OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Sleeping Child (Lydia Sigourney)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The Ladies' repository: a monthly periodical, devoted to literature, arts, and religion. Cincinnati: Methodist Episcopal Church [etc.] Volume 2, Issue: 9, Sept 1842. Page 283.
SLEEP, dearest, long and sweet,
 With smile upon thy brow,
Thy restless, tottering feet,
 Are surely weary now,
Trotting about all day
 Upon the nursery-floor,
Or happier still to play
Among the wild flowers gay
 Beside thy father's door.
Thy little laughing eyes,
 How tranquilly they rest,
Thy tiny fingers clasp'd
 Upon thy guiltless breast,  While o'er thy placid face
 The stealing moonbeams fall,
And with a heaven-taught grace
Thy baby features trace
 Upon the shaded wall.
Sleep, dearest! She whose ear
 Her nursing-infant's sigh
Hath never waked to hear
 When midnight's hush was nigh,
Ne'er felt its balmy kiss
 The cradle-care repay,
Hath she not chanced to miss
The deepest, purest bliss
 That cheers life's pilgrim-way?
To see each budding power
 Thy Maker's goodness bless,
To catch the manna-shower
 Of thy full tenderness,
The immortal mind to train—  No more divine employ
Thy mother seeks to gain,
Until her spirit drain
 The seraph cup of joy.
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
# Sleep (Coates)

"Say, hast thou never been compelled to lie"
Also published in the Literary Digest (20 Feb 1915); the Living Age (27 Feb 1915); and The Volta Review (ca. 1915).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1914), "Sleep" in The Athenaeum (26 December 1914).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1916), "Sleep" in Poems II.
# Sleep is supposed to be

* "Sleep is supposed to be" in Poems (1890)
* "Sleep is supposed to be" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# Sleeping Beauty (Howard)

First published in The Yellow Jacket, October 27, 1926.

## Scene I

A special train, a chair car, occupied by students. An upperclassman is attempting to sleep.
Upperclassman: “Things have quieted down and I’ll get a chance for a nap.”
He dozes.
A class-mate: “Hey, wake up! All out for Hunkusville!”
Upperclassman: “Aw, set on a tack.” He dozes.
A Freshman begins blowing a horn.
Upperclassman: “Enough is too darned much!” He chases all the Freshmen out. He dozes.

## Scene II

Upperclassman is snoring contentedly.
Somebody drops the brsses of the brass drum.
Upperclassman: “Who—what—hey, what time is it?”
The porter: “One-thirty, suh.”
Upperclassman: “Fine. Everybody’s asleep now. Now for a good nap.” He dozes. The train whistles for a station.
Upperclassman: “Curses!” He dozes.

## Scene III

A few minutes later. A flock of girls come through.
Girls (supposedly singing): “I gotta gal, her name is Lulu! I love Lulu, I love Lulu, darling!”
Upperclassman jumps seven feet out of seat: “Ye gods, what next!”
Girls: “Seventeenth verse, same as the fist, I love Lulu” —exit.
Upperclassman: “Applesauce.” He dozes.

## Scene IV

Upperclassman sleeping. Girls return.
Girls, still singing: “Seven hundredth verse, same as the fist, I love Lulu, I love Lulu, darling!”
Upperclassman develops deep and snduring hatred for the name Lulu.
Upperclassman: “Hey, what time is it?”
The porter: “Two-thirty, suh.”
Upperclassman: How much longer before we pull in?”
The porter: “One two hours, suh.”
Girls: “Here’s a nice place to sit; you don’t mind do you?”
They sing: “Eight hundredth verse, same as the first—“
Upperclassman: “No, I don’t mind.” Grinds teeth and bites hunks out of chiar arm.
One hour later.
Girls: “Seven thousandth verse, same as the first, I gotta girl, her name is Lulu, I love Lulu—“
Upperclassman: Conductor, is there no chance at all for a train robbery, hold-ups, murders and all that you know?”
Conductor: “No chance at all, sir.”
Upperclassman: “Darn.”
Exeunt.
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 1936, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 87 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
# Stellas v. Esperdy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 462
Stellas v. Esperdy
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Anna Mamalakis Pappas and Omar Z. Ghobasky, for petitioner.
Solicitor Geer al Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg, for respondent.
June 12, 1967.
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
# Stellwagen v. Clum

