OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# My Dear Cornelia/Book 2/Chapter 7

As I entered the wood path through the birches that run down to my own cottage, I thought I saw a boyish youngish figure slipping among the trees to the eastward. A moment later, I met Dorothy walking demurely up the path, with a book in her hand, closed upon one finger.
"Watching the sun set?" I asked, diplomatically.
"No," she said, "watching him disappear."
"Watching whom disappear?" I inquired, being invited.
"Oh, a boy that I like. We've been reading one of mother's new books. It's about a girl, Deirdre, who didn't want to marry a king, because there was a boy that she liked very much better—in all ways. And so they ran away and lived in the woods—and died happily."
"Oho!" I exclaimed. "I suspect the happiness of their death has been greatly exaggerated. It seemed to me rather dreadful. It's James Stephens's version, isn't it?"
"Yes," said Dorothy, and turning the golden ​dusk of her eyes with a sweet young gravity full upon mine, she added: "How old was my mother when you first knew her?"
"About your age, Dorothy. Why do you ask?"
"Was she very different then—from the way she is now?"
"She was quite a bit like you, then," I said, "if I remember. But why do you ask?"
"Because," she said, "she has marked the loveliest passage in this book. And I can't understand why, because she isn't like that now—not at all like that now."
"Isn't like what?"
"I mean," said Dorothy with perfect lucidity, "that this passage expresses just the way this boy and I feel. Shall I read it to you?"
"That wouldn't be quite nice," I suggested, "would it, Dorothy? Good-bye!"
"Perhaps not," she agreed; but as she moved toward the house, she turned and called after me: "But if you want to read it, you can find it on page one-hundred-and-forty."
In my own copy of James Stephens's Deirdre, I have marked, on page one-hundred-and-forty, this passage:—
"Lacking him, what could be returned to ​her? Her hands went cold and her mouth dry as she faced such a prospect.
"The youth who was hers. Who had no terrors for her! Who was her equal in years and frolic! She could laugh with him and at him. She could chide him and love him. She could give to him and withhold. She could be his mother as well as his wife. She could annoy him and forgive him. For between them there was such an equality of time and rights that neither could dream of mastery or feel a grief against the other. He was her beloved, her comrade, the very red of her heart, and her choice choice."
# My Dear Cornelia/Book 2

An Eligible Young Man
# National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Overstreet/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 118
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Overstreet
Argued: March 29, 1966. ---
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as imprivodently granted.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice FORTAS concur, 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
# National Association of Window Glass Mfrs v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 403
National Association of Window Glass Mfrs v. United States
Argued: Nov. 22-23, 1923. --- Decided: Dec 10, 1923
Mr. John W. Davis, and Mr. Montgomery B. Angell of New York City, for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 403-405 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Robert P. Reeder for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 405-409 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Pierre A. White, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. I. L. Bradwin, Mr. R. M. Calfee and Mr. A. O. Dickey were on the brief.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 409-411 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Overstreet

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 118
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Overstreet
Argued: March 29, 1966. ---
See 384 U.S. 981, 84 S.Ct. 1857.
Robert L. Carter, New York City, for petitioners.
Submitted on brief by Hugh P. Futrell, Jr., Savannah, Ga., for respondent.
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
# National Ballad and Song

Layout 2
* Volume 1
* Volume 2
* Volume 3
* Volume 4
* Volume 5
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
# National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Williams

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 550
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Williams
Argued: June 1, 1959. ---
Messrs. Robert L. Carter, Frank D. Reeves and A. T. Walden, for petitioners.
Messrs. Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen. of Georgia, Robert H. Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., and E. Freeman Leverett, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
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
# Men of Mark in America/Volume 1/Edward D. White

