OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Bird-Lore/Volume 01/No. 2/A Least Bittern Portrait

LEAST BITTERN ON NEST
Photographed from life by E. G. Tabor. (See page 39)
BY E. G. TABOR
On the morning of May 27, 1897, equipped with an extra supply of patience and a 5 x 7 ‘Premo B’ camera fitted with rapid rectilinear lens, my plate-holders filled with unexposed plates, and accompanied by my wife, who has been a partner in all of my successful trips, I started for Otter Lake, Cayuga County. N. Y.
It was a beautiful morning, with not a breath of air stirring (by the way, this is the hardest of all things to control, and is an absolute necessity if you are to make fine, clear-cut negatives of birds and their natural surroundings), and the lake looked like a mirror. It took but a minute to get the large, flat-bottomed row-boat ready for the start, and we were soon gliding along, an oar’s-length from shore, scanning every tree, bush, and bunch of rushes, in search of nests, those of the Red-winged Blackbird being very plenty and placed both in bushes or rushes in about equal numbers. A pair of Kingbirds had selected as the place for their summer home, a large, low willow limb which projected over the water; a peep into the nest revealed three eggs, common, yet so beautiful in their bed of wool and feathers.
Our next finds were several nests of a pair of Long-billed Marsh Wrens, which looked more like mouse-nests than anything else I have in mind. As we could return to these later, if unable to find anything better, we had not yet exposed a single plate, reserving them for a rare or unusual find.
We were in search of nests of the Least Bittern, and as we were passing that part of the shore where they always nested, we soon located a nest, but as it only contained one egg, another nest must be found. A male Least Bittern flew up a short distance ahead of us and ‘dropped in’ back of the bushes. We rowed down to the place from which he flushed, and standing up in the boat looked around, and not more than a boat’s-length ahead, we espied a female sitting on a nest. I pushed the boat very carefully to within a couple of feet of the nest, and prepared to make an exposure. The camera was set to focus on an object 34 inches from cap of lens, and I moved it back and forth until the focus was perfect, the diaphragm was closed to ƒ16, and an instantaneous exposure with speed at $^1$⁄$_{25}$ was made.
As most of my operations, preparatory to making the exposure, were of necessity carried on within three feet of the bird on the nest, ​ she at several times started to leave it ; but when the bird moved I kept still, and when she kept still I worked; in this way I finally completed my preparations. The peep I got of the eggs as she partly raised off from them, just as I finished, made me squeeze the bulb before I intended to ; but the result I obtained fully satisfied me, for in no other way could I describe the results of this trip, and what I saw and learned of the habits and home-life of the Least Bittern.
# Barack Obama's letter of resignation from the Senate

Read on the floor of the United States Senate on 8 November 2008.
| “ | The Honorable Rod Blagojevich Governor State of Illinois 207 State House Springfield, Illinois 62706 Dear Mr. Governor: I hereby resign effective November 16, 2008 from the United States Senate in order to prepare for my duties as President of the United States. Sincerely, [signature] Barack Obama United States Senator cc: The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, President Pro Tem, U.S. Senate | ” |
# Boots and Saddles/Preface

Copyright, 1885, by Harper & Brothers
PREFACE.
One of the motives that have actuated me in recalling these simple annals of our daily life, has been to give a glimpse to civilians of garrison and camp life—about which they seem to have such a very imperfect knowledge.
This ignorance exists especially with reference to anything pertaining to the cavalry, which is almost invariably stationed on the extreme frontier.
The isolation of the cavalry posts makes them quite inaccessible to travellers, and the exposure incident to meeting warlike Indians does not tempt the visits of friends or even of the venturesome tourist. Our life, therefore, was often as separate from the rest of the world as if we had been living on an island in the ocean.
Very little has been written regarding the domestic life of an army family, and yet I cannot believe that it is without interest; for the innumerable questions ​that are asked about our occupations, amusements, and mode of house-keeping, lead me to hope that the actual answers to these queries contained in this little story will be acceptable. This must also be my apology for entering in some instances so minutely into trifling perplexities and events, which went to fill up the sum of our existence.
E. B. C.
148 East 18th Street, New York City.
# Boquillas Land Cattle Company v. J N Curtis C

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
213 U.S. 339
Boquillas Land Cattle Company v. J N Curtis C
Argued: and submitted April 7, 1909. --- Decided: April 19, 1909
Mr. Eugene S. Ives for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 340-342 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. H. L. Pickett and Ben. Goodrich for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 342 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
# Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 194
Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin
No. 296 Argued: Nov. 6, 7, 1934. --- Decided: Dec 3, 1934
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
[Syllabus from pages 194-196 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walter E. Hope and Timothy N. Pfeiffer, both of New York City, for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 196-197 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Henry S. Manley, of Albany, N.Y., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 197-200 intentionally omitted]
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
# Borax Consolidated v. City of Los Angeles

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 10
Borax Consolidated v. City of Los Angeles
Argued: Oct. 23, 1935. --- Decided: Nov 11, 1935
[Syllabus from pages 10-12 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. A. W. Ashburn and Gurney E. Newlin, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Mr. Loren A. Butts, of Los Angeles, Cal., 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
# Borchard v. California Bank

