OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# George Sand (Thomas 1889)

* related authors: George Sand.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.
This volume is part of the Eminent Women Series, edited by John H. Ingram.
Eminent Women Series
EDITED BY JOHN H. INGRAM
GEORGE SAND
GEORGE SAND
BY
BERTHA THOMAS
NEW EDITION.
LONDON:
W. H. ALLEN & CO., 13 WATERLOO PLACE. S.W.
1889.
(All rights reserved.)
LONDON:
PRINTED BY W. H. ALLEN AND CO., 13 WATERLOO PLACE.
PREFATORY NOTE.
The authentic materials available for an account of the life of George Sand, although lately increased by the publication of a large part of her correspondence, are still incomplete. Her memoirs by her own hand, dealing fully with her early life alone, remain unsupplemented by any entire and detailed biography, for which indeed the time seems hardly yet come. Hence one among many obvious difficulties in the way of this attempt to prepare for English readers a brief sketch that shall at least indicate all the more salient features of a life of singularly varied aspect.
Much, though of interest in itself, must here be omitted, as beyond the scope of the present study. There are points again into which, as touching persons still living or quite recently deceased, it would be ​premature to enter. But none seem of such importance as to forbid the endeavour, by a careful review of those facts in the life of George Sand which most justly represent her character as a whole, and were the determining influences on her career and on her work, to arrive at truth and completeness of general outline, the utmost it is possible to hope to accomplish in this little volume.
Bertha Thomas.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER X.
CHAPTER XI.
CHAPTER XII.
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
# George Pierce Company v. Wells Fargo & Company/Dissent Pitney

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Pitney
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 278
George Pierce Company v. Wells Fargo & Company
Argued: December 8, 1913. ---
Mr. Justice Pitney dissenting.

## 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
# George Sand

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "George Sand."
* 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.
* "George Sand", an essay by Henry James
* George Sand, an 1889 biography by Bertha Thomas
* "George Sand", a 1928 poem by Dorothy Parker

## See also

* Author:George Sand
# George Sand (James)

* "George Sand" in The Galaxy 24 (1) (July 1877): 45–61.
    — First publication in any form.
* "George Sand" in French Poets and Novelists (1878): 190–236.
    — First English book edition.
# George Ohl Company v. A. L. Smith Iron Works

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
288 U.S. 170
George Ohl Company v. A. L. Smith Iron Works
Argued: Dec. 26, 1932. --- Decided: Feb 6, 1933
Messrs. Lee M. Friedman and Louis B. King, both of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. Martin Witte, of Boston, Mass., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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
# George Pierce Company v. Wells Fargo & Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Pitney
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 278
George Pierce Company v. Wells Fargo & Company
Argued: December 8, 1913. ---
Ordered to be restored to docket for reargument October 26, 1914.
Reargued January 7, 1915.
Decided February 23, 1915.
Messrs. Alfred L. Becker, William B. Hoyt, George E. Hamilton, John W. Yerkes,John J. Hamilton, and Maurice C. Spratt. for petitioner.
Messrs. Charles W. Pierson, William, W. Green, L. A. Doherty, and Charles W. Stockton for respondent.
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
# Food and cookery for the sick and convalescent

FOOD AND COOKERY FOR THE SICK AND CONVALESCENT
BY FANNIE MERRITT FARMER PRINCIPAL OF MISS FARMER'S SCHOOL OF COOKERY AND AUTHOR OF “THE BOSTON COOKING-SCHOOL COOK BOOK” AND “CHAFING-DISH POSSIBILITIES”
BOSTON LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1904
Copyright, 1904
By Fannie Merritt Farmer
All rights reserved
Published February, 1904
UNIVERSITY PRESS • JOHN WILSON AND SON • CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A.
TO
MY MOTHER
WHOSE DEVOTION TO DUTY HAS INSPIRED ME TO MY BEST WORK
This Book is Lovingly Dedicated
"Invalid Cookery should form the basis of every trained nurse's education."
A good sick cook will save the digestion half its work.
Florence Nightingale
The careful preparation of food is now recognized to be of vital importance to an invalid, and a valuable assistance, in many cases, to the physician, in hastening the recovery of a patient.
Helena V. Sachse
PREFACE.
"Food is the only source of human power to work or to think."
THIS work is designed to meet the demands made upon me by the numberless classes of trained nurses whom it has been my pleasure and privilege to instruct during my thirteen years of service as a teacher of cookery.
It is earnestly hoped that, besides meeting this long felt need, it will do a still broader work in thousands of homes throughout the land, where it will be of inestimable help to the mothers upon whom so much of the welfare of the family depends.
The opening chapters are equally valuable to those who care for the sick and those who see in correct feeding the way of preventing much of the illness about us.
Emphasis has been laid on the importance of diet from infancy to old age. The classification, composition, nutritive value, and digestibility of foods have been carefully considered with the same constant purpose of being a help to those who arrange dietaries. The chapter on infant feeding is an authoritative ​ guide to aid in the development of the baby, while child feeding is considered with like care. Considerable matter has been introduced with reference to diet in various diseases, and the recipes for the diebetic have involved much thought and labor.
The hundreds of thoroughly tested recipes cover the whole range of the subject of cookery for the sick and convalescent. They are, for the most part, individual, thus requiring but a minimum of time for their preparation, while many have their caloric value given.
I wish to express my sincere thanks for the sympathy, encouragement, and help I have received from pupils, superintendents of nurses, professors, and physicians, which have made this work possible.
F. M. F.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Chapter | Page |
* Indexes:
# Food and Energy Security Act of 2007

