OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Update on Water Quality/3

* Update on Water Quality
* United States Department of Agriculture
Progress Update #3, April 18, 1990

## EPA, USDA Continue Cooperative Efforts

Marion Mlay, director of the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Groundwater Protection, explained aspects of EPA’s groundwater policy at the April 6 meeting of the Working Group on Water Quality. She described EPA’s new efforts through its Ground-Water Task Force to develop a Statement of Ground-Water Principles and a new Policy on State/Federal Relations. According to EPA’s Statement of Ground Water Principles, dated January 19, 1990, the “overall goal of EPA’s Ground-Water Policy is to prevent adverse effects to human health and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation’s ground-water resources.” Since USDA’s efforts are focusing on prevention, EPA’s and USDA’s philosophies are moving in the same direction.
Because prevention is far more economical in the long run than cure, EPA and USDA figure to be permanent partners in water quality activities. Already, USDA and EPA work together on the President’s Water Quality Initiative through State water quality efforts, data management, and research. The agencies have exchanged staffers on long-term details. Staffers from both agencies meet frequently to exchange ideas and formulate cooperative working plans. Also, Secretary Yeutter and EPA Administrator William Reilly testified jointly on water quality before the Senate Agriculture Committee last January. Contact: Jim Meek, OSEC, 447-5035

## Revised USDA Groundwater Policy

The ad-hoc subcommittee for USDA groundwater policy has issued a second draft policy for comment within the Working Group. The policy is close to completion and should be available soon to supercede the current policy, as set forth in Secretary’s Memorandum 9500-8 (November 9, 1987). The subcommittee is also developing recommendations for revising USDA’s nonpoint source water quality policy, contained in Secretary’s Memorandum 9500-7 (December 5, 1986). Contact: Pat Calvert, ES, 447-6133

## SCS–ES Water Quality Meetings Held, More Scheduled

A March 13–15 meeting in Washington brought together ES and SCS water quality coordinators from each state to review USDA’s water quality educational and technical assistance goals and objectives. The two agencies have also announced that regional meetings will be held at four sites this spring and summer: Little Rock, AR, April; Providence, RI, June; Reno, NV, July; and St. Paul, MN, August. These regional meetings will focus on technology transfer and local coordination. Contact: Pat Calvert, ES, 447-6133; George Stapleton, SCS, 447-0527

## ASCS Adds Another Water Quality Special Project

ASCS has added another water quality special project to the ones already announced and highlighted in the March 30 update. The newest addition is Peacheater Creek, Adair County, Oklahoma, which brings the total of water quality special projects to 40 for fiscal year 1990. Contact: Ray Waggoner, ASCS, 447-5237
# United States v. Carey Same

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 51
United States v. Carey Same
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error.
J. P. Bouse and Wm. Grant, for defendants in error.
WAITE, C. 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
# United States v. Carignan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 36
United States v. Carignan
Argued: Oct. 8, 1951. --- Decided: Nov 13, 1951
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Harold J. Butcher, Anchorage, Alaska, for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# United States v. Carll/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 611
United States v. Carll
In an indictment upon a statute, it is not sufficient to set forth the offence in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished; and the fact that the statute in question, read in the light of the common law, and of other statutes on the like matter, enables the court to infer the intent of the legislature, does not dispense with the necessity of alleging in the indictment all the facts necessary to bring the case within that intent. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542; United States v. Simmons, 96 id. 360; Commonwealth v. Clifford, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 215; Commonwealth v. Bean, 11 id. 414; Commonwealth v. Bean, 14 Gray (Mass.), 52; Commonwealth v. Filburn,119 Mass. 297.
The language of the statute on which this indictment is founded includes the case of every person who, with intent to defraud, utters any forged obligation of the United States. But the offence at which it is aimed is similar to the common-law offence of uttering a forged or counterfeit bill. In this case, as in that, knowledge that the instrument is forged and counterfeited is essential to make out the crime; and an uttering, with intent to defraud, of an instrument in fact counterfeit, but supposed by the defendant to be genuine, though within the words of the statute, would not be within its meaning and object.
This indictment, by omitting the allegation contained in the indictment in United States v. Howell (11 Wall. 432), and in all approved precedents, that the defendant knew the instrument which he uttered to be false, forged, and counterfeit, fails to charge him with any crime. The omission is of matter of substance, and not a 'defect or imperfection in matter of form only,' within the meaning of sect. 1025 of the Revised Statutes. By the settled rules of criminal pleading, and the authorities above cited, therefore, the question of the sufficiency of the indictment must be Answered in the negative.