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 605
Stellwagen v. Clum
Argued: and Submitted Dec. 14, 1917. --- Decided: Feb 4, 1918
[Syllabus from 605-606 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Bernard B. Selling and James McNamara, both of Detroit, Mich., for Stellwagen.
Messrs. Alfred Clum, George B. Marty, and Harvey D. Goulder, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for Clum.
Mr. Justice DAY 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
# Stelos Company v. Hosiery Motormend Corporation

United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 237
Stelos Company v. Hosiery Motormend Corporation
Argued: April 4-5, 1935. --- Decided: April 29, 1935
Messrs. Henry Gilligan, J. Preston Swecker, and Vernon E. Hodges, all of Washington, D.C., for Stelos Co., Inc.
Messrs. Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., and N. A. Stancliffe, of New York City, for Hosiery Motor-Mend Corporation et al.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# Stellwagen v. Tucker/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
144 U.S. 548
Stellwagen v. Tucker
The facts of this case are similar to those in No. 216, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 720, (just decided,) and the same principles of law control its disposition. A similar decree of reversal, with directions, must be entered; the form of the decree to be adapted to the changed interest caused by the death of one of the parties pending the suit.
Ordered 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
# Stellas v. Esperdy/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 462
Stellas v. Esperdy
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 Southern District of New York with directions that it be returned to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for further administrative proceedings.

## 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
# Stellwagen v. Tucker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
144 U.S. 548
Stellwagen v. Tucker
C. J. Hillyer and J. H. Ralston, for appellants.
Henry Wise Garnett and Eppa Hunton, for appellees.
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
# Social Security Act 2018 (Version 59)/Section 3

* The purpose of this Act is— to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate— to help people to support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment; andto help people to find or retain paid employment; andto help people for whom work is not currently appropriate because of sickness, injury, disability, or caring responsibilities to support themselves and their dependants:to enable in certain circumstances the provision of financial support to people to help alleviate hardship:to ensure that the financial support referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) is provided to people taking into account— that, where appropriate, they should use the resources available to them before seeking financial support under this Act; andany financial support that they are eligible for or already receive, otherwise than under this Act, from publicly funded sources:to provide services to encourage and help young people to move to or remain in education, training, and employment, rather than receiving financial support under this Act:to impose, on the following specified people or young people, the following specified requirements or obligations: on people seeking or receiving financial support under this Act, administrative and, where appropriate, work-related requirements; andon young people who are seeking or receiving financial support under this Act, educational, budget management, and (where appropriate) parenting requirements; andon people receiving certain financial support under this Act, obligations relating to the education and primary health care of their dependent children.
* Compare: 1964 No 136 s 1A; 2007 No 20 s 23
# Swift v. Smith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 442
Swift v. Smith
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William C. Goudy for the appellants.
Mr. William T. Burgess and Mr. Van H. Higgins, 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
# Swigart v. Baker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
229 U.S. 187
Swigart v. Baker
Argued: April 9 and 10, 1913. --- Decided: May 26, 1913
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel and Messrs. S. W. Williams and W. W. Dyar, Attorneys in the Department of Justice, for appellants.
Mr. W. T. Dovell for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 188-191 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Lamar 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
# Swift v. Hawkins

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
John Swift versus Hawkins and others.
Debt sur Obligation.–On the plea of payment Defendants offered to give no Consideration in Evidence. Objected, that the Consideration of a Bond is not enquirable into, the passing the Bond being a gift in Law of the money.—To this it was answered, and so ruled By the Court that there being no Court of Chancery in this Province, there is a necessity, in order to prevent a failure of Justice, to let the Defendants in under the plea of payment to prove mistake or want of consideration: And this the Chief Justice said he had known to be the constant practice of the Courts of Justice in this Province for thirty nine Years past.
For the Plaintiff, the following cases were cited: Plowd. 308. b. Gilb. Rep. 154. Hard. 200. 3. P. Will. 222.
# Stembridge v. Georgia/Concurrence Reed

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Reed
United States Supreme Court
343 U.S. 541
Stembridge v. Georgia
Argued: April 22, 1952. --- Decided: May 26, 1952
Mr. Justice REED, concurring.
While I think the better course would be to affirm the decision of the Georgia courts, I join in the judgment of this Court.
Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice BURTON, dissent from the dismissal.

