OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# New pease strae/Jenny, Lass, my bonny Bird

JENNY LASS, My BONNY BIRD.
[BY BURNS.]
JENNY, lass, my bonny bird,
My father’s dead, and a’ that,
And snugly laid aneath the yeard,
An’ i’m his heir, an’ a’ that:
I’m now a laird, an’ a’ that,
I’m now a laird, an' a’ that
I’ve gear an’ lan’ at my comman’,
An’ muckle mair than a’ that.
He left me, wi’ his diein’ breath,
A dwelling-house, an’ a’ that;
Guid byars an’ barns, an’ wabs o’ claith;
A guid peat-stack, an’ a’ that:
A mare, a foal, an’ a’ that,
A mare, a foal, an’ a’ that;
Sax guid milk ky, a ca’f forby;
(illegible text)
​A yard, a meadow, lang braid lees;
Wi’ stacks o’ corn, an’ a’ that:
They’re weel hedg’d roun’ wi’ thorns an’ trees
An’ carts, an’ cars, an’ a’ that:
A plou’ an’ greath, an’ a’ that,
A plou’ an’ greath, an’ a’ that;
Good harrows twa, cocks, hens an’ a’,
A grizle too, an’ a’ that.
I’ve walth o’ claiths for ilka-days,
For Sundays too an a’ that;
I’ve bills an’ ban’s on lairds an’ lan’s,
An’ filler, goud, an’ a’ that;
An muckle mair than a’ that.
An’ muckle mair than a' that:
What want I now, my bonny dow,
But just a wife to a' that?
Now, Jenny dear, my errand here
Is to seek you to a’ that; My heart’s a’ lowpin’ whan I speer Gin ye’ll tak me wi’ a’ that?
Mysel’ my gear, an’ a that,
Mysel’, my gear an’ a’ that:
Come, gie’s your loof. to be a proof That ye’ll tak me wi’ a’ that.
Syne Jenny laid her ⟨nive⟩ in his;
Said she’d tak him wi’ a’ that: An’ he gaed her a hearty kiss;
An’ dauted her, an’ a’ that:
They set the day an’ a’ that.
They set the day, an’ a' that,
Whan she’d come hame to be his dame,
An’ ha’e a rant wi' a’ that.
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
# New pease strae/The new pease strae

the
NEW PEASE STRAE.
THE country swain that tends the plain,
driving the lightsome plough,
At night, tho’ tir’d, with love a’ fir’d
he views the lasses’ brow. When morning comes, instead of drums,
the flails clap merrily,
To raise the maids oot o’ their beds
to shake the Pease Strae.
Fair Jenny raise, put on her claiths,
fyne turn’d her voice to sing:
She sang sae sweet, with notes compleat,
gar’d a’ the echoes ring;
An’ a’ the maids laid by their flails,
then danced merrily,
And bless’d the hour that they had power
to shake the Pease Strae.
The musing swain, disturb’d in brain,
fast to her arms he flew,
And strove a while then, wi’ a smile,
said, Jenny redd in here. She cries right aft, I think ye’re daft,
to tempt a lassie sae;
Ye’ll do me wrang, pray let me gang,
an’ shake the Pease Strae.
My heart. Said he, fair wounded be,
for thee, my Jenny fair;
Without a jest I get nae rest,
my bed it proves a snare. ​Thy image fine presents me syne,
an’ taks a’ rest frae me;
An’ while I dream, in your esteem,
you reckon me your fae.
Which is a sign ye will be mine,
dear Jenny sayna na’,
But soon comply, or else I die,
sae tell me but a flaw;
If thou can love, there’s none above
thee, I can fancy sae;
I would be blest, if I but wist
that ye wou’d shake my strae.
She, wi’ a smile, said, ye’re beguil’d,
I mauna fancy thee;
My mither bauld, she would me scauld,
sae dinna die for me.
But yet I own, as I’m near grown
a woman, since it’s sae,
I'll marry thee, syne ye’ll get me
to shake your Pease Strae.
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
# Natural Law

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Natural Law."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, by Spooner, Lysander (1882)
* "Natural Law," in Catholic Encyclopedia, (ed.) by Charles G. Herbermann and others, New York: The Encyclopaedia Press (1913)
* "Natural Law" by Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. in Harvard Law Review 32 (1918)
# Natural Law; or The Science of Justice: A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing that All Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, a Usurpation, and a Crime. Part First.