EDWARD DOUGLASS WHITE
DESCENDED from one of the leading families of Louisiana in its old Spanish days, Edward Douglass White was born on his father's estate in La Fourche parish, November 3, 1845. His grandfather had immigrated to Louisiana before its cession to the United States and had been the first parish judge of the Attakapas district; while his father, whose name he inherits, served as the seventh governor of Louisiana. His mother was Catherine S. (Ringgold) White. Of Catholic parentage, he was sent to the Catholic educational institutions of Mount St. Mary's college, Emmittsburg, Maryland, and Georgetown college, Washington, District of Columbia. He was in the latter institution at the outbreak of the Civil war, and was at once called home and sent to the Jesuit college at New Orleans to complete his education. Ardently patriotic in the cause of the South, the youth joined the Confederate ranks as a private, his period of active military service being followed by a term of legal study in the office of Honorable Edward Bermudez, afterward chief justice of Louisiana.
He was admitted to the bar in 1868 and practised with success in New Orleans, while his activity in political life as a member of the dominant party of the state was shown by his election to the state senate, in which he served from 1874 to 1878. He had meanwhile gained a reputation for skill and ability in his chosen profession such that in 1878 Governor Nichols raised him to the bench as associate justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. This position he held until the adoption of the new constitution of the state, which provided for a new court, to be organized in 1891. Meanwhile, in 1890, Justice White had been elected to the United States senate by an almost unanimous vote of the Legislature. His term of senatorial service, however, was not completed, the recognition of his profound knowledge of, and high ability in, the law leading to his appointment in February, 1894, to the exalted judicial position of associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1898 he declined the request of President McKinley to become a member of ​the Peace Commission for the settlement of the questions arising from the Spanish war, preferring to devote himself to the important duties of his judicial position.
# Men of Mark in America/Volume 1/Charles J. Bonaparte

CHARLES JOSEPH BONAPARTE
CHARLES JOSEPH BONAPARTE, who assumed the port- folio of secretary of the navy in the cabinet of President Roosevelt, July 1, 1905, was born at Baltimore, Maryland, June 9, 1851. His father was Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte, son of Jerome, the brother of Napoleon I. of France, and Elizabeth (Patterson) Bonaparte. His mother was Miss Susan May Williams of Baltimore, who married Jerome Napoleon, at Baltimore in 1829.
Charles Joseph Bonaparte, the younger of the two sons of his parents, was graduated from Harvard college in 1871, and from the Harvard law school in 1874. Returning to Baltimore, he began at once the practice of law in his native city, where he has continued to reside. His chosen profession, and a deep and constant interest in civil service reform and in practical efforts to further good government and to secure needed political reforms in his own state and city and in the country-at-large, have occupied him for the thirty years since he began the practice of law.
He was for many years chairman of the Council of the National Civil Service Reform League, resigning that position July 22, 1905; he was appointed a member of the United States Board of Indian Commissioners in 1902, resigning in 1904 in order to act as one of the presidential electors for the state of Maryland, on the Roosevelt ticket. He is a member of the executive committee of the Civic Federation. He was named by Secretary Hitchcock, with the approval of President Roosevelt, in 1904, special inspector to investigate affairs in the Indian Territory. He received, in 1903, the Laetare medal given by the University of Notre Dame.
Mr. Bonaparte married Miss Ellen Channing Day, of Newport, Rhode Island, September 1, 1875.
# Men of Mark in America/Volume 1

MEN OF MARK IN AMERICA
Men of Mark in America
Ideals of American Life told in Biographies of Eminent Living Americans
MERRILL E. GATES, LL.D., L.H.D. Editor-in-Chief
Volume I
With an opening chapter on
AMERICAN IDEALS By Edward Everett Hale, S.T.D., LL.D.
MEN OF MARK PUBLISHING COMPANY
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1905
Copyright, 1905
by
Men of Mark Publishing Company
PRESS OF WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY BALTIMORE, MD.
* Preface
* American Ideals
MEN OF MARK IN AMERICA
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, Merrill E. Gates, LL.D., L.H.D.
ADVISORY BOARD
| Edwin A. Alderman, LL.D. President Tulane University. *Gen. Henry V. Boynton Chairman of Chicamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park Commission. Hon. David J. Brewer, LL.D. Associate Justice United States Supreme Court. Merrill E. Gates, LL.D., L.H.D. Ex-President Amherst College. Hon. Ellis H. Roberts, LL.D. Treasurer of the United States. | Josiah Strong, D.D. President Institute Social Service; Author of "Our Country." Hon. Henry Litchfield West Commissioner District of Columbia. Gen. John M. Wilson, LL.D. Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., Retired. Carroll D. Wright, Ph.D., LL.D. Formerly Commissioner of Labor, President of Clark College. Gen. Marcus J. Wright War Department President Southern History Association. |
*General Boynton died while Volumes I and II were in course of preparation.
Volumes I and II contain biographies of men who are most prominently identified with the great political, educational and public interests which center at the National Capital, and of its leading residents. In the following volumes eminent men in all parts of the country will be represented.
In order that this representation may be complete the Advisory Board has been enlarged. In addition to those already named the following eminent men have consented to serve in the same capacity for the succeeding volumes:
| Francis E. Clark, D.D. Founder and President United Society of Christian Endeavor. Franklin H. Head, LL.D. of Chicago. David Starr Jordan, LL.D. President Leland Stanford Jr. University. Charles D. McIver, LL.D., Litt.D. President of North Carolina Normal and Industrial College. | Hon. William J. Northen, LL.D. Ex-Governor of Georgia. William H. Payne, LL.D. of the University of Michigan. Hon. Oscar S. Straus, LL.D., L.H.D. Ex-United States Minister to Turkey. Charles F. Thwing, D.D., LL.D. President Western Reserve University. Gen. Joseph Wheeler, LL.D. of Alabama. |
LIST OF FULL PAGE PORTRAITS
VOLUME I
FACING PAGE
INDEX OF BIOGRAPHIES
VOLUME I
PAGE
Cabinet Officers
Supreme Court of the United States
ALPHABETICAL LIST
# Men of Mark in America