## 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
# Stenberg v. Carhart/Dissent Rehnquist

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Stevens O'Connor Ginsburg
* Dissenting Opinions Rehnquist Scalia Kennedy Thomas
Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissenting.
I did not join the joint opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and continue to believe that case is wrongly decided. Despite my disagreement with the opinion, under the rule laid down in Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977), the Casey joint opinion represents the holding of the Court in that case. I believe Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas have correctly applied Casey 's principles and join their dissenting opinions.
# Stenberg v. Carhart/Concurrence Stevens

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Stevens O'Connor Ginsburg
* Dissenting Opinions Rehnquist Scalia Kennedy Thomas
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, concurring.
Although much ink is spilled today describing the gruesome nature of late-term abortion procedures, that rhetoric does not provide me a reason to believe that the procedure Nebraska here claims it seeks to ban is more brutal, more gruesome, or less respectful of "potential life" than the equally gruesome procedure Nebraska claims it still allows. Justice Ginsburg and Judge Posner have, I believe, correctly diagnosed the underlying reason for the enactment of this legislation--a reason that also explains much of the Court’s rhetoric directed at an objective that extends well beyond the narrow issue that this case presents. The rhetoric is almost, but not quite, loud enough to obscure the quiet fact that during the past 27 years, the central holding of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), has been endorsed by all but 4 of the 17 Justices who have addressed the issue. That holding--that the word "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment includes a woman's right to make this difficult and extremely personal decision--makes it impossible for me to understand how a State has any legitimate interest in requiring a doctor to follow any procedure other than the one that he or she reasonably believes will best protect the woman in her exercise of this constitutional liberty. But one need not even approach this view today to conclude that Nebraska's law must fall. For the notion that either of these two equally gruesome procedures performed at this late stage of gestation is more akin to infanticide than the other, or that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 14.
# Stembridge v. Georgia

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Reed
United States Supreme Court
343 U.S. 541
Stembridge v. Georgia
Argued: April 22, 1952. --- Decided: May 26, 1952
Mr. Marion W. Stembridge, pro se.
Mr. M. H. Blackshear, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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
# Stenberg v. Carhart/Concurrence Ginsburg

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Stevens O'Connor Ginsburg
* Dissenting Opinions Rehnquist Scalia Kennedy Thomas
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens joins, concurring.
I write separately only to stress that amidst all the emotional uproar caused by an abortion case, we should not lose sight of the character of Nebraska's "partial birth abortion" law. As the Court observes, this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only "a method of performing abortion." Ante, at 930. Nor does the statute seek to protect the lives or health of pregnant women. Moreover, as Justice Stevens points out, ante, at 946 (concurring opinion), the most common method of performing previability second trimester abortions is no less distressing or susceptible to gruesome description. Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Posner correspondingly observed, regarding similar bans in Wisconsin and Illinois, that the law prohibits the D&X procedure "not because the procedure kills the fetus, not because it risks worse complications for the woman than alternative procedures would do, not because it is a crueler or more painful or more disgusting method of terminating a pregnancy." Hope Clinic v. Ryan, 195 F.3d 857, 881 (CA7 1999) (dissenting opinion). Rather, Chief Judge Posner commented, the law prohibits the procedure because the State legislators seek to chip away at the private choice shielded by Roe v. Wade, even as modified by Casey. Id., at 880-882.
A state regulation that "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus" violates the Constitution. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 877 (1992) (joint opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.). Such an obstacle exists if the State stops a woman from choosing the procedure her doctor "reasonably believes will best protect the woman in [the] exercise of [her] constitutional liberty." Ante, at 946 (Stevens, J., concurring); see Casey, 505 U.S., at 877 ("means chosen by the State to further the interest in potential life must be calculated to inform the woman's free choice, not hinder it"). Again as stated by Chief Judge Posner, "if a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue." Hope Clinic, 195 F.3d, at 881.
# Stories by Foreign Authors (German II)

