bill would divert limited Federal resources away from public schools by spending more than $3 billion on tax benefits that would do virtually nothing for average families and would disproportionately benefit the most affluent families. More than 70 percent of the benefits would flow to families in the top 20 percent of income distribution, and families struggling to make ends meet would never see a penny of the benefits. Moreover, the bill would not create a meaningful incentive for families to increase their savings for educational purposes; it would instead reward families, particularly those with substantial incomes, for what they already do.
The way to improve education for all our children is to increase standards, accountability, and choice within the public schools. Just as we have an obligation to repair our Nation's roads and bridges and invest in the infrastructure of our transportation system, we also have an obligation to invest in the infrastructure needs of our public schools. I urge the Congress to meet that obligation and to send me instead the legislation I have proposed to reduce class size; improve the quality of teaching; modernize our schools; end social promotions; raise academic standards; and hold school districts, schools, and staff accountable for results.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON.
THE WHITE HOUSE, July 21, 1998.
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
# Whittier (Dunbar)

* "Whittier", published in Lyrics of Lowly Life (1896)
* "Whittier", published in The Complete Poems of Paul Laurence Dunbar (1913)
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Whitus v. Balkcom

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 728
Phil WHITUS v. R. P. BALKCOM.
Phil Whitus, pro se.
Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen. of Georgia, and Howard P. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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
# Whitus v. Balkcom/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 728
Phil WHITUS v. R. P. BALKCOM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia for a hearing on the merits of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# Whitsitt v. Union Depot Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 363
Whitsitt v. Union Depot Railroad Company
This was a suit in equity begun by Richard E. Whitsitt, then in life, and James Meskew, to quiet their possession of certain lots in Denver, Colorado. A decree was entered October 6, 1880, dismissing the bill. From that decree the complainants took an appeal to this court, which was dismissed at October term, 1880, because it did not appear that the value of the matter in dispute exceeded $5,000. Whitsitt v. Railroad Co., 103 U.S. 770. On the twentieth of July, 1881, Emma C. Whitsitt appeared in the circuit court, and, suggesting the death of Richard E. Whitsitt, asked to be made a party to the suit in his stead, as sole heir and devisee. An order to this effect was made, and she, on the thirtieth of August, 1881, filed in the circuit court an affidavit showing that the value of the matter in dispute did exceed $5,000. On the same day she took another appeal, which was docketed in this court September 24, 1881, and dismissed, under rule 16, April 5, 1884, for want of prosecution. The mandate from this court under this appeal was filed in the circuit court, September 9, 1884, and the next day, September 10, Mrs. Whitsitt presented to the district judge for the district of Colorado another appeal-bond in the suit, which he accepted, and he also signed a citation that was duly served on the same day. This last appeal was docketed in this court, September 22, 1884. When the case was reached in its regular order on the docket at the present term, it was submitted by the appellant on printed brief, no one appearing for the appellee.
Section 1008 of the Revised Statutes provides that 'no judgment, decree, or order of a circuit or district court, in any civil action, at law or in equity, shall be reviewed in the supreme court on writ of error or appeal, unless the r it of error is brought, or the appeal is taken, within two years after the entry of such judgment, decree, or order: provided, that where a party entitled to prosecute a writ of error or take an appeal is an infant, insane person, or imprisoned, such writ of error may be prosecuted, or such appeal may be taken, within two years after the judgment, decree, or order, exclusive of the term of such disability.' This decree was rendered October 6, 1880, and the present appeal was not taken until September 22, 1884, nearly four years afterwards. There is no suggestion of disability such as would bring the appellant within the proviso. The appeal should therefore be dismissed, (Scarborough v. Pargoud, 108 U.S. 567, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 877;) and 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