OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Wee MacGreegor (The Idler, 1903)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Extracted from The Idler, Vol 24 1903-04, pp. 49–55, 149–154 , 271–276 , 397–402 & 516–521. Accompanying illustrations may be omitted. All the stories are included in Later Adventures of Wee Macgreegor (1904) (Also published as Wee Macgreegor Again)
WEE MACGREEGOR
By J. J. B.
Illustrated by Angusine Macgregor
* "Arms and the Boy" 49
* "Ships That Pass" 149
* The Robinsons Go Fishing 271
* "For Granpaw Purdie" 397
* Heart's Desire 516
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1934, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 89 years or less. 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
# Wedding March

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wedding March."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* The Wedding March (1873), a play by W. S. Gilbert
* Wedding March (1938), a novel by Berta Ruck
* The Wedding March (1928), a synchronized-sound film directed by Erich von Stroheim

## See also

* Wedding
* March
# Wedding Morning

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wedding Morning."
* 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.
* The Wedding Morning, a poem by Francis Ledwidge
* The Wedding Morning, a poem by Thomas Hardy
# Wee Cooper O'Fife

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
Scottish folk song about a cooper who beats his wife because she will not cook, clean, and sew.
There was a wee Cooper wha lived in Fife, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, And he has gotten a gentle wife, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
She wadna bake, nor she wadna brew, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, For the spoiling o' her comely hue, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
She wadna card, nor she wadna spin, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, For the shamin' o' her gentle kin, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
She wadna wash, nor she wadna wring, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, For the spoiling o' her gowden ring, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
The Cooper has gane to his woo' pack, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, And he's laid a sheep's skin on his wife's ba'ck, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
It's I'll no thrash ye for your gentle kin,
Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, But I will thrash my ain sheep's skin, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
Oh I will bake, and I will brew, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, And nae mair think o' my comely hue, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
Oh I will card, and I will spin, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, And nae main think o' my gentle kin, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
Oh I will wash, and I will wring, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, and nae mair think o' my gowden ring, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
A! ye wha ha'e gotten a gentle wife, Nickety, Nackety, noo, noo, noo, Just you send for the wee Cooper o' Fife, Hey Willy Wallacky, hoo John Dougal, A lane, quo'Rushity, roue, roue, roue.
# Wedding v. Meyler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
192 U.S. 573
Wedding v. Meyler
Argued: January 14, 15, 1904. --- Decided: February 23, 1904
Messrs. Merrill Moores, Cassius C. Hadley, and Charles W. Miller for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 573-578 intentionally omitted]
Mr. D. W. Sanders, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 578-580 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
# Green v. Bomar/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 358
Green v. Bomar
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for a hearing in light of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770.

## 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
# Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
205 U.S. 530
Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company
Argued: April 8, 1907. --- Decided: April 29, 1907
Messrs. John G. Johnson and Frank P. Prichard for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Francis Rawle for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Moody 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
# Green v. Bogue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
158 U.S. 478
Green v. Bogue

## 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
# Green v. Bomar

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 358
Green v. Bomar
Freddy Green, pro se.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen. of Tennessee, and Henry C. Foutch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Veto Message for H.R. 4516

This is H. Doc. No. 106-306, and was printed in the Congressional Record at 2000 H11675.
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States.
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval, H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch and the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001. This bill provides funds for the legislative branch and the White House at a time when the business of the American people remains unfinished.
The Congress' continued refusal to focus on the priorities of the American people leaves me no alternative but to veto this bill. I cannot in good conscience sign a bill that funds the operations of the Congress and the White House before funding our classrooms, fixing our schools, and protecting our workers.
With the largest student enrollment in history, we need a budget that will allow us to repair and modernize crumbling schools, reduce class size, hire more and better trained teachers, expand after-school programs, and strengthen accountability to turn around failing schools.
I would sign this legislation in the context of a budget that puts the interests of the American people before self interest or special interests. I urge the Congress to get its priorities in order and send me, without further delay, balanced legislation I can sign.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE, October 30, 2000.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Veto Message for H.R. 976