## 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
# United States v. Carlo Bianchi and Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 709
United States v. Carlo Bianchi and Company
Argued: April 29, 1963. --- Decided: June 3, 1963
David L. Rose, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
William H. Matthews, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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
# United States v. Carey Same/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 51
United States v. Carey Same
The judgment in each of these cases was rendered after a trial by jury on the seventeenth of March, 1880, during the November term, 1879, although it was not signed until May 20, 1880. On the nineteenth of May, 1880, which was at the April term of that year, the district judge who presided at the trial signed a bill of exceptions, which sets forth that on the trial the United States offered in evidence a document, which was annexed, and purported to be a copy of an assessment made by the commissioner of internal revenue for May, 1875, to the introduction of which the defendants objected, and that the objection was sustained. The bill of exceptions the proceeds as follows: 'To which ruling of the court plaintiff excepts, and tenders this his bill of exceptions, which is accordingly signed this nineteenth day of May, 1880.' The rule is well established and of long standing that an exception, to be of any avail, must be taken at the trial. It may be reduced to form and signed afterwards, but the fact that it was seasonably taken must appear affirmatively in the record by a bill of exceptions duly allowed or otherwise. Phelps v. Mayer, 15 How. 160; U.S. v. Breitling, 20 How. 254; French v. Edwards, 13 Wall. 516; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U.S. 555; Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U.S. 354. This clearly is not such a case. There is nothing whatever to indicate that any exception was taken to the rejection of the evidence complained of until the next term after the trial was over and the judgment rendered, though not signed. Even the liberal extension of the rule granted in Simpson v. Dall, 3 Wall. 460, is not enough to reach this defect. The language here implies an exception only at the time of tendering the bill of exceptions to be signed, which was not only long after the trial, but at a subsequent term of the court.
It follows that the errors assigned are not such as we can consider, and the judgments are consequently affirmed.

## 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
# United States v. Carll

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 611
United States v. Carll
105 U.S. 611
15 Otto 611
26 L.Ed. 1135
UNITED STATES
V.
CARLL
Supreme Court of the United States.
October Term 1881
CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This was an indictment, found in the Circuit Court, on sect. 5431 of the Revised Statutes, by which it is enacted that 'every person who, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more than fifteen years.'
Each count of the indictment alleged that the defendant, at a certain time and place, 'feloniously, and with intent to defraud the Bank of the Metropolis, which said bank is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, did pass, utter, and publish upon and to the said Bank of the Metropolis a falsely made, forged, counterfeited, and altered obligation and security of the United States' (which was set forth according to its tenor), against the peace, and contrary to the form of the statute.
The defendant, having been tried before Judge Benedict, and convicted by the jury under instructions which required them to be satisfied of the facts alleged, and that the defendant, at the time of uttering the obligations, knew them to be false, forged, counterfeited, and altered, moved in arrest of judgment for the insufficiency of the indictment. At the hearing of this motion before Judge Blatchford and Judge Benedict, they were divided in opinion upon the question, stated in various forms in their certificate, but in substance this: Whether the indictment, setting forth the offence in the language of the statute, without further alleging that the defendant knew the instruments to be false, forged, counterfeited, and altered, was sufficient, after verdict, to warrant judgment thereon.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. William C. Roberts for the defendant.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, 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
# Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
354 U.S. 416
Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt
Argued: April 22, 23, 1957. --- Decided: June 24, 1957
Mr. Sol A. Rosenblatt, New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Monroe J. Winsten, New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Vandewater v. Mills

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 82
Vandewater v. Mills

## 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
# Vane, young in yeares, but in sage counsell old

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Written in 1652
Vane, young in yeares, but in sage counsell old, Then whome a better Senatour nere held The helme of Rome, when gownes not armes repelld The feirce Epeirot & the African bold, Whether to settle peace or to unfold The drift of hollow states hard to be spelld, Then to advise how warr may best, upheld, Move by her two maine nerves, Iron & Gold In all her equipage; besides to know Both spirituall powre & civill, what each meanes, What severs each, thou 'hast learnt, which few have don The bounds of either sword to thee wee ow. Therefore on thy firme hand religion leanes In peace, and reck'ns thee her eldest son.
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
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/16th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 75

