OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# The New International Encyclopædia/Knudsen, Knud

Edition of 1905. See also Knud Knudsen (linguist) on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
KNUDSEN, knōōd'sen, Knud (1812-95). A Norwegian philologist. He is best known as the leader in the so-called Danish-Norwegian language movement, as opposed to the Norse movement headed by Ivar Aasen (q.v.). His aim was to give a more Norwegian coloring to the literary language of Norway by adapting the orthography and syntax to Norwegian usage, and by substituting wherever it was possible Norwegian words for foreign derivatives. The most comprehensive treatment of the subject may be found in his Unorsk og norsk, eller Fremmedords avlösning (1879-81). While Knudsen was extreme in his views and frequently erred through a lack of thorough philological training, he exercised a decisive influence upon his contemporaries, especially Björnstjerne Björnson, and the present form of Norwegian-Danish is largely the result of his agitation. He died March 4, 1895.
# The New International Encyclopædia/Knorr, Ludwig

Edition of 1905. See also Ludwig Knorr on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
KNORR, knṓr, Ludwig (1859— ). A German chemist, best known for his work in synthesis, especially his discovery of the pyrazol compounds, of which antipyrine is most commonly used. He was born at Munich; studied there, at Heidelberg and Erlangen; and was appointed professor at Würzburg (1888), and at Jena (1889).
# The New International Encyclopædia/Knoxville (Iowa)

Edition of 1905. See also Knoxville, Iowa on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
KNOX'VILLE. A city and the county-seat of Marion County, Iowa, 35 miles southeast of Des Moines; on the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific, and the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroads (Map: Iowa, D 3). It has the State Industrial Home for the Blind, a public high-school library, and a fine court house. The city carries on a considerable trade as the centre of a farming, stock-raising, and coal-mining district, and has flouring-mills, a canning-factory, foundry and machine-shops, etc. There are municipal waterworks. Population, in 1890, 2632; in 1900, 3131.
# The New International Encyclopædia/Knoxville (Tennessee)

Edition of 1905. See also Knoxville, Tennessee on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
KNOXVILLE. A city and the county-seat of Knox County, Tenn., 111 miles northeast of Chattanooga; on the Holston River, at the head of steam navigation; and on the Atlanta, Knoxville and Northern, the Knoxville and Augusta, the Knoxville, Cumberland Gap and Louisville, and the Southern railroads (Map: Tennessee, H 5). It has a site of great natural beauty among the foothills of the Clinch Mountains. There are State asylums for the insane and for the deaf and dumb, a fine Government building, a city hospital, court-house, city hall, city market, Lawson McGhee Memorial Library, the building which served as the first Capitol of Tennessee, the University of Tennessee (q.v.), the Agricultural College, and Knoxville College, for colored students. Other points of interest are the iron bridge across the river, Gray Cemetery, and the National Cemetery, in which are 3261 graves, 1047 of unknown dead. In commercial importance, Knoxville ranks with the chief interior cities of the South. It is the centre of the marble region of the State, and, besides a large trade in marble, both dressed and undressed, it has extensive wholesale interests, and ships considerable agricultural produce. Its manufactures also are important, including furniture, cotton and woolen goods, flour, lumber, foundry products, cars and car-wheels, wagons, and many other articles. The government is administered by a mayor, elected every two years, and a unicameral council, which controls elections to the more important offices, the executive having no appointive power, and the three members of the board of public works alone being chosen by popular election. The municipal budget balances at over $350,000, the principal items of expense being $45,000 (approximately) for schools, $30,000 for street expenditures, and $25,000 each for the fire department, for street lighting, and for the police department (including amounts for police courts, jails, reformatories, etc.). Population, in 1880, 9693; in 1890, 22,535; in 1900, 32,637.
Settled in 1787, Knoxville was laid out and named (after Gen. Henry Knox) in 1791, and
became organized as a town in 1794. It was the capital of the ‘Territory South of the Ohio’ from 1792 to 1796, and of the State from 1796 to 1811. During the Civil War it was held by the Confederates until August, 1863, when General Burnside took possession. From November 10th to November 30th a Confederate force besieged it unsuccessfully, and on the 29th made a desperate assault on Fort Saunders, in which they lost about 600 killed and wounded and 300 prisoners. Knoxville was chartered as a city in 1815, and was enlarged in 1888 and 1889 by the addition of West and North Knoxville. Consult Powell, Historic Towns of the Southern States (New York, 1900).
# The New International Encyclopædia/Knurr and Spell