This is H. Doc. No. 110-62, and was printed in the Congressional Record at 2007 H11203.
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 976, the "Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007," because this legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction.
The original purpose of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was to help children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid, to get the coverage they need. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP. That is why I proposed last February a 20 percent increase in funding for the program over 5 years.
This bill would shift SCHIP away from its original purpose and turn it into a program that would cover children from some families of four earning almost $83,000 a year. In addition, under this bill, government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children. If this bill were enacted, one out of every three children moving onto government coverage would be moving from private coverage. The bill also does not fully fund all its new spending, obscuring the true cost of the bill's expansion of SCHIP, and it raises taxes on working Americans.
Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it. I hope we can now work together to produce a good bill that puts poorer children first, that moves adults out of a program meant for children, and that does not abandon the bipartisan tradition that marked the enactment of SCHIP. Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE, October 3, 2007.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Guzman v. Pichirilo/Dissent Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 698
Guzman v. Pichirilo
Argued: March 27, 1962. --- Decided: May 21, 1962
Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.
Certiorari was granted in this case because it was thought that the legal principles underlying one aspect of the decision below were in conflict with those applied by the Second Circuit in Grillea v. United States, 232 F.2d 919.
The Court, however, does not resolve that conflict, nor does it decide any other question of law not already established by its past decisions. Instead, the judgment below is reversed merely because this Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals' factual estimate of the case.
Had the issue which the Court decides been the only question tendered by the petition for certiorari, the case could not well have been regarded as one for review by this Court. See Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 524, 559, 77 S.Ct. 443, 478, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (dissenting opinions). To reverse it now on what is essentially only an evidentiary ground is, in my view, an improvident use of the certiorari power: the Court has done no more than 'to substitute its views' for those of the Court of Appeals on purely factual issues, reached upon a fair assessment of the trial record. 352 U.S., at 562-563, 77 S.Ct. 443. Respecting the legal issues which this Court does not decide, I think that the Court of Appeals was plainly correct in deciding them as it did.
I would affirm.

## 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
# Guy v. Donald

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
203 U.S. 399
Guy v. Donald
Argued: November 8, 1906. --- Decided: December 3, 1906
Messrs. D. Tucker Brooke and R. C. Marshall for Guy et al.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 400-401 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Robert M. Hughes for Donald.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 402-403 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
# Guzman v. Pichirilo

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 698
Guzman v. Pichirilo
Argued: March 27, 1962. --- Decided: May 21, 1962
Harvey B. Nachman, San Juan, P.R., for petitioner.
Seymour P. Edgerton, Boston, Mass., for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# Guy Wetmore Carryl

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Guy Wetmore Carryl."
* 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.
* "Guy Wetmore Carryl", essay by Edmund Clarence Stedman (1911)
* "Guy Wetmore Carryl", memorial poem by Carolyn Wells (1904)

## See also

* Author:Guy Wetmore Carryl
# United States v. Vallejo (68 U.S. 658)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
68 U.S. 658
United States v. Vallejo
The objection to the quality of the land does not seem to be sustained by the testimony. If there be a difference in quality between the part surveyed and the part left, it must be too slight to be the subject of consideration here.
It is certainly true that the surplus left to the United States should have been in one connected piece, if there were not sufficient reasons to justify a different course. In all these locations of a limited quantity within a larger one, many rules deserve attention. But as some of these may, and often do conflict with others, they cannot all be observed in every case.
In the present case the survey is supported:
1. By the fact that it was located as desired by the claimant.
2. That it is in a reasonably compact form.
3. That it includes two old adobe houses, inhabited now and for many years past by the heirs of the original grantee, the present owners of the claim.
Both of the first-named two considerations are prominent among the rules laid down by the Commissioner of the General Land Office for the location of this class of claims.
As respects the third, it appears that if the two leagues were taken from either end of the sack as claimed by the government, the one of these houses must be left out. They were both there when the grant was made, and are, probably, twenty years old. This raises a strong presumption that the grant was intended to cover them both.
These reasons, we think, overbalance the inconvenience of having the surplus left to the United States in two disconnected parcels; especially when one of these parcels contains as much as three thousand five hundred acres, and the other about two thousand acres.
Besides, in this class of cases, a large discretion must necessarily be left to the surveyor; and while we are not prepared to say that we will not in any case review the exercise of that discretion, we have no hesitation in saying that we do not sit here to determine whether it has been accompanied with the nicest discrimination, or the highest of wisdom.
DECREE 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. Van Duzee (140 U.S. 169)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
140 U.S. 169
United States v. Van Duzee
Asst. Atty. Gen. Cotton and John C. Chaney, for the United states.
T. A. Hamilton, A. J. Van Duzee and C. C. Lancaster, for appellee.
BROWN, 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. Vallejo (68 U.S. 658)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
68 U.S. 658
United States v. Vallejo
THIS was a question of a survey of a California Mexican grant, of two leagues in quantity, to be located within a larger outboundary, and came by appeal from the District Court for the Southern District of California. The area of the larger tract was about three leagues and a third of a league. It resembled in shape a sack or purse, and the ranch was hence called the Bolsa or Sack de San Cayetano.
The United States, appellants in the case, objected to the survey upon two principal grounds; namely, that the two leagues of claimant were taken out of the central part of the sack, leaving to the government the remnant, in two detached corners; and because the land thus left was not equal in quality to that which the claimant got.
As regarded the first point, it was true that the land surveyed for the claimant was so taken out as to leave remnants; one of about three thousand five hundred acres, the other of about two thousand. As respected the quality of the land, the surveyor testified that the portion given to the claimant was of the average quality of the whole sack; parts were better for some purposes, parts worse. It appeared, however, that the land had been located as the claimant desired; that it was of a form sufficiently compact, and that, as surveyed, it embraced two 'old adobe houses,' inhabited now and for many years by the heirs of the original grantee, the present owners of the claim.
Mr. Wills, for the United States.
Mr. Justice MILLER 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. Van Duzee

