OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Science (journal)/Volume 5/No. 100/Man in the Stone Age

DOI: 10.1126/science.ns-5.100.3, page 3
Man in the stone age.
In Science, iv. 469, Prof. Henry W. Haynes takes me up sharply in reference to an opinion I expressed about the epoch of the appearance of man, properly so called, in prehistoric time in Europe, and calls this opinion ‘a most amazing travesty of the views of Mortillet.’
Professor Haynes tells us that he gave a critical notice of Mortillet’s work, ‘Le préhistorique; antiquité de l’homme,’ in Science: it is probable, therefore, that he read that book. But it is evident, that, if he did, he has forgotten it: otherwise he would not repeat that Mortillet takes the station St. Acheul as typical of the oldest stone age, inasmuch as he definitely rejects it as being of mixed later types, and substitutes the station of Chelles (op. cit., 133). He would also have remembered that Mortillet denies, in so many words, that the anthropoid then living was man as we understand the term. THese words are, “Nous nous retrouvons, done, en présence de l’anthropopithèque, dont j’ai démontré l’existence,” etc. (p. 248). Passing to the next age or epoch, the Moustérien, he asserts that it, too, was characterized by this race of anthropopitheci (p. 339); while in the third epoch, that of lolutré, he leaves the question open, denying that any traces of man or anthropoid have been discovered (p. 392).
This brings us late, very late, in paleolithic time, without an osteologic trace of any being who should properly be called man; for it would indeed be a travesty to apply that name to a creature without language, without religion, and without social compacts. If the question is to be any thing beyond one of word-splitting, these psychological characteristics must be connoted by the word ‘man;’ for in all ethnological study they almost alone occupy us, as Peschel has well shown in his chapter, ‘Die stellung des menschen in der schöpfung’ (Völkerkunde, einleitung). Yet Mortillet himself denies them to his anthropopithecus.
Media, Penn., Dec. 13.
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
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/Measure, for Measure

* Act I: Scene I.
* Act I: Scene II.
* Act I: Scene III.
* Act I: Scene IV.
* Act I: Scene V.
* Act II: Scene I.
* Act II: Scene II.
* Act II: Scene III.
* Act II: Scene IV.
* Act III: Scene I.
* Act IV: Scene I.
* Act IV: Scene II.
* Act IV: Scene III.
* Act IV: Scene IV.
* Act IV: Scene V.
* Act IV: Scene VI.
* Act V: Scene I.
* Dramatis Personae
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/Loves Labour's lost

* Act I
* Act II
* Act III
* Act IV
* Act V
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
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/As You Like It/Act 5 Scene 3