United States Supreme Court
310 U.S. 311
Borchard v. California Bank
Argued: April 30, 1940. --- Decided: May 20, 1940
Messrs. Lloyd S. Nix, of Los Angeles, Cal., and William Lemke, of Fargo, N.D., for petitioner.
Mr. Thomas W. Henderson, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
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
# Bartle v. Coleman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
19 U.S. 475
Bartle v. Coleman
March 8th.
THIS cause was argued by Mr. Swann, for the plaintiff in error,a and by Mr. Jones, and Mr. Taylor, for the defendant in error.b
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL 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
# Bartleby, the Scrivener

The narrator of the story is an unnamed lawyer with offices on Wall Street in New York City. He describes himself as doing "a snug business among rich men's bonds and mortgages and title-deeds." He has three employees: "First, Turkey; second, Nippers; third, Ginger Nut," each of whom is described. Turkey and Nippers are copyists or scriveners while Ginger Nut does delivery work or other assorted jobs around the office, and the lawyer decides his business needs a third scrivener. Bartleby responds to his advertisement and arrives at the office, "pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, incurably forlorn!"
* "Bartleby, the Scrivener (Part 1)", as originally published in Putnam's Monthly (November 1853)
* "Bartleby, the Scrivener (Part 2)", as originally published in Putnam's Monthly (December 1853)
* "Bartleby the Scrivener" in The Piazza Tales (1856)
# Bartle v. Nutt

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
29 U.S. 184
BNrtle v. Nutt
THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia. The appellant was complainant in that court.
The case was argued by Mr Swann and Mr Jones for the appellant, and by Mr Taylor for the appellee:
Mr Justice BALDWIN 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
# Bartkus v. Illinois (359 U.S. 121)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision held that coordination of federal officials with state officials did not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It also held that a defendant may be acquitted of a federal crime and convicted of a state crime, even if those crimes share the same evidence, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 121
Bartkus v. Illinois
Argued: Oct. 21, 22, 1958. --- Decided: March 30, 1959
See 360 U.S. 907, 79 S.Ct. 1283.
Mr. Walter T. Fisher, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. William C. Wines, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
68 U.S. 116
Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Company

## 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
# Bridge of the Gods

published by A. C. McClurg & Co.
* The Bridge of the Gods: A Romance of Indian Oregon (1890) (transcription project)
** 1st ed. (1890) Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofgodsroma00balcuoft Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofgodsroma00balcrich
** 4th ed. (1899) HathiTrust identifier: uiug.30112002081310/Google Books identifier: SFlCAQAAMAAJ
* The Bridge of the Gods: A Romance of Indian Oregon (1902) illustrated by L. Maynard Dixon (transcription project)
** 7th ed. (1902) Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofgodsroma00balc (Commons file)
** 9th ed. (1904) HathiTrust identifier: hvd.hx6gy5/Google Books identifier: o0ZAAAAAYAAJ
** 11th ed. (1907) Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofgodselev0000fhba HathiTrust identifier: njp.32101064786914/Google Books identifier: 8pUVAAAAYAAJ
** 14th ed. (1911) HathiTrust identifier: osu.32435016510356/Google Books identifier: ryM7AQAAMAAJ HathiTrust identifier: hvd.hn1t4p/Google Books identifier: NlUZAAAAYAAJ
** 15th ed. (1911) Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofgods0000fhba
** 17th ed. (1912) Internet Archive identifier: brideofthegods00balcrich/HathiTrust identifier: uc2.ark:/13960/t6nz8202t/HathiTrust identifier: uc1.$b248071/Google Books identifier: bFZLAAAAIAAJ
** 18th ed. (1813) HathiTrust identifier: uc1.b3561930/Google Books identifier: ltk3AAAAIAAJ
** 19th ed. (1915) Project Gutenberg
** 20th ed. (1916) HathiTrust identifier: uc1.31175035210064/Google Books identifier: ddg_AQAAMAAJ
** 21st ed. (1918) Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofgods00balciala/Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofgodsroma00balciala/HathiTrust identifier: uc2.ark:/13960/t5fb4wx8w HathiTrust identifier: nyp.33433074800784/Google Books identifier: 69shAAAAMAAJ
** 25th ed. (1922) Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofthegods00balciala/HathiTrust identifier: uc2.ark:/13960/t4gm82390 (Commons file)
** 26th ed. (1924) Internet Archive identifier: bridgeofgodsroma0000balc Internet Archive identifier: bwb_P9-DQE-439
** 27th ed. (1925) HathiTrust identifier: osu.32435004111332/Google Books identifier: WwlPAQAAMAAJ
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
# Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 425
Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas
Argued: March 18, 1919. --- Decided: April 14, 1919
By a judgment rendered March 6, 1916, the court below annulled an order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the Philippine Islands requiring a corporate common carrier to report annually various matters pertaining to its finances and operations, the ground of the judgment being that section 16 (e) of Act 2307 of the local Legislature, under which the board acted, violated the organic law of the Philippines (32 Stat. 691, c. 1369), in that it confided to the board the determination of what the reports should contain and therefore amounted to a delegation of legislative power. 34 Phil. Rep. 136. The board brought the judgment here for review, and the carrier now suggests that through a change in the local statute the question on which the judgment turned has become merely a moot one.
After the case was brought here the Legislature, by Act 2694, so amended section 16 (e) as to cause the section itself to prescribe in detail what such reports should contain and thereby abrogated the provision on which the order was based and which the court held invalid. That provision therefore is no longer in force, and it is to the new provision that the board and carrier must give effect. Even if the original provision was valid, the order made under it became inoperative when the new provision was substituted in its place. Whether the order was based on a valid or an invalid statute consequently has become merely a moot question.
In this situation we are not called upon to consider the propriety of the judgment below, the proper course being, as is shown by many precedents, to reverse the judgment and remand the cause with a direction that it be dismissed without costs to either party. United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103, 2 L. Ed. 49; New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U.S. 170, 16 Sup. Ct. 321, 40 L. Ed. 382, and 161 U.S. 101, 16 Sup. Ct. 492, 40 L. Ed. 632; Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 22 Sup. Ct. 45, 46 L. Ed. 111; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466, 36 Sup. Ct. 212, 60 L. Ed. 387; Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468, 37 Sup. Ct. 208, 61 L. Ed. 441.
Judgment reversed. Cause to be dismissed without costs to either party.

