OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Domestic Encyclopædia (1802)/Thirst

Edition of 1802.
​THIRST, is an uneasy sensation, which arises from a deficiency of saliva, for moistening the mouth, and lubricating the throat.
Thirst is generally occasioned by the use of strong, salted, or highly-seasoned food: a moderate degree contributes to the preservation of health; as it requires a certain proportion of drink, to promote digestion; but, if it become excessive, it is in most cases a symptom of fevers, dropsies, &c.
The most effectual way of alleviating thirst, will be the use of diluted vegetable acids; or the chewing of a crust of bread with a little water, which liquid may be gradually swallowed. Where this unpleasant sensation, however, is consequent on any disease, the removal of the latter, together with the aid of diluent liquors adapted to its nature, and taken in small quantities, will also prevent the return of thirst. In other cases, where the use of acids or profuse draughts of diluents, might be productive of injury to the constitution, this complaint may sometimes be obviated, by chewing the root of the pellitory, or some similar substance, which excites and increases the flow of saliva. Lastly, as thirst is often the concomitant of excessive Hunger, and may sometimes occur at sea, the adoption of the expedients pointed out in that article, will generally afford relief.
# Domestic Encyclopædia (1802)/Tetters

Edition of 1802.
​Tetters. See Ringworm.
# Domestic Encyclopædia (1802)/Throat-wort

Edition of 1802.
​Throat-wort. See Giant Bell-flower.
# Domestic Encyclopædia (1802)/Throstle

Edition of 1802.
​THROSTLE, or Thrush, Turdus musicus, L. a well-known British bird, which, in its melodious notes, is excelled only by the nightingale. Its head, back, and lesser coverts of the wings, are of a deep olive-brown; and the inner surface of the latter is yellow. The cheeks and throat are mottled with brown and white; the belly and breast are of a pale-yellow colour, with large black spots.
Throstles build their nests in some low bush or thicket: externally, they are composed of earth, moss, and straw, but the inside is curiously plastered with clay. Here the female deposits 5 or 6 pale-bluish green eggs, marked with dusky spots. The Throstle is by some believed to be the finest singing bird in Britain, on account of the sweetness, variety, and continuance of its melody. From the top of high trees, it exercises its harmonious voice, and for the greater part of the year, amuses us with its song.
# Dirge at Sea

* Dirge at Sea, in The New Monthly Magazine Volume 39, 1833.
* Dirge at Sea, in National Lyrics, and Songs for Music, 1834.
# Dirty Hands, Dirty Face

* "Dirty Hands and Dirty Face" (1923), a performance on record by Bob Thomas IA
* "Dirty Hands, Dirty Face" (1927), a performace by Al Jolson in the part-talkie musical film The Jazz Singer
# Director General of Railroads v. Viscose Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
254 U.S. 498
Director General of Railroads v. Viscose Company
Argued: Dec. 8, 1920. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1921
Messrs. Henry Wolf Bikle, Theodore W. Reath, and F. M. Rivinus, all of Philadelphia, Pa., and Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., for carriers.
Mr. Harold S. Shertz, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Viscose Co.
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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
# Dirge (Emerson)

* Dirge in Poems (1847)
* Dirge in Poems (Household Edition, 1904)
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1927 supplement/Gibson, Edward