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Van Duzee."
* 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.
* United States v. Van Duzee (140 U.S. 169)
* United States v. Van Duzee (185 U.S. 278)
# United States v. Van Auken

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
96 U.S. 366
United States v. Van Auken
CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
Mr. George W. Lawton, contra.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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 Statutes at Large/Volume 6/4th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 28

Chap. ⅩⅩⅧ.—An Act for the relief of John Brown.
Drawback allowed to John Brown.Be it enacted, &c., That the Comptroller of the Treasury shall and may examine and determine upon such evidence, as John Brown, of Providence, in the State of Rhode Island, surviving partner of the late house of Brown and Francis, shall and may produce and offer, to establish and prove the export and delivery without the limits of the United States, of certain foreign Geneva and empty bottles, said to have been exported from the port of Providence for the East Indies, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, by the said Brown and Francis; and, upon satisfactory proof of such export and delivery as, by law, is required for goods entitled to a drawback of duties, the Comptroller of the Treasury shall and may direct the payment to the said John Brown, of the drawback of the duties which have been paid on the said Geneva and bottles; any failure of the particular certificates of delivery required by law notwithstanding.
Approved, March 3, 1797.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/5th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 13

Chap. XIII.—An Act for the relief of William Alexander.
Be it enacted, &c.,Accounts of Wm. Alexander to be settled. That the accounting officers of the treasury be, and they are hereby authorized and directed to settle the accounts of William Alexander, for his services and expenses as a surveyor of army lands, appointed under the ordinance of Congress of July the ninth, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight; and that he be allowed such sum for his said services and expenses, as shall be deemed reasonable.
Approved, February 27, 1798.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/4th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 22

Chap. XXII.—An Act for the remission of the duties of tonnage on the vessels of James O’Brien and James Aylward.
Duties of tonnage remitted in certain cases.Be it enacted, &c., That the duties of tonnage due on the schooner Endeavour, and on the schooner Fish-Hawk, the property of James O’Brien and James Aylward, distressed mariners from Newfoundland, who took refuge in the port of Plymouth, in November last, shall be, and hereby are remitted.
Approved, March 3, 1797.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/4th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 4

Chap. IV.—An Act granting a certain sum of money to the widow and children of John de Neufville, deceased.
$3000 granted to the widow and children of John de Neufville.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in consideration of particular services rendered the United States, during the war of their revolution, by the late John de Neufville, of the United Netherlands, the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause to be paid, out of any moneys which may be in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one thousand dollars to Anna de Neufville, widow of the said John de Neufville; a like sum for the use of Leonard de Neufville, his son; and a like sum for the use of Anna de Neufville, his infant daughter.
Approved, March 2, 1797.