Scœna Tertia.
Enter Clowne and Audrey.
Clo.
To morrow is the ioyfull day Audrey, to morow will we be married.
Aud.
I do desire it with all my heart: and I hope it is no dishonest desire, to desire to be a woman of the world? Heere come two of the banish'd Dukes Pages.
Enter two Pages.
Wel met honest Gentleman.
Clo.
By my troth well met: come, sit, sit, and a song.
2.Pa.
We are for you, sit i'th middle.
1.Pa.
Shal we clap into't roundly, without hauking, or spitting, or saying we are hoarse, which are the onely prologues to a bad voice.
2.Pa.
I faith, y'faith, and both in a tune like two gipsies on a horse.
Song.
With a hey, and a ho, and a hey nonino,
That o're the greene corne feild did passe,
In the spring time, the onely pretty rang time.
When Birds do sing, hey ding a ding, ding.
Sweet Louers loue the spring,
And therefore take the present time.
With a hey, & a ho, and a hey nonino,
For loue is crowned with the prime.
In spring time, &c.
Betweene the acres of the Rie,
With a hey, and a ho, & a hey nonino:
These prettie Country folks would lie.
In spring time, &c.
This Carroll they began that houre,
With a hey and a ho, & a hey nonino:
How that a life was but a Flower,
In spring time, &c
Clo.
Truly yong Gentlemen, though there was no great matter in the dittie, yet the note was very vntunable.
1.Pa.
you are deceiu'd Sir, we kept time, we lost not our time.
Clo.
By my troth yes: I count it but time lost to heare such a foolish song. God buy you, and God mend your voices. Come Audrie. Exeunt.
Layout 2
# Sherry v. McKinley/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 496
Sherry v. McKinley
Most of the questions presented in this record received our consideration in Keely v. Sanders (supra, p. 441), to which we refer. We shall not repeat what was there said. The sole ground upon which the Supreme Court of the State rested its decree declaring the tax sales to be invalid was that the military authority of the United States had not been established throughout the county of Shelby when they took place, and, therefore, that the lots were not then subject to sale according to the provisions of the act of Congress. That this ground cannot be maintained, we held in the former case.
That both the lots were subject to the tax, and that it had not been paid or they redeemed, is not controverted. It is also in evidence, and not denied, that the commissioners gave a certificate of sale of each of the lots to Sherry, the purchaser. What the effect of that certificate is we determined in Keely v. Sanders, as also in De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U.S. 517. If it be suggested (though it has not been during the argument) that the sale of lot 32 was of a different lot from that claimed by the complainants, it may be replied, that the suggestion is in conflict with the proof.
It is true it was mentioned as 'part of Manly tract,' which was an obvious mistake that could have misled no one; for there was no such tract, and the remaining portion of the description clearly identified the property. It was as follows: 'Lot 32. . . . Six and fifty-eight one-hundredths acres (6 58/100) assessed to heirs of McKinley (the complainants) in 1860. Fifth civil district (country).'
It is a fair presumption that the description was taken from the State assessment of 1860, and followed it, since there is no evidence to the contrary. The number and the designation of owners are correct. No doubt the description would be sufficient in a deed, since it afforded the owners the means of identification, and could not have misled them. Cooley, const. Lim. 282.
The objection that the sales were not sufficiently advertised is met in the cases we have heretofore decided. But in truth they were advertised four weeks before they were made. The tax sales in the district were advertised to commence on the 13th of June, and to continue from day to day until all the lands not redeemed from forfeiture were sold. The sales of the lots now in controversy were made confessedly more than a month after they had been advertised for sale. Lorain v. Smith et al., 37 Iowa, 67.
It is to be presumed that the sales were adjourned from day to day until June 25. At most, there was but an irregularity which the act of 1863 rendered ineffective to defeat the title of the purchaser.
The judgment of the Supreme Court will be reversed, and the record remitted with instructions to order a dismissal of the bill; and it is
So ordered.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissented.

## 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
# Sherwood

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sherwood."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, taxonomy, travel guide, 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.
* Sherwood, Mary Martha
* Sherwood, Robert
* Sherwood, William
# Sherry v. McKinley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 496
Sherry v. McKinley
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.
This is a bill filed by McKinley and others in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, and for the purposes of the case it was conceded that they were the owners of two lots of ground near Memphis, in that county, prior to the tax sale thereof, June 22 and June 25, 1864, under the act of Congress for the collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts within the United States and for other purposes, and the acts amending the same. Tax-sale certificates in due form were granted by the commissioners to Sherry, the purchaser at said sale. The complainants alleged that the sales were null and void, because the said acts of Congress were unconstitutional; that the assessment was excessive; that the commissioners put the act in force before the military occupation of the whole of said county by the United States; that the sales were not sufficiently advertised; and that although the day fixed in the advertisement was June 13, 1865, the lots were not in fact sold until the 22d and 25th of that month. The bill prayed that the sales be set aside. The defendants answered. The court passed a decree in conformity with the prayer of the bill. The Supreme Court, on appeal, decreed that the tax commissioners in making the sales did not follow the acts of Congress in this, that the military authority of the United States was not established throughout the county of Shelby when they entered upon the discharge of the duties of their office; that the sales were therefore void; that the certificates be cancelled and held for naught; that the possession of the property be restored to the complainants; and that an account of the rents and profits be taken. Thereupon Sherry sued out this writ of error.
Mr. William M. Randolph for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. B. Heiskell, 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
# Sherwin v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 369
Sherwin v. United States
Argued: April 16, 1925. --- Decided: May 25, 1925
Messrs. S. R. Sayers and W. B. Scott, both of Fort Worth, Tex., for petitioners.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Silvia