NOTE: The House and Senate passed H.R. 2419 (the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007; Public Law 110-234) over veto, enacting 14 of 15 farm bill titles into law. The Trade title (Title III) was inadvertently excluded from the enrolled bill. To remedy the situation, both chambers re-passed the farm bill conference agreement (including the Trade title) as H.R. 6124 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Public Law 110-246), again over veto. H.R. 6124 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Public Law 110-246), in Section 4, repealed Public Law 110-234 (the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007) and amendments made by it, effective on the date of that Act's enactment.
Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
EXPLANATORY NOTE:
    The House and Senate passed H.R. 2419 (the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007; Public Law 110-234) over veto, enacting 14 of 15 farm bill titles into law.
    The Trade title (Title III) was inadvertently excluded from the enrolled bill. To remedy the situation, both chambers re-passed the farm bill conference agreement (including the Trade title) as H.R. 6124 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Public Law 110-246), again over veto.
    H.R. 6124 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Public Law 110-246), in Section 4, repealed Public Law 110-234 (the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007) and amendments made by it, effective on the date of that Act's enactment.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Food and Feeding

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Food and Feeding."
* 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.
* Henry Thompson (1879), "Food and Feeding" in Popular Science Monthly 15
** "Food and Feeding I" in Popular Science Monthly, 15 (July 1879)
** "Food and Feeding II" in Popular Science Monthly, 15 (August 1879)
** "Food and Feeding III" in Popular Science Monthly, 15 (September 1879)
* "Food and Feeding" by Charles Grant Blairfindie Allen in Popular Science Monthly, 26 (February 1885)
# Gibson v. United States (329 U.S. 338)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 338
Gibson v. United States (329 U.S. 338)
Argued: Oct. 23, 1946. --- Decided: Dec 23, 1946
[Syllabus from pages 338-340 intentionally omitted]
Mr.Hayden Covington, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioners.
Mr. Irving S. Shapiro, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE 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
# Giddings v. Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 108
Giddings v. Insurance Company
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
This is a suit in equity by Loren Giddings and Leander Giddings, administrators of Silas Giddings, deceased, to compel the specific performance, by the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, of its alleged contract, made with him some months prior to his death, to insure his life in the sum of $6,000. The court below dismissed the bill, whereupon the complainants appealed here.
The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Henry G. Miller and Mr. Thomas G. Frost for the appellants.
Mr. Thomas Hoyne, 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
# Gideon v. Wainwright

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution to provide lawyers in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys.

## Concurring Opinions

    Douglas
    Clark
    Harlan

## Linked case(s)

378 U.S. 478 (1964)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
372 U.S. 335
Gideon v. Wainwright
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
No. 155 Argued: January 15, 1963 --- Decided: March 18, 1963
Charged in a Florida State Court with a noncapital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Petitioner conducted his own defense about as well as could be expected of a layman, but he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Subsequently, he applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief.
Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, overruled. Pp. 336-345.
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
# Gideon v. Wainwright/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Douglas Clark Harlan
* Linked case(s):
* 378 U.S. 478
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS.
While I join the opinion of the Court, a brief historical resume of the relation between the Bill of Rights and the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment seems pertinent. Since the adoption of that Amendment, ten justices have felt that it protects from infringement by the States the privileges, protections, and safeguards granted by the Bill of Rights. [p346]
Justice Field, the first Justice Harlan, and probably Justice Brewer, took that position in O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 362-363, 370-371, as did Justices BLACK, DOUGLAS, Murphy and Rutledge in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 71-72, 124. And see Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 515-522 (dissenting opinion). That view was also expressed by Justices Bradley and Swayne in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 118-119, 122, and seemingly was accepted by Justice Clifford when he dissented with Justice Field in Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90, 90, 92. Unfortunately, it has never commanded a Court. Yet, happily, all constitutional questions are always open. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64. And what we do today does not foreclose the matter.
My Brother HARLAN is of the view that a guarantee of the Bill of Rights that is made applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment is a lesser version of that same guarantee as applied to the Federal Government. Mr. Justice Jackson shared that view. [p347] But that view has not prevailed, and rights protected against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are not watered-dow versions of what the Bill of Rights guarantees.