Stories by Foreign Authors, Vol. 5 Fifty-one tales in ten volumes, comprising a careful selection of the best Continental short stories by contemporary or nearly contemporary writers, published by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York
STORIES BY
FOREIGN AUTHORS
GERMAN
| CHRISTIAN GELLERT'S LAST CHRISTMAS | By Berthold Auerbach |
| A GHETTO VIOLET | By Leopold Kompert |
| THE SEVERED HAND | By Wilhelm Hauff |
| PETER SCHLEMIHL | By Adelbert Von Chamisso |
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner's Sons
PUBLISHERS' NOTE
The translations in this volume, where previously published, are used by arrangement with the owners of the copyrights (as specified at the beginning of each story). Translations made especially for the series are covered by its general copyright. All rights in both classes are reserved.
CONTENTS
| | | page |
| Christian Gellert's Last Christmas | Berthold Auerbach | 11 |
| Ghetto Violet | Leopold Kompert | 57 |
| The Severed Hand | Wilhelm Hauff | 109 |
| Peter Schlemihl | Adelbert von Chamisso | 133 |
# Tales of the Jazz Age/May Day/Chapter 11

XI
In a bedroom of a small hotel just off Sixth Avenue Gordon Sterrett awoke with a pain in the back of his head and a sick throbbing in all his veins. He looked at ​the dusky gray shadows in the corners of the room and at a raw place on a large leather chair in the corner where it had long been in use. He saw clothes, dishevelled, rumpled clothes on the floor and he smelt stale cigarette smoke and stale liquor. The windows were tight shut. Outside the bright sunlight had thrown a dust-filled beam across the sill—a beam broken by the head of the wide wooden bed in which he had slept. He lay very quiet—comatose, drugged, his eyes wide, his mind clicking wildly like an unoiled machine.
It must have been thirty seconds after he perceived the sunbeam with the dust on it and the rip on the large leather chair that he had the sense of life close beside him, and it was another thirty seconds after that before that he realized that he was irrevocably married to Jewel Hudson.
He went out half an hour later and bought a revolver at a sporting goods store. Then he took a took a taxi to the room where he had been living on East Twenty-seventh Street, and, leaning across the table that held his drawing materials, fired a cartridge into his head just behind the temple.
# Tales of the Jazz Age/May Day

First published as a novelette in the "Smart Set" in July, 1920
MAY DAY
There had been a war fought and won and the great city of the conquering people was crossed with triumphal arches and vivid with thrown flowers of white, red, and rose. All through the long spring days the returning soldiers marched up the chief highway behind the strump of drums and the joyous, resonant wind of the brasses, while merchants and clerks left their bickerings and figurings and, crowding to the windows, turned their white-bunched faces gravely upon the passing battalions.
Never had there been such splendor in the great city, for the victorious war had brought plenty in its train, and the merchants had flocked thither from the South and West with their households to taste of all the luscious feasts and witness the lavish entertainments prepared—and to buy for their women furs against the next winter and bags of golden mesh and varicolored slippers of silk and silver and rose satin and cloth of gold.
So gaily and noisily were the peace and prosperity impending hymned by the scribes and poets of the conquering people that more and more spenders had gathered from the provinces to drink the wine of excitement, and faster and faster did the merchants dispose of their trinkets and slippers until they sent up a mighty cry for more trinkets and more slippers in order that they might give in barter what was demanded of them. Some even of them flung up their hands helplessly, shouting:
"Alas! I have no more slippers! and alas! I have no ​more trinkets! May heaven help me for I know not what I shall do!"
But no one listened to their great outcry, for the throngs were far too busy—day by day, the foot-soldiers trod jauntily the highway and all exulted because the young men returning were pure and brave, sound of tooth and pink of cheek, and the young women of the land were virgins and comely both of face and of figure.
So during all this time there were many adventures that happened in the great city, and, of these, several—or perhaps one—are here set down.
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
# Swanson v. Marra Bros

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
328 U.S. 1
Swanson v. Marra Bros
Argued: Feb. 1, 1946. --- Decided: April 22, 1946
Mr. Abraham E. Freedman, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. Joseph W. Henderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice STONE 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