OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 150

Chap. CL.—An Act appropriating a sum of money to Benjamin Huffman, of the state of Indiana.
500 dollars to be paid Benjamin Huffman.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to Benjamin Huffman the sum of five hundred dollars, to enable him to regain his son, Peter Hoffman [Huffman] who was taken a captive by hostile Indians during the late war: Proviso. Provided, That the said Benjamin Huffman shall previously give bond with sufficient security, to be approved of by the Secretary of the Treasury, conditioned upon the said Huffman’s rendering to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department, correct accounts of his expenditure of the whole or any part of the said sum of money for the sole purpose of regaining the possession of his son aforesaid; and that the said Huffman shall pay any balance that may remain in his hands after the expenditure provided for as aforesaid, into the treasury of the United States.
To be paid out of the treasury.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the aforesaid sum shall be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 153

Chap. CLIII.—An Act making appropriations for deepening the channel leading into the harbour of Presque Isle, and for repairing Plymouth Beach.
20,000 dollars appropriated for deepening the channel leading into the harbour of Presque isle; and 20,000 to repair Plymouth beach, Massachusetts.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums of money be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, and placed at the disposition of the President of the United States, for the purpose of accomplishing the objects hereinafter mentioned, to wit: the sum of twenty thousand dollars, for making or deepening the channel, leading into the harbour of Presque Isle, in the state of Pennsylvania; and the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to repair Plymouth Beach, in the state of Massachusetts, and thereby prevent the harbour, at that place, from being destroyed.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 281

Chap. CCLXXXI.—An Act to extend the collection district of Wiscasset.
Newcastle and Nobleboro annexed as ports of delivery. Repealed by act of March 3, 1843, ch. 79.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the towns of Newcastle and Nobleboro, lying on the Damariscotta river, in the State of Maine, be annexed to the collection district of Wiscasset, as ports of delivery only.
Approved, August 31, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 288

Chap. CCLXXXVIII.—An Act making appropriations for certain fortifications of the United States, for the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-two.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any unappropriated money in the Treasury, for the preservation, repairs, and construction of certain fortifications, in the year eighteen hundred and forty-two, viz:
Fort Preble.For repairs at Fort Preble, Portland, Maine, one thousand dollars.
Fort Scammel.For repairs of Fort Scammel, Portland, Maine, five thousand dollars.
Fort McClary.For repairs of Fort McClary, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, five thousand dollars.
Fort Constitution.For repairs of Fort Constitution, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, five thousand dollars.
Deer island.For repairs of sea-wall on Deer Island, Boston harbor, two thousand dollars.
Fort Independence. Castle island.For repairs of Fort Independence and sea-wall at Castle Island, balance of the original estimated cost of this work, being thirty thousand dollars.
Fort Warren.For Fort Warren, Boston harbor, thirty-three thousand dollars.
Ft. Griswold.For repairs of Fort Griswold, New London harbor, Connecticut, five thousand dollars.
Fort Niagara.For completing the repairs of Fort Niagara, at the mouth of Niagara river, New York, and erecting and repairing the necessary building therein, five thousand dollars.
Fort Ontario.For completing the repairs of Fort Ontario, at Oswego, New York, and erecting the necessary buildings therein, six thousand dollars.
Fort Schuyler.For Fort Schuyler, New York harbor, twenty thousand dollars.
Castle Williams.For completing Castle Williams, New York harbor, five thousand dollars.
South battery.For completing South Battery, New York harbor, two thousand dollars.
Ft. Columbus.For completing Fort Columbus, New York harbor, two thousand dollars.
Wharves, New York harbor.For permanent wharves for Fort Columbus, Castle Williams, and South Battery, Governor’s Island, New York harbor, and to complete the work according to the original estimates, eight thousand dollars.
Fort Hamilton.For repairs at Fort Hamilton, New York harbor, five thousand dollars.
Fort Lafayette.For repairs and for correcting defective construction of Fort Lafayette, New York harbor, twelve thousand dollars.
Fort Monroe.For Fort Monroe, Old Point Comfort, Virginia, thirty-five thousand dollars.
Fort Macon.For repairs of Fort Macon, Beaufort, North Carolina, five thousand dollars.
For preservation of the site of the same, seven thousand dollars.
Fort Sumter.For Fort Sumter, Charleston harbor, South Carolina, towards completing the same, agreeably to the original estimates, fifty thousand dollars.
Ft. Livingston.For Fort Livingston, Barrataria bay, Louisiana, ten thousand dollars.
Fort Towson.For carrying on the work at Fort Towson, ten thousand dollars.
Fort Smith.For carrying on the work at Fort Smith, ten thousand dollars.
Approved, August 31, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 282