​GIBSON, EDWARD, first Baron Ashbourne, of Ashbourne, co. Meath (1837–1913), lord chancellor of Ireland, was born in Dublin 4 September 1837, the second son of William Gibson, of Rockforest, co. Tipperary, solicitor, by his wife, Louisa, daughter of Joseph Grant, barrister, of Dublin. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and graduated as first senior moderator in history and English literature (1858). Called to the Irish bar (King’s Inns, Dublin, 1860), he took silk in 1872. He contested Waterford unsuccessfully as a conservative in 1874, but was returned the next year for Dublin University. The conservatives were then weak in debating power on Irish questions, and Gibson, speaking with informed facility, gained distinction. His appearance was striking, with his fine forehead crowned by hair prematurely silver-white; his utterance was clamant but toned by genial humour; he was shrewd and looked wise; while his declamatory, lucid style peculiarly equipped him for popular audiences. Appointed attorney-general for Ireland in 1877, a position which he held till 1880, Gibson became the effective controller at Dublin Castle, and the exponent in the Commons of the official Irish policy. During Mr. Gladstone’s second administration (1880–1885), when the Irish land war raged and the Parnellites commanded an insurrectionary country, Gibson’s dexterous criticism not merely of the handling by the government of the Irish chaos, but of their general conduct of affairs, enhanced his reputation. On Lord Salisbury becoming premier in 1885, Gibson was raised to the peerage and promoted lord chancellor of Ireland with a seat in the Cabinet. He held the same office in the conservative governments of 1886–1892 and 1895–1905, thus occupying an unprecedented position during an unprecedented period of eighteen years.
Ashbourne was not deemed an erudite lawyer but, supported by the learning of (Sir) Samuel Walker [q.v.], ex-lord chancellor, the genius of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon [q.v.], and the acumen of Lord Justice Holmes, he proved an admirable president of an exceptionally powerful court of appeal; while he discharged the administrative duties of the chancellorship with unwearying assiduity and solicitude. He was dignified, hospitable, and popular. When he vacated the chancellorship, Ashbourne constantly sat in the appellate tribunals of the Lords and Privy Council. He piloted the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1885, known as the Ashbourne Act, but otherwise left little impress upon legislation. His familiar text was ‘Give peace in our time, O Lord’, and thus he earned for himself among intimates the sobriquet of ‘Tutissimus’. He was the author of Pitt, some Chapters of his Life and Times (1898). He died in London 22 May 1913.
Lord Ashbourne married in 1868 Frances Maria Adelaide, second daughter of Henry Cope Colles, barrister, by whom he had four sons and four daughters. He was succeeded by his eldest son, William, second Baron Ashbourne (born 1868).
[The Times, 23 May 1913; Burke’s Peerage; personal and professional knowledge. Portrait, Royal Academy Pictures, 1899.]
A. W. S.
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1927 supplement/Garrett Anderson, Elizabeth

​GARRETT ANDERSON, ELIZABETH (1886–1917), physician. [See Anderson, Elizabeth.]
# United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea/Part 9

Part IX
Enclosed or semi-enclosed seas
Article 122 Definition
For the purposes of this Convention, "enclosed or semi-enclosed sea" means a gulf, basin or sea surrounded by two or more States and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States.
Article 123 Cooperation of States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas
States bordering an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea should cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties under this Convention. To this end they shall endeavour, directly or through an appropriate regional organization:
    (a) to coordinate the management, conservation, exploration and exploitation of the living resources of the sea;
    (b) to coordinate the implementation of their rights and duties with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment;
    (c) to coordinate their scientific research policies and undertake where appropriate joint programmes of scientific research in the area;
    (d) to invite, as appropriate, other interested States or international organizations to cooperate with them in furtherance of the provisions of this article.
# United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea/Preamble

Preamble
The States Parties to this Convention,
Prompted by the desire to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea and aware of the historic significance of this Convention as an important contribution to the maintenance of peace, justice and progress for all peoples of the world,
Noting that developments since the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea held at Geneva in 1958 and 1960 have accentuated the need for a new and generally acceptable Convention on the law of the sea,
Conscious that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole,
Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment,
Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked,
Desiring by this Convention to develop the principles embodied in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970 in which the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly declared inter alia that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States,
Believing that the codification and progressive development of the law of the sea achieved in this Convention will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly relations among all nations in conformity with the principles of justice and equal rights and will promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples of the world, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as set forth in the Charter,
Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law,
Have agreed as follows:
# Eldorado Coal Mining Company v. Mager/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 522
Eldorado Coal Mining Company v. Mager
Argued: Jan. 12, 1921. ---
This case comes into this Court on a writ of error to review a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, sustaining a demurrer to a declaration in assumpsit to recover an assessment of income and excess profits taxes for the year 1917, under warrant of the Income Tax Act of Congress, approved September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. c. 463, p. 756) as amended by the act approved October 3, 1917 (40 Stat. c. 63, p. 300). Payment was made under protest, and the claim to recover is based upon the same contention dealt with in No. 608, Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct. 386, 65 L. Ed. --, this day decided, that the fund taxed was not 'income' within the scope of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the effect given by the lower court to the act renders it unconstitutional and void.
The Eldorado Coal & Mining Company is an In diana corporation, which operated a bituminous coal mine and mining plant, which it sold in May, 1917, for cash. The company retained its accounts receivable and prior to September 30, 1917, it distributed among its stockholders, proportionately to their ownership of stocks, the cash received from the sale and the accounts receivable in kind. The corporation, however, was not dissolved nor its charter surrendered, because there were unsettled liabilities against it for federal income taxes and excess profit taxes. Otherwise its affairs were wound up.
It is averred in the declaration that, taking the fair market value as of March 1, 1913, of the capital assets of the company invested and employed in its business, and adding thereto the cost of additions and betterments, and subtracting depreciation and depletion to the date of sale, it appears that there was an appreciation in value of the property after March 1, 1913, of $5,986.02, and it was on this profit realized by the sale that the assessment of $3,073.16 was made which the company paid and in this suit seeks to recover.
It is obvious from this statement of the case that it presents in so nearly the same form precisely the same questions as were considered in No. 608, Merchants' Loan & Trust Co., etc., v. Julius F. Smietanka, Collector, etc., 255 U.S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct. 386, 65 L. Ed. --, this day decided, that further discussion of them is unnecessary, and, on the authority of that case, the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice HOLMES and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, because of prior decisions of the Court, concur only in the judgment.