Edition of 1905. See also Knurr and Spell on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
KNURR (nūr) AND SPELL (knur, nur, ODutch knorre, Dutch knor, MHG. knorre, Ger. Knorren, knob, and spell, from Dutch spil, spindle). A game which originated in the moors of Yorkshire, in England, but has since spread throughout the north of England and many new localities. It is practically a development of the familiar trap, bat, and ball, and is played with a pommel or club, and a knurr or ball, which is mechanically released from the spell or trap by a spring, somewhat after the manner of the shooter's clay pigeon. Each player plays his own game, without interference, and any number can enter a competition. The knurr is a boxwood or porcelain ball, one and one-half inches in diameter. It is placed on the spell or trap by the player, who, by means of a thumb-screw, adjusts the spring of the trap according to the velocity he wants the ball released at. He then releases it and hits the ball on the rise with his pommel, a stick or stout cane varying from four to five feet in length. It has a flat, hardwood, oblong-square end. The upper end of the pommel, which the player grasps with both hands, is bound with waxed thread, like the handle of a cricket-bat, and the blow is made by striking the ball with all possible force. A successful hit will drive the ball about 200 yards; and the longest hit, or series of hits, wins. On a large moor, and where the game is general, the ground is marked out with wooden pins driven in every 20 yards. In matches each player takes his own knurrs and pommels and has five rises of the ball to a game. The ‘stroke’ is made by a full ‘swing’ round the head, not unlike the ‘drive’ at golf.
# The New International Encyclopædia/Knortz, Karl

Edition of 1905. See also Karl Knortz on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
KNORTZ, knṓrts, Karl (1841— ). A German-American author and educator, born at Garbenheim near Wetzlar, where he studied at the Royal Gymnasium. He graduated at Heidelberg University in 1863, and went the same year to the United States. He taught German language and literature at Detroit (1866-68), at Oshkosh till 1871, at Cincinnati, and New York (1882), and also edited German papers in Cincinnati and Indianapolis. In 1892 he was made superintendent of the German department in the public schools of Evansville, Ind. He translated Evangeline, Hiawatha, and The Courtship of Miles Standish ( 1872), and, in 1879, Whittier's Snow Bound and Whitman's Leaves of Grass, and he published in Berlin a Geschichte der nordamerikanischen Litteratur (1891). Besides literary essays and works upon child education, he wrote Märchen und Sagen der nordamerikanischen Indianer (1871); Amerikanische Skizzen (1876); Modern American Lyrics (1880); Aus dem Wigwam (1880); Kapital und Arbeit in Amerika (1881); and Amerikanische Lebensbilder (1884).
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ian Theodor Beelen

From volume 2 of the work.
Exegete and Orientalist, b. at Amsterdam, 12 January 1807; d. at Louvain, 31 March 1884. After a brilliant course of studies at Rome, crowned by the Doctorate of Theology he was in 1836 appointed Professor of Sacred Scripture and Oriental languages in the recently reorganized Catholic University of Louvain. This position he held till 1876, when he resigned his place to his pupil, Prof. T. J. Lamy. He was the author of the following Biblical works, among which his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is especially esteemed: "Dissertatio theologica qua sententiam. . .esse S. Scripturae multiplicem interdum sensum litteralem, nullo fundamento satis firmo niti demonstrare conatur" (Louvain, 1845); "Interpretatio ep. S. Pauli ad Philip." (ib., 1849; 2nd ed., ib., 1852, entitled: Commentarius in ep. S. Pauli ad Philip.); "Commentarius in Acta Apost.," with Greek and Latin text (2 vols., ib., 1850-55; 2nd ed., without Greek and Latin texts, ib., 1864); "Commentarius in ep. S. Pauli ad Rom." (ib., 1854); "Grammatica graecitatis N. T." (ib., 1857); and in Dutch, "Rules for a new Translation of the N. T." (Louvain, 1858); a translation of the N. T. made in accordance with these rules (3 vols., ib., 1859-69); "The Epistles and Gospels of the Ecclesiastical Year," with annotations (ib., 1870); translation of the Psalms, with annotations (2 vols., ib., 1877-78); translation of Proverbs and of Ecclesiasticus (ib., 1879). He also published two works in the field of Oriental scholarship: "Chrestomathia rabbinica et chaldaica (3 vols., Louvain, 1841-43); and "Clementis Rom. epistolae binae de Virginitate, syriace" (ib., 1856), in which he defends the genuineness of these two letters. Beelen also deserves the credit of reviving Oriental studies in Belgium, and of introducing into that country Oriental printing by means of a complete font of Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic type, which he purchased. In recognition of his merits as a scholar he was made domestic prelate of the pope, consultor of the Congregation of the Index, honorary canon of Liège, and Knight of the Order of Leopold.
HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 1290; REY in VIG., Dict. de la Bible; The Tablet (London, 1884), LXIII, 541.
F. BECHTEL
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ibora