#### Footnotes

* ↑ . Justices Bradley, Swayne and Field emphasized that the first eight Amendments granted citizens of the United States certain privileges and immunities that were protected from abridgment by the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Slaughter-House Cases, supra, at 118-119; O'Neil v. Vermont, supra, at 363. Justices Harlan and Brewer accepted the same theory in the O'Neil case (see id. at 370-371), though Justice Harlan indicated that all "persons," not merely "citizens," were given this protection. Ibid. In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 117, Justice Harlan's position was made clear:
* ↑ . See Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 501, 506; Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 169.
* ↑ . Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288. Cf. the opinions of Justices Holmes and Brandeis in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 672, and Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 372.
* ↑ . The cases are collected by MR. JUSTICE BLACK in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 530. And see Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 274-276.
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division C/Title IX/Subtitle A

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 9001. REQUIRING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO REIMBURSE TREASURY FOR AMOUNTS PAID AS SETTLEMENTS AND AWARDS UNDER CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995 IN ALL CASES OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTS BY MEMBERS.

    (a) Requiring Reimbursement.—Clause (i) of section 415(d)(1)(C) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1415(d)(1)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
             “(i) a violation of section 201(a) or section 206(a); or”.
    (b) Conforming Amendment Relating To Notification Of Possibility Of Reimbursement.—Clause (i) of section 402(b)(2)(B) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1402(b)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
             “(i) a violation of section 201(a) or section 206(a); or”.
    (c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act.
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division C/Title IX/Subtitle B

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 9101. PROHIBITING MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM SERVING ON BOARDS OF FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES.

Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended—
       (1) by redesignating clause 22 as clause 23; and
       (2) by inserting after clause 21 the following new clause:
    “22. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not serve on the board of directors of any for-profit entity.”.

#### SEC. 9102. CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.

No Member, officer, or employee of a committee or Member of either House of Congress may knowingly use his or her official position to introduce or aid the progress or passage of legislation, a principal purpose of which is to further only his or her pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his or her immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited class of persons or enterprises, when he or she, or his or her immediate family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the affected class.

#### SEC. 9103. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

The provisions of this subtitle are enacted by the Congress—
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, respectively, or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division C/Title VII/Subtitle A

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 7001. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR FEDERAL JUDGES.

    (a) In General.—Chapter 57 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“§ 964. Code of conduct “Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Judicial Conference shall issue a code of conduct, which applies to each justice and judge of the United States, except that the code of conduct may include provisions that are applicable only to certain categories of judges or justices.”.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 57 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after the item related to section 963 the following:
“964. Code of conduct.”.
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division C/Title IX/Subtitle E

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 9401. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMPENSATION EARNED BY CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.

    (a) Reports.—The supervisor of an individual who performs services for any Member, committee, or other office of the Senate or House of Representatives for a period in excess of four weeks and who receives compensation therefor from any source other than the Federal Government shall submit a report identifying the identity of the source, amount, and rate of such compensation to—
       (1) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate, in the case of an individual who performs services for a Member, committee, or other office of the Senate; or
       (2) the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives, in the case of an individual who performs services for a Member (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress), committee, or other office of the House.
    (b) Timing.—The supervisor shall submit the report required under subsection (a) with respect to an individual—
       (1) when such individual first begins performing services described in such subparagraph;
       (2) at the close of each calendar quarter during which such individual is performing such services; and
       (3) when such individual ceases to perform such services.
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division C/Title IX/Subtitle F

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 9501. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this title or amendment made by this title, or the application of a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this title and amendments made by this title, and the application of the provisions and amendment to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division C/Title VII

117th congress (2021-2022)
    Subtitle A − Supreme Court Ethics
    Subtitle B − Foreign Agents Registration
    Subtitle C − Lobbying Disclosure Reform
    Subtitle D − Recusal Of Presidential Appointees
    Subtitle E − Clearinghouse On Lobbying Information
    Subtitle F − Severability
# Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
160 U.S. 303
Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Company
F. D. McKenney, for appellants.
C. H. Armes and A. A. Birney, 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