Chap. LXXV.—An Act further to regulate the medical department of the army.
Act of April 24, 1816, ch. 69, sec. 1. Apothecary and assistant apothecaries general to give bonds, with security, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the apothecary general and assistant apothecaries general, shall severally give bonds to the United States, with good and sufficient surety, for the faithful performance of ​their duties, in such sums as shall be required by the Surgeon General of the Army, under the direction of the War Department.
Approved, May 8, 1820.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/16th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 50

Chap. L.—An Act to authorize the Secretary of State to cause the laws of the Michigan territory to be printed and distributed, and for other purposes.
The laws of Michigan in force, to be printed under the direction of the Secretary of State, &c. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the laws of the Michigan territory in force, shall be printed, under the direction of the Secretary of State; and that a competent number of copies thereof shall be distributed among the people of said territory, as the governor and judges thereof shall direct: Provided, That the expense of such printing shall not exceed twelve hundred and fifty dollars.
Fifteen sets of the laws of the United States to be transmitted to Michigan, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That fifteen sets of the laws of the United States, which were compiled by order of Congress, and published by Bioren and Duane, in one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State, to said territory to be distributed therein, as the local government thereof may direct.
Approved, April 24, 1820.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/16th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 62

Chap. LXII.—An Act concerning the banks of the district of Columbia.
Charters of the banks in the District paying specie, and as long as they pay specie continued until 1st June, 1822. Charter of Bank of Columbia limited to 1st June, 1822. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the charters of the several incorporated banks in the District of Columbia, now paying specie, and during such time only as such banks respectively shall continue to pay specie, be, and the same are hereby extended to the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, any thing in the said charters to the contrary notwithstanding; and the charter of the Bank of Columbia, be, and the same is hereby declared to be limited in its duration to the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two: Provided, That this act shall be of no force or effect to extend any charter aforesaid, till a majority in interest of the stockholders of the several banks whose charters may be hereby extended, shall file their declarations in writing, in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, assenting to, and accepting the benefit of this act.
Approved, May 4, 1820.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/16th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 54

Chap. LIV.—An Act to increase the allowance of the judges of the Orphans’ Court in the counties of Washington and Alexandria.
Each judge of the orphans’ court in the District of Columbia, allowed 6 dollars for each day he attends, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passing of this act, the judge of the orphans’ court for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and the judge of the orphans’ court for the county of Alexandria, in the same district, shall each be entitled to receive, in lieu of his present compensation, the sum of six dollars for every day he shall attend in the execution of his office: to be paid in the same manner as is now by law directed.
Approved, May 1, 1820.
# Virginia v. Maryland

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Virginia v. Maryland."
* 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.
* Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 3)
* Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 269)
* Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 946)
# Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 269)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 269
Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 269)
Messrs. C. F. Hicks, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia and Kenneth C. Patty, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
Messrs. Joseph S. Kaufman, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland and C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen. (Mr. Edward S. Digges, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant.
On motion for leave to file bill of complaint.
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
# Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 3)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 3
Virginia v. Maryland
The motion of the Commonwealth of Virginia for a temporary restraining order is denied. The motion for leave to withdraw the appearance of J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., as counsel for the plaintiff 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
# Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 946)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 946
Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 946)

## 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
# Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 946)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 946
Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 946)
Messrs. C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Joseph S. Kaufman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward S. Digges, Special Asst. Atty. Gen. for State of Maryland.
It is ordered that Mr. Justice Reed (Retired) be, and he is hereby, appointed special master in this cause, with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The master is directed to hold hearings with all convenient speed, and to submit a report with recommendations relative to the disposition of the question raised by the pleadings.
The master shall be allowed his actual expenses. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his stenographic and clerical assistants, and the cost of printing his report shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court hereafter may direct.

## 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
# Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 3)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 3
Virginia v. Maryland
Messrs. J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., former Atty. Gen., Kenneth C. Patty, former Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. F. Hicks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Commonwealth of Virginia.
Messrs. C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Joseph S. Kaufman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward S. Digges, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Maryland.
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
# Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 269)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 269
Virginia v. Maryland (355 U.S. 269)
The Court having heard oral argument by the Attorneys General of the States and having considered the printed briefs of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the motion for leave to file the bill of complaint should be granted. The State of Maryland is directed to file an answer to the bill of complaint within 60 days and process is ordered to issue 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
# Virginia v. Rives

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Field
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 313
Virginia v. Rives
PETITION for mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. James G. Field, Attorney-General of Virginia, and Mr William J. Robertson for the petitioner.
Mr. Charles Devens and Mr. W. Willoughby, contra.
MR. JUSTICE STRONG 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