Chap. CCLXXXII.—An Act to suppress the vending of lottery tickets in the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Sales of lottery tickets in the District of Columbia, after 1st January 1843, unlawful. That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, it shall not be lawful, to keep within the District of Columbia any office or place of business for the sale of lottery tickets, or of any share or interest in lottery tickets, nor shall it be lawful to sell or offer for sale within the said District, any lottery ticket or any share or interest in any lottery ticket;Penalty for offending. and every person who shall be duly convicted of offending against the provisions of this act shall be punished by imprisonment in the common jail of the county in which the offence shall have been committed for a period not less than one, nor more than six calendar months, and shall forfeit and pay a fine of not less than one hundred nor exceeding one thousand dollars, one half of which shall go to the informer, and the other half to the municipal corporation within whose corporate limits the offence shall have been committed; but if committed without the limits of any municipal corporation, then such moiety of the fine shall go to the United States.
Sales of lottery tickets void―lawful to recover the money. Certain lottery tickets excepted for one year.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the contract of sale for such lottery ticket or tickets, or share or interest in such lottery ticket or tickets, shall be absolutely void, and the person or persons paying therefor shall have a right to recover back the money paid therefor as money paid on a void consideration: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to restrain the selling of lottery tickets, so far as the same is authorized by any existing contract made by the Common Council of the city of Alexandria, under an ordinance of the Common Council of the said city, passed on the fifth day of December, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, and approved by the President of the United States, if such contract is made, and so far as the same is made, in conformity with the provisions of its charter, nor so far as the selling of the same is authorized by any subsisting license of any of the cities of the said District, for the period of one year from the passage of this act: And provided, further, That it shall not be lawful, under color of any ​contract made with the Common Council of the said city of Alexandria, as aforesaid, to vend or sell tickets, or parts of tickets, or shares, in any lottery or lotteries, authorized by the Legislature of any State or Territory within the United States, or any foreign Government.
Approved, August 31, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 3

Chap. III.—An Act making an appropriation for the relief and protection of American seamen in foreign countries.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Appropriation. That the sum of fifteen thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any unappropriated money in the Treasury, for the relief and protection of American seamen in foreign countries;To be expended according to the act of Feb. 28, 1803, ch. 9. to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the “act supplementary concerning consuls and vice consuls, and for the further protection of American seamen,” passed twenty-eighth February, eighteen hundred and three.
Approved, February 12, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 280

Chap. CCLXXX.—An Act concerning the payment of Florida militia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Appropriations for subsistence in act 23d Aug. 1842, ch. 192, applicable to subsistence furnished in 1839 and 1840. that the appropriations for subsistence made in the act entitled “An act for the payment of Florida militia called into service in the years eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, and eighteen hundred and forty,” and approved August twenty-third, eighteen hundred and forty-two, shall be applicable to the settlement of any claims for subsistence furnished to the Florida militia in eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, and eighteen hundred and forty, not heretofore settled:Proviso. Proviso. Provided, That no supplies be paid for other than those authorized by law or regulation: And provided, further, That the appropriation specified in said act shall not be exceeded.
Approved, August 31, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 283

Chap. CCLXXXIII.—An Act to provide for purchasing materials and for the support of the penitentiary in the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Appropriation. That the sum of seven thousand nine hundred and sixty-five dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for the purpose of furnishing raw materials for manufacture and for the support of the penitentiary in the District of Columbia, to be expended under the direction of the board of inspectors of said penitentiary, and to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, August 31, 1842.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 287