* related portals: Anarchism.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
No “Part Second” was ever authored. This essay was originally published in Boston in 1882 by A. Williams & Co. It was also republished in Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought 3, No. 1 (Winter 1967), pp. 53–67. The page numbers included represent the original 1882 text.
Natural Law; or The Science of Justice (1882)
* Chapter I. The Science of Justice. (pp. 5–10)
* Chapter II. The Science of Justice (Continued) (pp. 11–15)
* Chapter III. Natural Law Contrasted With Legislation. (pp. 16–20)
Introduction presented in Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought (1967)

## External links

* .pdf
* .html
* .txt
# Natural Milk Producers Association of California v. City and County of San Francisco

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 423
Natural Milk Producers Association of California v. City and County of San Francisco
Argued: Dec. 16, 17, 1942. --- Decided: Jan 11, 1943
See 318 U.S. 798, 63 S.Ct. 528, 87 L.Ed. --.
Mr. Philip S. Ehrlich, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.
Messrs. Henry Heidelberg, of San Francisco, Cal., and Herbert Levy, of Baltimore, Md., 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. Automotive Maintenance Mach Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 282
National Labor Relations Board v. Automotive Maintenance Mach Company
Argued: Feb. 3, 1942. --- Decided: Feb 16, 1942
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Ernest A. Gross, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John Harrington, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
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
# National Labor Relations Board v. Babcock and Wilcox Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
351 U.S. 105
National Labor Relations Board v. Babcock and Wilcox Company
Argued: Jan. 25 and 26, 1956. --- Decided: April 30, 1956
Mr.Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for N.L.R.B.
Mr. O. B. Fisher, Paris, Tex., for respondent Babcock & Wilcox Co.
Mr. Karl H. Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent Seamprufe, Inc.
Mr. Eugene B. Schwartz, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner Ranco, Inc.
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
# National Labor Relations Board v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 175
National Labor Relations Board v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company
Argued: March 15, 1967. --- Decided: June 12, 1967
Thurgood Marshall, Sol. Gen., and John Silard,
Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Howard C. Equitz, Milwaukee, Wis., for respondent.
Martin C. Seham, New York City, for New York Times Display Advertising Salesmen Steering Committee, as amicus curiae.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. American National Insurance Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Minton
United States Supreme Court
343 U.S. 395
National Labor Relations Board v. American National Insurance Company
Argued: March 4, 1952. --- Decided: May 26, 1952
Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Louis J. Dibrell, Galveston, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice VINSON 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. Automotive Maintenance Mach Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 282
National Labor Relations Board v. Automotive Maintenance Mach Company
Argued: Feb. 3, 1942. --- Decided: Feb 16, 1942
Upon examination of the record, the Court concludes that the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence. National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L.Ed. 368; Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Labor Board, 312 U.S. 660, 61 S.Ct. 736, 85 L.Ed. 1108. The judgment is therefore reversed with directions to enforce the Board's order in full, but with the modification proposed by the Board to conform to the decision in Republic Steel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 7, 61 S.Ct. 77, 85 L.Ed. 6. The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice ROBERTS are of opinion that the order as modified should be enforced except with respect to the alleged discriminatory discharges of Warner, Jr., and Jordan, which they think are without the support of substantial evidence.
Reversed, with directions.
Mr. Justice JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# More Australian Legendary Tales