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Silvia."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, taxonomy, 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.
* Silvia, a poem by Don Marquis.
* Silvia, a poem by William Shakespeare.
# Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385]] (1920), was a U.S. Supreme Court Case in which Silverthorne attempted to evade paying taxes. Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The issue in this case is whether or not derivatives of illegal evidence are permissible in court. The ruling was that to permit derivatives would encourage police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible. This precedent is known as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and is an extension of the exclusionary rule. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 385
Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States
Argued: Dec. 12, 1919. --- Decided: Jan 26, 1920
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney and Myer Cohen, both of Washington, D. C., and William D. Guthrie, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 385-390 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
# Shirley

Shirley is a novel by English writer Charlotte Brontë.

## Versions Charlotte Brontë Contributed To

* Manuscript (BM Additional MSS 43477-9)
* Shirley (First Edition) (transcription volumes: 1, 2, 3)
* Shirley (Second Edition) (1853)
# Shipwreck'd sailor/The sailor's song

Date is estimated
THE SAILOR’S SONG.
WHEN it is night, and the mid-watch is come. And chilling mists hang o’er the darken'd Then sailors think of their far distant home, (main, And of those friends they ne'er may see again. But when the fight’s begun, Each serving at his gun, Should any thought of them come o'er your mind, Think, only. should the day be won, How ’twill cheer The heart, to hear That their old companion—he was one.
Or, my lad, if you a mistress kind Have left on shore,—some pretty girl and true, Who many a night doth listen to the wind,
And sigh to think how it may fare with you; O! when the fight’s begun,
And serving at his gun, Should any thought of her come o’er your mind,— Think, only, should the day be won, How ’twill cheer Her heart to hear That her own true sailor—he was one.
FINIS.
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
# Shirley: a Tale (1849)/Volume 1

SHIRLEY.
A Tale.
BY
CURRER BELL,
AUTHOR OF "JANE EYRE."
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
LONDON: SMITH, ELDER AND CO., 65, CORNHILL.
1849.
LONDON: PRINTED BY STEWART AND MURRAY, OLD BAILEY.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER X.
CHAPTER XI.
Layout 2
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
# Shir Hakovod

from Service of the Synagogue: New Year pub. Routledge & Kegan Paul (1906) p. 61.
Shir Hakovod
Sweet hymns shall be my chant and woven songs, For Thou art all for which my spirit longs-- To be within the shadow of Thy hand And all Thy mystery to understand. The while Thy glory is upon my tongue, My inmost heart with love of thee is wrung, So though Thy mighty marvels I proclaim, 'Tis songs of love wherewith I greet Thy name.
I have not seen Thee, yet I tell Thy praise, Nor known Thee, yet I image forth Thy ways. For by Thy seers' and servants' mystic speech Thou didst Thy sov'ran splendour darkly teach, And from the grandeur of Thy work they drew The measure of Thy inner greatness, too. They told of Thee, but not as Thou must be, Since from Thy work they tried to body Thee. To countless visions did their pictures run, Behold through all the visions Thou art one.
In Thee old age and youth at once were drawn, The grey of eld, the flowing locks of dawn, The ancient Judge, the youthful Warrior, The Man of Battles, terrible in war, The helmet of salvation on his head, And by his hand and arm the triumph led, His head all shining with the dew of light, His locks all dripping with the drops of night.
I glorify Him, for he joys in me, My crown of beauty He shall ever be! His head is like pure gold: His forehead's flame Is graven glory of His holy name. And with that lovely diadem 'tis graced, The coronal His people there have placed.
Truth is Thy primal word; at thy behest The generations pass - O aid our quest For Thee, and set my host of songs on high, And let my psalmody come very nigh. My praises as a coronal account, And let my prayers as Thine incense mount. Deem precious unto Thee the poor man's song, As those that to thine altar did belong. Rise, O my blessing, to the lord of birth, The breeding, quickening, righteous force of earth. Do Thou receive it with acceptant nod, My choicest incense offered to my God. And let my meditation grateful be, For all my being is athirst for Thee.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Shirley: a Tale (1849)