Chap. CCLXXXVII.—An Act to limit the sale of the public stock on par, and to authorize the issue of Treasury notes, in lieu thereof, to a certain amount.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,No stock authorized by acts of 21st July, 1841, ch. 3, and 15th April 1842, ch. 26, to be sold below par. That no stock authorized to be issued for a loan, by the act entitled “An act authorizing a loan not exceeding the sum of twelve millions of dollars,” approved July twenty-first, eighteen hundred and forty-one, and the act amendatory of the same, entitled “An act for the extension of the loan of eighteen hundred and forty-one, and for an addition of five million of dollars thereto, and for allowing interest on Treasury notes due,” approved April fifteenth, eighteen hundred and forty-two, shall hereafter be sold below par;Issue of treasury notes authorized upon certain contingencies. and in case the same cannot be sold at or above par, and the exigencies of the public service shall require the same, then and in that case the Secretary of the Treasury shall be, and hereby is, authorized to issue Treasury notes in lieu of so much thereof as cannot be thus negotiated, to an amount not exceeding six millions of dollars.
Time for the issuing of the treasury notes limited. To be issued under the provisions and limitations of acts of 12th October, 1837, ch. 2, and 31st March 1840, ch. 5. Proviso. Amount outstanding not to exceed $6,000,000.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Treasury notes authorized to be issued by virtue of this act shall not be issued after the time limited by said last mentioned act, being the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and forty-three, for making said loan, and they shall be issued under the provisions and limitations contained in the act entitled “An act to authorize the issuing of Treasury notes,” approved the twelfth day of October, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, and as modified by the act entitled “An act additional to the act on the subject of Treasury notes,” approved March thirty-first, eighteen hundred and forty: Provided, That the notes authorized to be issued by virtue of this act may, when redeemed, be reissued, or new notes issued in lieu of such as may be redeemed within the time above prescribed for issuing the same, provided that not more than six millions in amount shall be outstanding at any one time under the authority of this act.
Relative to the issuing of certificates of stock.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That nothing in the act contained, entitled an act authorizing the loan, above referred to, and an act amendatory of the same, shall be so construed as to authorize the issue of certificates of stock, for debts now due or to become due by the United States, for any other purpose than a bona fide loan to the Government ​according to the original intention of that law, and that no certificate for any loan shall be issued for a less sum than one hundred dollars.
Approved, August 31, 1842.
# United States v. Thomas (362 U.S. 58)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 58
United States v. Thomas (362 U.S. 58)
Pursuant to its order of January 26, 1960, 361 U.S. 950, 80 S.Ct. 398, the Court has before it (1) the application of the United States for an order vacating the order of the Court of Appeals, dated January 21, 1960, staying the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division, dated January 11, 1960, 180 F.Supp. 10; and (2) the petition of the United States for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review the judgment of the District Court as to the respondent, Curtis M. Thomas, Registrar of Voters, Washington Parish, Louisiana. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments submitted by both sides, the Court makes the following disposition of these matters:
The petition for certiorari is granted. Upon the opinion, findings of fact, and conclusions of law of the District Court and the decision of this Court rendered today in United States v. Raines, 80 S.Ct. 519, the aforesaid stay order of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the judgment of the District Court as to the respondent Thomas is affirmed. It is so ordered.