* related portals: Indigenous Australia.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
A spoken word version of this edition is available at LibriVox
MORE AUSTRALIAN
Legendary Tales
COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS TRIBES BY
Mrs. K. LANGLOH PARKER
AUTHOR OF Australian Legendary Tales
WITH INTRODUCTION BY
ANDREW LANG, M.A.
WITH ILLUSTRATION'S BY A NATIVE ARTIST
LONDON DAVID NUTT, 270-271, STRAND MELBOURNE MELVILLE, MULLEN & SLADE 1898
"And he told me in a vision of the night:
There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays.
And every one of them is right!'"
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DEDICATED
TO
THE EUAHLAYI-SPEAKING PEOPLE
IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF THEIR
EVER-WILLING ASSISTANCE IN
MY FOLK-LORE QUEST
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 1940, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 83 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
# Mordecal v. Lindsay

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 199
Mordecal v. Lindsay
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of South Carolina.
It was a libel filed on the 6th of April, 1854, in the District Court of South Carolina, by Mordecai & Co., against the schooner Mary Eddy, and all persons intervening.
A very brief narrative will be sufficient to show the condition in which the case was, when it left the District Court, and this is all that is required under the present opinion of this court.
In March, 1854, the Mary Eddy was in New Orleans, about to sail for Charleston. One hundred and two hogsheads of sugar were shipped on board of her, which were to be delivered to Mordecai & Co. The libel was for the non-delivery of these articles.
The answer admitted the shipment and arrival of the vessel in Charleston, and then averred the delivery of three hogsheads of the sugar, (together with some barrels of syrup,) the freight of which Mordecai & Co. refused to pay. The answer then alleged that the libellants, having refused to pay freight until the sugars were received by them at their store, or until possession had passed to them, the master unloaded the residue of the sugars, and, when landed on the wharf, gave notice to Mordecai & Co. that he would deliver the articles to them upon payment of the freight; that Mordecai & Co. having refused to do this, the master retained the custody of the sugars in order to preserve his lien for the freight. A correspondence took place between the parties, which it is not necessary to state for the purposes of this report.
The district judge decreed in favor of the libellants, with costs, and then added:
'Mr. Gray, the commissioner and clerk of this court, will ascertain the charges to be made against the respective parties to this suit, and state the account between them. For this purpose, he is authorized to use the testimony already reported, and such further evidence as may be brought before him in relation to this point.'
Without any further proceedings being had in the case, the claimants appealed to the Circuit Court, and the record was accordingly transmitted.
When the cause came up for hearing before the circuit judge, he reversed the decree of the District Court, and dismissed the libel with costs, whereupon the libellants appealed to this court.
The case was argued upon its merits by Mr. Phillips for the appellants, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, jr., for the claimants, whose arguments it is not necessary to state in this report, in consequence of the case being decided upon a preliminary point.
Mr. Justice WAYNE 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 9

Chapter 9 [V.]—Of the Praise of Marriage.
But further, concerning the praise of marriage, what advantage is it to them that, in opposition to the Manicheans, who assign marriage not to the true and good God, but to the prince of darkness, these men resist the words of true piety, and say, “That the Lord speaks in the gospel, saying, Who from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Increase and multiply and replenish the earth. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”? What does this profit them, by means of the truth to seduce to a falsehood? For they say this in order that infants may be thought to be born free from all fault, and thus that there is no need of their being reconciled to God through Christ, since they have no original sin, on account of which reconciliation is necessary to all by means of one who came into the world without sin, just as the enmities of all were caused by means of one through whom sin entered into the world. And this is believed by catholics for the sake of the salvation of the nature of men, without detracting from the praise of marriage; because the praise of marriage is a righteous intercourse of the sexes, not a wicked defence of vices. And thus, when, by their praise of marriage, these persons wish to draw over men from the Manicheans to themselves, they desire merely to change their disease, not to heal it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See On Original Sin, ch. 38.
* ↑ Matt. xix. 4, etc.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Extract from Augustin's Retractations

Extract from Augustin’s “Retractations,”
Book II. Chap. 61,
On the Following Treatise,
“contra duas epistolas pelagianorum.”
Then follow four books which I wrote to Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, in opposition to two letters of the Pelagians, because when they came into his hands he had sent them to me, finding in them a calumnious mention of my name. This work commences on this wise: “I had indeed known you by the praise of your renowned fame.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 10