London: Smith, Elder and Co., 65, Cornhill, page Title
SHIRLEY.
A Tale.
BY
CURRER BELL,
AUTHOR OF "JANE EYRE."
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
LONDON: SMITH, ELDER AND CO., 65, CORNHILL.
1849.
* Volume 1
* Volume 2
* Volume 3
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
# Singer Manufacturing Company v. Rahn

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
132 U.S. 518
Singer Manufacturing Company v. Rahn
[Statement of Case from pages 518-520 intentionally omitted]
Grosvenor P. Lowrey, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 520-522 intentionally omitted]
W. P. Clough, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Singer Manufacturing Company v. Bent

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 205
Singer Manufacturing Company v. Bent
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., and Charles K. Offield, for appellant.
Wallace Heckman, 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
# Singer Manufacturing Company v. Cramer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
192 U.S. 265
Singer Manufacturing Company v. Cramer
Argued: March 18, 19, 1903. --- Decided: February 1, 1904

## 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
# Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951/Versions

Various versions of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951, exist:
* as enacted on 18 June 1951 and as came into force on 2 March 1956.
* as amended on 18 May 1956 by the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act, 1956.
* as amended on 15 March 1957 by the Electoral Laws Further Amendment Act, 1957.
* as amended on 7 February 1958 by the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act, 1958.
* as amended on 22 June 1962 by the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1962.
* as amended on 2 October 1964 by the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964.
* as amended on 16 June 1965 by the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act, 1965.
* as amended on 5 October 1966 by the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1966.
* as amended on 1 July 1969 by the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964.
The act was repealed on 2 March 1970 by the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act, 1968.
# September 11, 2006 - A Day of Sorrow and Remembrance

September 11, 2006 - A Day of Sorrow and Remembrance. Congressional Record: September 12, 2006 (Extensions of Remarks) Page E1689. DOCID:cr12se06-34.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 5 years removed from the tragedy of September 11, 2001, our Nation still feels the pain and sorrow from that fateful day. Like no other event in recent history, September 11 brought America together in a time of grief and an outpouring of emotion. Today, we remember the 3,000 innocent lives taken in the blink of an eye by these terrorist attacks.
I still remember watching the news that Tuesday morning and seeing footage of the planes hitting the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. Like you, I sat and prayed for the men and women that were trapped in the smoking buildings. Everyone offered our thanks to those brave citizens of New York and Virginia who rushed into the burning wreckage, trying to rescue any possible survivors. And I wept when watching the towers collapse into the streets of New York. These are moments frozen in time that no American could ever forget.
On the anniversary of these horrible attacks, it is fitting for Americans to pause and reflect on the challenges our Nation now faces to defend our freedoms. A committed group of religious Islamic terrorists--fanatics who twist and pervert the teachings of the Koran to meet their extremist goals--are bent on destroying America and its allies in the global war on terror.
We have seen attacks in Britain, Spain and Indonesia that have killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Law enforcement officials have used innovative and modernized counterterrorism policies to help successfully thwart terrorist plots in the Netherlands, Britain, Canada and the United States; plots that may have killed thousands. The lesson learned from these experiences is that we must remain ever vigilant in the global war if we are to defend against this enemy.
Like December 7, 1941 before it, September 11 has become a day of remembrance. It is a time to remember the lives lost that day, as well as the sacrifices made by our brave soldiers deployed on the front lines. September 11 is also a reminder that there is work left to do. It is groups like al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas whose goal it is to destroy America and everything that defines our great Nation. They will continue to plot new and innovative terrorist attacks against our homeland and our people. It is up to the Congress and the President to work together to ensure that September 11 is never repeated again.
America must never forget the events of September 11, 2001. They shaped a generation of men and women across the country and thrust us squarely into the global war on terror. On the fifth anniversary of that day, the United States should pause to remember the thousands of innocent lives lost and the sacrifices of the military men and women who serve around the globe to protect our rights and freedoms.
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
# Smyth v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 329
Smyth v. United States
Argued: Nov. 18, 19, 1937. --- Decided: Dec 13, 1937
[Syllabus from pages 329-331 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Robert A. Taft, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioners Smyth and Dixie Terminal Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 332-341 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 341-344 intentionally omitted]
Mr. H. Vernon Eney, of Baltimore, Md., for respondent Machen.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 345-347 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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