## 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
# Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. New York Telephone Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 23
Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. New York Telephone Company
Argued: Jan. 18, 19, 1926. --- Decided: April 12, 1926
A public utility company, which by excessive depreciation charges in the past has created a reserve depreciation account greater than required to adequately maintain its property, cannot be compelled to apply a part of the property or money represented by such reserve to overcome deficits in present or future earnings, and to sustain rates which otherwise could nt be sustained.
The just compensation, safeguarded to a utility by Const. U.S. Amend. 14, is a reasonable return on the value of the property used at the time it is used for public service.
Constitutional protection against confiscation does not depend on source of money used to purchase property, it being enough that it is used to render service.
Mr. Thomas Brown, of Perth Amboy, N. J., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 23-25 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. C. M. Bracelen, of New York City, Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., and Charles T. Russell and Frankland Briggs, both of New York City, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Ynchausti & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 401
Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Ynchausti & Company
Argued: Jan. 27, 1920. --- Decided: March 1, 1920
Messrs. Chester J. Gerkin and Edward S. Bailey, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Alexander Britton and Evans Browne, both of Washington, D. C., for respondents.
Mr. Chief 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
# Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 425
Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas
Argued: March 18, 1919. --- Decided: April 14, 1919
Messrs. Edward S. Bailey and S. T. Ansell, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant and plaintiff in error.
Mr. F. C. Fisher, of Manila, P. I., for appellee and defendant in error.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 262
Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Company
Argued: March 14, 1919. --- Decided: March 24, 1919
Messrs. Edward S. Bailey and S. T. Ansell, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant and plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Robert H. Neilson and Paul D. Cravath, both of New York City, for appellee and defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Chief Justice WHITE.

## 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
# Board of Public Works of Maryland v. Horace Mann League of the United States, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 97
Board of Public Works of Maryland v. Horace Mann League of the United States, Inc.
HORACE MANN LEAGUE OF U.S., INC., et al.
v.
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF MARYLAND, et al.
No. 590. Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1966.
October Term, 1966.
November 14, 1966
Thomas B. Finan, former Atty. Gen. of Maryland for petitioner Board of Public Works of Maryland in No. 473.
William L. Marbury, for petitioners Saint Joseph College and others in No. 473.
John Holt Myers, for Association of American Colleges, amicus curiae, in support of petition in No. 473.
Leo Pfeffer, for appellants in No. 590.
Robert C. Murphy, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, and Edward L. Blanton, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee Board of Public Works of Maryland in No. 590.
Parsons Newman, for appellee Hood College in No. 590.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
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
# Case of the State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Davis
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 300
Case of the State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds

## 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
# Case of the State Freight Tax/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 232
Case of the State Freight Tax

## 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
# Case v. Beauregard (101 U.S. 688)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 688
Case v. Beauregard
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
The facts out of which this case arises are stated in Case v. Beauregard, 99 U.S. 119. The bill in each case is in every essential particular the same, except that here the additional allegation is made that the complainant, as receiver, had brought an action at law and recovered judgment against Beauregard and May, as partners; that Graham, the other partner, was beyond the reach of process; and that an execution upon the judgment was returned nulla bona. The defendants pleaded the decree in the former suit in bar, and the court, finding that the matter set up in the plea was sustained by the evidence, dismissed the bill. Case appealed.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Charles Case for the appellant, and by Mr. Henry C. Miller for the appellee.
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
# Case v. Beauregard

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Case v. Beauregard."
* 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.
* Case v. Beauregard (99 U.S. 119)
* Case v. Beauregard (101 U.S. 688)
See also Beauregard v. Case.