## 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
# United States v. Thomas (195 U.S. 418)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
195 U.S. 418
United States v. Thomas
Argued: October 11, 1904. --- Decided: December 5, 1904
This was a petition for certain allowances claimed to be due petitioner as a captain in the United States Navy, under act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. at L. 1007, chap. 413, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 1072), equalizing the pay of Army and Navy officers, and known as the Navy personnel act. The findings of fact are too long to be here reproduced, but the several items claimed by petitioner, and from the disposition of which these appeals are taken, are cited by counsel in their brief and by the court of claims as follows:
1. From May 26, 1900, to March 1, 1901, he was paid sea pay of a captain, at $4,500 a year, and claims 10 per cent increase of this pay for services in the Philippines and in China, under the acts of May 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901. 31 Stat. at L. 211, chap. 586, and 31 Stat. at L. 903, chap. 803, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 896.
2. From March 2, 1901, to June 11, 1901, he was paid the sea pay of a captain,-$4,500 a year,-and claims 10 per cent increase of this pay for service outside the United States, under the provisions of the act of March 2, 1901.
3. From June 12, 1901, to September 30, 1901, he was paid sea pay at $4,500 a year, and claims 10 per cent increase under the act of March 2, 1901, for service outside the United States. During this time he was in the waters of the San Francisco bay, traveling from San Francisco to Puget sound, and in the waters of Puget sound. This claim is made provisionally in case his service in Chinese and Philippine waters is not considered to be service 'in China' and 'in the Philippine islands,' entitling him to 10 per cent increase from May 26, 1900, to March 1, 1901. In that event he would claim that his service in waters of the United States was beyond the limits of the states comprising the Union.
4. Between December 2, 1899, when relieved as commanding officer of the U.S. S. Lancaster, and ordered to report to the Navy Department, and February 7, 1900, when he took command of the U.S. S. Baltimore at Hong Kong, China, he was paid only shore pay,-$3,825 a year,-15 per cent less than pay,-$3,825 a year,-15 per cent less than during that time.
The last item was disallowed. The first three items were at first disallowed, but, on a rehearing, were allowed and final judgment rendered for $568.29. 38 Ct. Cl. 113, 719. Both parties appealed to this court.
Messrs. George A. King and William B. King for Thomas.
Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Mr. John Q. Thompson for the United States.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:
Mr. Justice Brown 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
# United States v. Thomas (362 U.S. 58)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 58
United States v. Thomas (362 U.S. 58)
Sol. Gen. J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Weldon A. Cousins and Henry J. Roberts, Jr., New Orleans, La., for respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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
# United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs/Concurrence Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Harlan Stewart
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 363
United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs
Argued: Jan. 20, 1971. --- Decided: May 3, 1971
Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring in the judgment and in Part I of Mr. Justice WHITE'S opinion.
I agree that the First Amendment does not prevent the border seizure of obscene materials sought to be imported for commercial dissemination. For the reasons expressed in Part I of Mr. Justice WHITE'S opinion, I also agree that Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649, requires that there be time limits for the initiation of forfeiture proceedings and for the completion of the judicial determination of obscenity.
But I would not in this case decide, even by way of dicta, that the Government may lawfully seize literary material intended for the purely private use of the importer. The terms of the statute appear to apply to an American tourist who, after exercising his constitutionally protected liberty to travel abroad, returns home with a single book in his luggage, with no intention of selling it or otherwise using it, except to read it. If the Government can constitutionally take the book away from him as he passes through customs, then I do not understand the meaning of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.

## Notes

* ↑ As Mr. Justice WHITE'S opinion correctly says, even if seizure of material for private use is unconstitutional, the statute can still stand in appropriately narrowed form, and the seizure in this case clearly falls within the valid sweep of such a narrowed statute. Ante, at 375, n. 3.
* ↑ Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992.
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
# United States v. Thomas

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Thomas."
* 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.
* United States v. Thomas (82 U.S. 337)
* United States v. Thomas (151 U.S. 577)
* United States v. Thomas (195 U.S. 418)
* United States v. Thomas (362 U.S. 58)
See also Thomas v. United States.
# United States v. Jorn/Concurrence Burger

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Burger
* Dissenting Opinion Stewart
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 470
United States v. Jorn
Argued: Jan. 12, 1970. --- Decided: Oct 22, 1970
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, concurring.
I join in the plurality opinion and in the judgment of the Court not without some reluctance, however, since the case represents a plain frustration of the right to have this case tried, attributable solely to the conduct of the trial judge. If the accused had brought about the erroneous mistrial ruling we would have a different case, but this record shows nothing to take appellee's claims outside the classic mold of being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice BRENNAN believe that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 because the action of the trial judge amounted to an acquittal of appellee and therefore there was no discretion left to the trial judge to put appellee again in jeopardy. However, in view of a decision by a majority of the Court to reach the merits, they join the judgment of the Court.
Mr. Justice STEWART, with whom Mr. Justice WHITE and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN join, 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