## 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
# Eldorado Coal Mining Company v. Mager

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 522
Eldorado Coal Mining Company v. Mager
Argued: Jan. 12, 1921. ---
Mr. Herbert Pope, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 522-525 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Solicitor General Frierson, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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
# Elder v. Wood

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
208 U.S. 226
Elder v. Wood
Argued: January 9, 1908. --- Decided: January 27, 1908
Mr. George R. Elder for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 226-228 intentionally omitted]
[228]
Messrs. A. B.Browne, Charles Cavender, and Alxexander Britton for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 228-230 intentionally omitted]
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
# Timken Roller Bearing Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 665
Timken Roller Bearing Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this Court on the authority of Transportes Maritimos Do Estado v. Almeida, 265 U.S. 104, 105, 44 S.C.t. 449, 68 L. Ed. 932, and Oliver American Trading Co. v. United States of Mexico, 264 U.S. 440, 442, 44 S.C.t. 390, 68 L. Ed. 778.

## 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
# Timken Roller Bearing Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company Goodbody

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 181
Timken Roller Bearing Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company Goodbody
Submitted on Motion to Transfer March 21, 1927.
Decided April 18, 1927.
Messrs. Rufus S. Day, Wm. L. Day, and Luther Day, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Andrew Squire, Thomas M. Kirby, and Andrew P. Martin, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 182 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# Timken Roller Bearing Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 665
Timken Roller Bearing Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Messrs. Luther Day and Rufus S. Day, both of Cleveland, Ohio (Donald W. Kling, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Andrew Squire, Thomas M. Kirby and Andrew P. Martin, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant in error.
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
# Douglas v. Noble

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
261 U.S. 165
Douglas v. Noble
Argued: Jan. 2, 1923. --- Decided: Feb 19, 1923
Messrs. Malcolm Douglas, of Seattle, Wash., and Lindsay L. Thompson, of Olympia, Wash., for appellants.
Mr. C. E. Gates, of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Douglas v. Wainwright/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 779
Douglas v. Wainwright
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792.

## 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
# Douglas v. Willcuts

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 1
Douglas v. Willcuts
Argued: Oct. 14, 1935. --- Decided: Nov 11, 1935
[Syllabus from pages 1-2 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Leland W. Scott and Clark R. Fletcher, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., 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
# Douglas v. Wainwright

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 779
Douglas v. Wainwright
Douglas, pro se.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. of Florida, and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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
# Douglas v. Cunningham

United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 207
Douglas v. Cunningham
Argued: Jan. 18, 1935. --- Decided: Feb 4, 1935
Messrs. Cedric W. Porter and George P. Dike, both of Boston, Mass., for petitioners.
Mr. Edmund A. Whitman, of Boston, Mass., for respondents.
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
# Douglas v. City of Jeannette

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held it does not restrain criminal prosecutions made in good faith unless there would be some "irreparable injury." This case is one of four cases collectively known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses" cases because the Supreme Court handed down rulings on these four cases related to the Jehovah's Witnesses on the same day (May 3, 1943). Although the Supreme Court ruled against the Jehovah's Witnesses in this case, it ruled in favor of them in the other three cases and those represent landmark decisions in the area of First Amendment constitutional law. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 157
Douglas v. City of Jeannette
Argued: March 10, 11, 1943. ---
For majority opinions, see 63 S.Ct. 877, 870, 862.
[Syllabus from pages 157-159 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner.
Mr. Fred B. Trescher, of Greensburg, Pa., for respondents.
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
# Douglas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
322 U.S. 275
Douglas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued: March 7, 1944. --- Decided: May 15, 1944
Mr. Kimball B. DeVoy, of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioners.
Miss Helen R. Carloss, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Latitude

See also Latitude on Wikipedia; Latitude in the 11th Edition; and the disclaimer.
LATITUDE. See Astronomy, Geodesy, and Geography (Mathematical).