Chapter IV.—(9.) The Ninth Breviate.
IX. “The next question we shall require to be solved,” says he, “is this: By what means is it brought about that man is with sin?—by the necessity of nature, or by the freedom of choice? If it is by the necessity of nature, he is blameless; if by the freedom of choice, then the question arises, from whom he has received this freedom of choice. No doubt, from God. Well, but that which God bestows is certainly good. This cannot be gainsaid. On what principle, then, is a thing proved to be good, if it is more prone to evil than to good? For it is more prone to evil than to good if by means of it man can be with sin and cannot be without sin.” The answer is this: It came by the freedom of choice that man was with sin; but a penal corruption closely followed thereon, and out of the liberty produced necessity. Hence the cry of faith to God, “Lead Thou me out of my necessities.” With these necessities upon us, we are either unable to understand what we want, or else (while having the wish) we are not strong enough to accomplish what we have come to understand. Now it is just liberty itself that is promised to believers by the Liberator. “If the Son,” says He, “shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” For, vanquished by the sin into which it fell by its volition, nature has lost liberty. Hence another scripture says, “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” Since therefore “the whole need not the physician, but only they that be sick;” so likewise it is not the free that need the Deliverer, but only the enslaved. Hence the cry of joy to Him for deliverance, “Thou hast saved my soul from the straits of necessity.” For true liberty is also real health; and this would never have been lost, if the will had remained good. But because the will has sinned, the hard necessity of having sin has pursued the sinner; until his infirmity be wholly healed, and such freedom be regained, that there must needs be, on the one hand, a permanent will to live happily, and, on the other hand, a voluntary and happy necessity of living virtuously, and never sinning.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. xxv. 17.
* ↑ John viii. 38.
* ↑ 2 Pet. ii. 19.
* ↑ Matt. ix. 12.
* ↑ Ps. xxxi. 7.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 7

Chapter 7.—What is the Meaning of “In Whom All Have Sinned”?
But these speak thus who wish to wrest men from the apostle’s words into their own thought. For where the apostle says, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men,” they will have it there understood not that “sin” passed over, but “death.” What, then, is the meaning of what follows, “Whereto all have sinned”? For either the apostle says that in that “one man” all have sinned of whom he had said, “By one man sin entered into the world,” or else in that “sin,” or certainly in “death.” For it need not disturb us that he said not “in which” [using the feminine form of the pronoun], but “in whom” [using the masculine] all have sinned; since “death” in the Greek language is of the masculine gender. Let them, then, choose which they will,—for either in that “man” all have sinned, and it is so said because when he sinned all were in him; or in that “sin” all have sinned, because that was the doing of all in general which all those who were born would have to derive; or it remains for them to say that in that “death” all sinned. But in what way this can be understood, I do not clearly see. For all die in the sin; they do not sin in the death; for when sin precedes, death follows—not when death precedes, sin follows. Because sin is the sting of death—that is, the sting by whose stroke death occurs, not the sting with which death strikes. Just as poison, if it is drunk, is called the cup of death, because by that cup death is caused, not because the cup is caused by the death, or is given by death. But if “sin” cannot be understood by those words of the apostle as being that “wherein all have sinned,” because in Greek, from which the Epistle is translated, “sin” is expressed in the feminine gender, it remains that all men are understood to have sinned in that first “man,” because all men were in him when he sinned; and from him sin is derived by birth, and is not remitted save by being born again. For thus also the sainted Hilary understood what is written, “wherein all have sinned;” for he says, “wherein,” that is, in Adam, “all have sinned.” Then he adds, “It is manifest that all have sinned in Adam, as it were in the mass; for he himself was corrupted by sin, and all whom he begot were born under sin.” When he wrote this, Hilary, without any ambiguity, indicated how we should understand the words, “wherein all have sinned.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. v. 12.
* ↑ [This is a distinction as to the kind of genitive involved in the phrase “sting of death.” Augustin says “of death” is genitive of the object, not of the author or subject.—W.]
* ↑ Commentaries by Hilary the Deacon, printed among the Works of Ambrose, vol. iv. (Patrol. Lat. xvii.)