From volume 7 of the work.
A titular see in the Province of Helenopont, suffragan of Amasia. The primitive name of the city was Gaziura, formerly a royal city, mentioned by Strabo as deserted (XII, xv: Dion Cassius, xxxv, 12). In fact a Greek inscription, which dates from the time of Mithridates of Pontus, has been discovered on the rock of the fortress; a subterranean gallery, hewn from the rock, descends to the interior of the mountain and served perhaps as a secret depository for the royal treasures. Evagrius Ponticus, the famous Origenist ascetic of the fourth century, was a native of Ibora (Sozomen, "Hist. Eccl.," VI, xxx); situated not far from it was Annesi, the property of St. Basil, who led a religious life on the bank of the river Iris with his friend St. Gregory and his sister Macrina. There is frequent mention in the correspondence of these two saints of Ibora, which, according to Procopius (Historia Arcana, xviii), was destroyed by an earthquake in the sixth century. Le Quien (Oriens Christ., I, 533) mentions seven bishops of Ibora, from the fourth to the ninth century. The bishopric still existed about the year 1170 under Manuel Comnenus (Parthey, "Hieroclis Synecdemus," 108). To-day Ibora is called Turkhal; it is a caza in the sanjak of Tokat, in the vilayet of Sivas. The village numbers 3000 inhabitants, all Turks. It is surrounded by beautiful gardens and orchards. Nearby is the Lake of Turkhal, three to three and a half miles in circumference.
RAMSAY, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1890), 326-29; ANDERSON, Studia Pontica (Brussels, 1903), 69-72; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie (Paris, 1892), I, 642, 727; GREGOIRE in Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, XXXIII (1909), 22-27.
S. VAILHÉ
# Clark v. Hackett/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 77
Clark v. Hackett
This bill was filed by the complainant, Clark, against Hackett, the defendant, to set aside a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States of the District of Columbia, and also of this court affirming that decree, on the ground that they were procured by the fraud of the parties, and of the complainant's solicitor and counsel. The suit in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia was instituted by Benjamin C. Clark, a judgment creditor of the present complainant, for himself and other creditors, claiming a fund in the hands of the treasury of the United States, which had been awarded to the debtor by the commissioners ander the treaty with the republic of Mexico. After the filing of this bill, the present respondent, Hackett, who was the assignee in bankruptcy of the present complainant, filed a bill, praying leave to come in under the creditor's bill, setting up a title to the whole of the fund in question, for the purpose of distribution among the creditors of the bankrupt. The present complainant, the bankrupt, appeared and answered these bills, and afterwards the case was heard on the pleadings and proofs, and a decree rendered by the court in favor of the assignee. The court also directed the fund to be remitted to the District Court of the United States for the district of New Hampshire, in which the bankrupt proceedings had taken place, for adistribution among the creditors by that court, as a part of the assets of the bankrupt. An appeal was taken from the decree by the respondent to this court, and which was affirmed, as will appear by the report of the case in 17 How., 315, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court. The fund was afterwards, in pursuance of the decree below, remitted to the District Court of New Hampshire. While it remained in that court, and before distribution among the creditors, the complainant, the bankrupt, filed the present bill for the purpose of setting aside the decree of the Circuit Court of this District, and of the Supreme Court affirming it, on the allegations of fraud committed by the parties, including his own solicitor and counsel, in procuring these decrees, and claiming that he was entitled to the fund, and that payment should be made to him accordingly.
The court below, after hearing the case on the pleadings and proofs, which were voluminous, held, that the evidence entirely failed to establish the allegations of fraud, and dismissed the bill. It is now here on appeal. The case is a very plain one; and we need only say, that the court, upon the pleadings and proofs, could come to no other conclusion.
Decree of the Circuit Court 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
# Clark v. Hancock

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 493
Clark v. Hancock
MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of California.
Mr. P. Phillips for the defendant in error, in support of the motion.
Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. C. W. Hornor, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Clark v. Hackett

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 77
Clark v. Hackett
This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Hampshire, brought up, filed and docketed in this court to December term, 1859. On the 3d of January, 1862, the cause being No. 67 on the docket of the present term,
Mr. Black, of Pennsylvania, for appellant, suggested diimnution of the record, and moved for a certiorari on affidavits, which accounted for the delay.
The Appellee (a counsellor of this court) appeared in propriapersona, and resisted the motion on the ground that it was too late: this was the third term.
THE COURT awarded the certiorari; but added, that if the cause should be reached before a return, the certiorari would not be regarded as a reason for continuance.
The cause was afterwards reached in its regular order, and the argument was directed to proceed.
Mr. Hackett argued it for himself.
No counsel appeared for appellant.
Mr. Justice NELSON.