* related portals: Biography.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.
Two volume series of collections of biographies.
* Volume 1 (1905)
* Volume 2 (1906)
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
# Neel v. Pennsylvania Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
157 U.S. 153
Neel v. Pennsylvania Company
On the authority of Grace v. Insurance Co., 109 U.S. 278, 283, 284, 3 Sup. Ct. 207, Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237, 7 Sup. Ct. 193, and Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 388, 4 Sup. Ct. 510, the judgment of the circuit court will be reversed, with instructions to remand the case to the state court, with costs against defendant in error, which must also pay the costs in this court. Hanrick v. Hanrick, 153 U.S. 192, 198, 14 Sup. Ct. 835. Judgment reversed accordingly.

## 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
# Neese v. Southern Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 77
Neese v. Southern Railway Company
Argued: Nov. 7, 1955. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1955
Mr. Henry Hammer, Columbia, S.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Sidney S. Alderman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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
# Neese v. Southern Railway Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 77
Neese v. Southern Railway Company
Argued: Nov. 7, 1955. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1955
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 216 F.2d 772, without reaching the constitutional challenge to that court's jurisdiction to review the denial by the trial court of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. Even assuming such appellate power to exist under the Seventh Amendment, we find that the Court of Appeals was not justified, on this record, in regarding the denial of a new trial, upon a remittitur of part of the verdict, as an abuse of discretion. For apart from that question, as we view the evidence we think that the action of the trial court was not without support in the record, and accordingly that its action should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeals.
We need not consider respondent's contention that only the jurisdictional question was presented by the petition for certiorari, for in reversing on the above ground we follow the traditional practice of this Court of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us by the parties. See Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 338, 75 S.Ct. 790, 793; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129, 132, 136, 142, 67 S.Ct. 231, 232, 233, 236, 91 L.Ed. 128.
Reversed.

## 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
# Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 317
Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Company
Argued: Jan. 16 and 17, 1967. --- Decided: March 20, 1967
See 386 U.S. 1027, 87 S.Ct. 1366.
Kenneth N. Kripke, Denver Colo., for petitioner.
John C. Mott, Denver, Colo., for respondent.
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
# Neel v. Pennsylvania Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
157 U.S. 153
Neel v. Pennsylvania Company
This action was brought in the court of common pleas of Richland county, Ohio, and removed into the circuit court by the defendant. The petition for removal stated: 'First. The plaintiff was at the time of the commencement of this action, and still is, a resident of the state of Ohio, in the county of Richland. Second. The Pennsylvania Company, the defendant herein, is a corporation duly incorporated under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, and was at the commencement of this action, and still is, a citizen of that state, and was not then, nor has it ever been, a citizen of the state of Ohio. Third. The matters in controversy in this suit are wholly between citizens of different states, and the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars, and is to recover the sum of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars.'
The record failed to show of what state plaintiff was a citizen.
D. Dirlm, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.

## 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
# Neely v. Henkel

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
180 U.S. 109
Neely v. Henkel
Argued: December 10, 11, 1900. --- Decided: January 14, 1901
Messrs. John D. Lindsay and De Lancey Nicoll for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Beck for appellee.
Mr. Justice Harlan 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
# Mother Goose for Grownups/The Admirable Assertiveness of Jilted Jack

This poem was published in Carryl’s 1900 anthology Mother Goose for Grownups, which poems are parodies of Mother Goose nursery rhymes.
A noble and generous mind  Was Jack’s; Folks knew he would not talk behind  Their backs:  But when some maiden fresh and young,
 At Jack a bit of banter flung,  She soon discovered that his tongue  Was sharp as any ax.
A flirt of most engaging wiles  Was Jill; On Jack she lavished all her smiles,  Until  Her slave (and he was not the first)  Of lovesick swains became the worst, His glance a strong box might have burst,  His sighs were fit to kill.
One April morning, clear and fair,  When both Of staying home and idling there  In sloth  Were weary, Jack remarked to Jill:  “Oh, what’s the sense in sitting still?  Let’s mount the slope of yonder hill.”  And she was nothing loth
But as she answered: “What’s the use?”  The gruff Young swain replied: “Oh, there’s excuse  Enough.  Your doting parents water lack;  We’ll fill a pail and bring it back.”  (The reader will perceive that Jack  Was putting up a bluff.)
Thus hand in hand the tempting hill  They scaled, And Jack proposed a kiss to Jill,  And failed!  One backward start, one step too bold,  And down the hill the couple rolled,  Resembling, if truth be told,  A luggage train derailed.
With eyes ablaze with anger, she  Exclaimed: “Well, who’d have thought! You’d ought to be  Ashamed!  You quite forget yourself, it’s plain,  So I’ll forget you too. Insane  Young man, I’ll say oafweederzane.”  (Her German might be blamed.)
But Jack, whose linguist’s pride was pricked,  To shine, Asked: “Meine königin will nicht  Be mine?”  And when she answered: “Nein” in spleen,  He cried: “Then in the soup tureen  You’ll stay. You’re not the only queen  Discarded for a nein!”
The moral’s made for maidens young  And small: If you would in a foreign tongue  Enthrall,  Lead off undaunted in a Swede  Or Spanish speech, and you’ll succeed,  But they who in a German lead  No favor win at all.
# Mother Goose for Grownups/The Discouraging Discovery of Little Jack Horner

This poem was published in Carryl’s 1900 anthology Mother Goose for Grownups, of poems that are parodies of Mother Goose nursery rhymes.
A knack almost incredible for dealing with an edible  Jack Horner’s elder sister was acknowledged to display; She labored hard and zealously, but always guarded jealously  The secrets of the dishes she invented every day. She’d take some indigestible, unpopular comestible  And to its better nature would so tenderly appeal That Jack invoked a benison upon a haunch of venison,  When ready she was serving him a little leg of veal!
Jack said she was a miracle. The word was not satirical,  For daily climbing upward, she excelled herself at last: The acme of facility, the zenith of ability  Was what she gave her brother for his Christmas Day repast. He dined that evening eagerly and anything but meagerly,  And when he’d finished had his salad and his quart of Extra Dry, With sisterly benignity, and just a touch of dignity,  She placed upon the table an unutterable pie!
Unflagging pertinacity, and technical sagacity,  Long nights of sleepless vigil, and long days of constant care Had been involved in making it, improving it, and baking it,  Until of other pies it was the wonder and despair: So princely and so prominent, so solemn, so predominant  It looked upon the table, that, with fascinated eye, The youth, with sudden wonder struck, electrified, and thunder struck,  Could only stammer stupidly: “Oh Golly! What a pie!”
In view of his satiety, it almost seemed impiety,  To carve this crowning triumph of a culinary life, But, braced by his avidity, with sudden intrepidity  He broke its dome imposing with a common kitchen knife. Ah, hideous fatality! for when with eager palate he  Commenced to eat, he happened on an accident uncouth, And cried with stifled moan: “Of it one plum I tried. The stone of it  Had never been extracted, and I’ve broke a wisdom tooth!”
Jack’s sister wept effusively, but loudly and abusively  His unreserved opinion of her talents he proclaimed; He called her names like “driveller” and “simpleton” and “sniveller,”  And others, which to mention I am really too ashamed. The moral: It is saddening, embarrassing, and maddening  A stone to strike in what you thought was paste. One thing alone Than this mischance is crueller, and that is for a jeweller  To strike but paste in what he fondly thought to be a stone.