## 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
# Clark v. Gerstley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
204 U.S. 504
Clark v. Gerstley
Argued: January 17, 18, 1907. --- Decided: February 25, 1907
Mr. Lorenzo A. Bailey for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Eugene A. Jones, Simon Wolf, and Myer Cohen for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Peckham 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
# Clark v. Gerstley/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
204 U.S. 504
Clark v. Gerstley
Argued: January 17, 18, 1907. --- Decided: February 25, 1907
The defendants in error, plaintiffs below, obtained judgment against the plaintiff in error for $5,000 and interest in April, 1905, in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, which judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals (26 App. D. C. 205), and the plaintiff in error has brought the case here for review.
It is the same action as the foregoing case, just decided, but the plaintiff in error, who was one of the sureties in the bond, separately filed special pleas to the declaration, which were separately demurred to, and the supreme court sustained the demurrer. On appeal to the court of appeals the demurrer was not disposed of at the same time as the demurrers to the other pleas in the case, but was postponed to a subsequent time,-April 7, 1905. On that date the demurrer was sustained and the judgment previously entered affirmed against this plaintiff in error, who then brought the case here on a separate writ of error.
The special pleas filed by the plaintiff in error were seven in number, the first six being the same as filed by the other plaintiffs in error in the case. The seventh set up the failure of the plaintiffs to give notice to the sureties that the principals in the bond had not paid for the goods at the expiration of the term of credit allowed them, and also that the time had been extended by the plaintiffs in which the principals in the bond might pay for the goods sold to them. No definite term of extension was stated. What has already been said in regard to the other six pleas in the case determines the decision in regard to the same pleas hereinabove set forth. In regard to the seventh plea the plaintiff in error says in his brief in this court that he makes no point concerning the same.
Judgment 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
# Clark v. Graham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
19 U.S. 577
Clark v. Graham
Mr. Justice TODD delivered the opinion of the Court in this cause, which was submitted without argument.

## 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
# Clark v. Hancock/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 493
Clark v. Hancock
The final judgment in this case was rendered Oct. 3, 1876, and the writ of error issued Nov. 16, returnable to the October Term, 1877. The defendants in error, having filed a copy of the record and docketed the cause, now move to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction.
It is not claimed by the plaintiff in error that there is any Federal question disclosed by the record, but it is insisted that a motion to dismiss cannot be entertained until the return-day of the writ. Such was the old practice; but in Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 671, and Thomas v. Wooldridge, 23 id. 288, the rule was changed. It seemed to us then that such a change would 'be likely to prevent great delays and expense, and further the ends of justice.' Subsequent experience confirms that opinion. In the present crowded state of our docket it becomes us to be specially careful that our jurisdiction is not invoked for delay merely; and, when the record is presented in such a form that we can, without too great inconvenience, inform ourselves of the questions to be decided, we shall be inclined to receive applications of this kind. In the present case, we have a printed record, and it is evident we have no jurisdiction.
Motion 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
# The New York Times/1897

Content exists for this periodical, though at this stage it is not specifically organised beyond a basic hierarchy.
The pages listed below are an automatically generated listing.
Special:PrefixIndex/The New York Times/1897/
# The New York Times/1898/10/23/Carl Schurz on Roosevelt

From The New York Times of October 23, 1898.
CARL SCHURZ ON ROOSEVELT.
Mr. Carl Schurz has made public a very candid statement of the reasons why he cannot vote for Mr. Roosevelt and why he feels it his duty to vote for Mr. Theodore Bacon, the independent candidate for Governor.
The chief of the reasons why Mr. Schurz reluctantly withholds his vote from Mr. Roosevelt is the manner in which that gentleman has advocated, in his own speeches, an extreme policy of expansion, involving not merely the risk but the threat of war. Mr. Schurz's analysis of Mr. Roosevelt's declared views on this subject is a model of courteously contemptuous statement. Even its victim can hardly resent it, though it is bound to make him very indignant. For our own part — though we fear Mr. Roosevelt will hardly thank us for the opinion — we are inclined to think that he has erred more in the statement of his ideas than in the ideas themselves, and that in the face of actual responsibility he would probably act with more sobriety than he talks.
But it remains true that he has talked very wildly; that his talk in this direction was uncalled for, and that in some salient regards it has been extremely offensive. He has distinctly appealed to rational men to vote for him as Governor on the ground that to vote against him would tend to provoke “a hitch” in the peace negotiations in Paris, and would be a vote to abandon all that we achieved in the war with Spain. Such an appeal is more than offensive; it it insulting. Mr. Schurz has made an obvious and effective response to it, and for this and the influence it may have Mr. Roosevelt has only himself to thank.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse