OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division A/Title II/Subtitle C

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 2201. - FINDINGS RELATING TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEHOOD.

Congress finds the following:
    (1) The 705,000 District of Columbia residents deserve voting representation in Congress and local self-government, which only statehood can provide.
    (2) The United States is the only democratic country that denies both voting representation in the national legislature and local self-government to the residents of its Nation’s capital.
    (3) There are no constitutional, historical, fiscal, or economic reasons why the Americans who live in the District of Columbia should not be granted statehood.
    (4) Since the founding of the United States, the residents of the District of Columbia have always carried all of the obligations of citizenship, including serving in all of the Nation’s wars and paying Federal taxes, but have been denied voting representation in Congress and freedom from congressional interference in purely local matters.
    (5) The District of Columbia pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more Federal taxes than 22 States.
    (6) The District of Columbia has a larger population than 2 States (Wyoming and Vermont), and 6 States have a population under one million.
    (7) The District of Columbia has a larger budget than 12 States.
    (8) The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the authority to admit new States (clause 1, section 3, article IV) and reduce the size of the seat of the Government of the United States (clause 17, section 8, article I). All 37 new States have been admitted by an Act of Congress, and Congress has previously reduced the size of the seat of the Government of the United States.
    (9) On June 26, 2020, by a vote of 232–180, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would have admitted the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth from the residential portions of the District of Columbia and reduced the size of the seat of the Government of the United States to the United States Capitol, the White House, the United States Supreme Court, the National Mall, and the principal Federal monuments and buildings.
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division A/Title II

117th congress (2021-2022)
    Subtitle A − Findings Reaffirming Commitment Of Congress To Restore The Voting Rights Act
    Subtitle B − Findings Relating To Native American Voting Rights
    Subtitle C − Findings Relating To District Of Columbia Statehood
    Subtitle D − Territorial Voting Rights
    Subtitle E − Redistricting Reform
       PART 1 − REQUIREMENTS FOR CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING
       PART 2 − INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS
       PART 3 − ROLE OF COURTS IN DEVELOPMENT OF REDISTRICTING PLANS
       PART 4 − ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
       PART 5 − REQUIREMENTS FOR REDISTRICTING CARRIED OUT PURSUANT TO 2020 CENSUS
          Subpart A − APPLICATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR REDISTRICTING CARRIED OUT PURSUANT TO 2020 CENSUS
          Subpart B − INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS FOR REDISTRICTING CARRIED OUT PURSUANT TO 2020 CENSUS
    Subtitle F − Saving Eligible Voters From Voter Purging
    Subtitle G − No Effect On Authority Of States To Provide Greater Opportunities For Voting
    Subtitle H − Residence Of Incarcerated Individuals
    Subtitle I − Findings Relating To Youth Voting
    Subtitle J − Severability
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division A/Title II/Subtitle B

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 2101. - FINDINGS RELATING TO NATIVE AMERICAN VOTING RIGHTS.

Congress finds the following:
    (1) The right to vote for all Americans is sacred. Congress must fulfill the Federal Government’s trust responsibility to protect and promote Native Americans’ exercise of their fundamental right to vote, including equal access to voter registration voting mechanisms and locations, and the ability to serve as election officials.
    (2) The Native American Voting Rights Coalition’s four-State survey of voter discrimination (2016) and nine field hearings in Indian Country (2017–2018) revealed obstacles that Native Americans must overcome, including a lack of accessible and proximate registration and polling sites, nontraditional addresses for residents on Indian reservations, inadequate language assistance for Tribal members, and voter identification laws that discriminate against Native Americans. The Department of Justice and courts have recognized that some jurisdictions have been unresponsive to reasonable requests from federally recognized Indian Tribes for more accessible and proximate voter registration sites and in-person voting locations.
    (3) The 2018 midterm and 2020 general elections provide further evidence that systemic voter discrimination and intimidation continues to occur in communities of color and Tribal lands across the country, making it clear that democracy reform cannot be achieved until Congress restores key provisions of the Voting Rights Act and passes additional protections.
    (4) Congress has broad, plenary authority to enact legislation to safeguard the voting rights of Native American voters.
    (5) Congress must conduct investigatory and evidentiary hearings to determine the necessary legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act and combat continuous efforts that suppress the voter franchise within Tribal lands, to include, but not to be limited to, the Native American Voting Rights Act (NAVRA) and the Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA).
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division A/Title II/Subtitle H

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 2701. - RESIDENCE OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS.

Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is amended—
       (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
    “(g) (1) Effective beginning with the 2020 decennial census of population, in taking any tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) for purposes of the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, with respect to an individual incarcerated in a State, Federal, county, or municipal correctional center as of the date on which such census is taken, attribute such individual to such individual’s last place of residence before incarceration.
    “(2) In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with each State department of corrections to collect the information necessary to make the determination required under paragraph (1).”.
# For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1; 117th Congress)/Division A/Title II/Subtitle G

117th congress (2021-2022)

#### SEC. 2601. - NO EFFECT ON AUTHORITY OF STATES TO PROVIDE GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR VOTING.

Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title may be construed to prohibit any State from enacting any law which provides greater opportunities for individuals to register to vote and to vote in elections for Federal office than are provided by this title and the amendments made by this title.
# Fetters v. United States Cunningham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 638
Fetters v. United States Cunningham
Argued: April 16, 1931. --- Decided: May 25, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. Claude R. Branch, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Ruby R. Vale, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents (which holds that a patent can be infringed by something that is not literally falling within the scope of the claims because a somewhat insubstantial feature or element has been substituted) and the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel (which holds that a party who makes a change to a patent application to accommodate the requirements of patent law cannot claim indirect infringement of an element that was narrowed by that change).Warning: template has been deprecated.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
535 U.S. 722
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
No. 00—1543. Argued January 8, 2002–Decided May 28, 2002
# Few, yet enough

Few, yet enough, Enough is One — To that ethereal throng Have not each one of us the right To stealthily belong?
# Ethan Frome

Ethan Frome is a novella by Edith Wharton, and is set in the fictitious town of Starkfield, Massachusetts, near the end of the 19th cenutry. The book was first published in 1911; a second edition was issued in 1922 after Wharton received the Pulitzer Prize.
* Ethan Frome (1911), 1st edition, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
* Ethan Frome (1922), 2nd "Limited" edition, with added Introduction, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. (transcription project)
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 1937, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 86 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
# Ethan Frome (Scribners 1911)

The first edition of Ethan Frome, published in 1911 by Charles Scribner's Sons.
ETHAN FROME
BY
EDITH WHARTON
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
MCMXI
* Prologue
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Epilogue
COPYRIGHT, 1911, BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
Published October, 1911
BOOKS BY EDITH WHARTON :
| The Greater Inclination. 12mo | $1.50 |
| The Touchstone. 12mo | $1.25 |
| Crucial Instances. 12mo | $1.50 |
| The Valley of Decision. 12mo | $1.50 |
| Sanctuary. 12mo | $1.25 |
| The Descent of Man and Other Stories. 12mo | $1.50 |
| The House of Mirth. 12mo | $1.50 |
| The Fruit of the Tree. 12mo | $1.50 |
| The Hermit and the Wild Woman and Other Stories. 12mo | $1.50 |
| Tales of Men and Ghosts. 12mo | $1.50 |
| Ethan Frome. 12mo. (Postage extra), net | $1.00 |
| Italian Backgrounds. Illus., 8vo net | $2.50 |
| A Motor Flight Through France. Illus., 8vo. net | $2.00 |
| Artemis to Actæon and Other Verse, net | $1.25 |
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 1937, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 86 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
# Fink v. Board of Com'rs of Muskogee County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 399
Fink v. Board of Com'rs of Muskogee County
Argued: Dec. 13 and 16, 1918. --- Decided: Jan 13, 1919
Messrs. Charles B. Rogers, of Tulsa, Okl., W. O. Cromwell and George W. Buckner, both of Enid, Okl., and J. D. Simms, of Muskogee, Okl., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice McKENNA 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
# Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration

* related portals: The Times, World War I.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
A statement to Sassoon's commanding officer declining to return to duty, prepared with the assistance of Bertrand Russell and John Middleton Murry. Copies were printed and distributed to influential people and to the press. It was published in Bradford Pioneer on July 27, read to the British House of Commons on July 30, and was then printed in the London Times the following day. Sassoon's friend and fellow-officer Robert Graves successfully persuaded the authorities that he was mentally ill, and so unfit to face a court-martial. Instead, he was sent to Craiglockhart Hospital and treated for shell shock under the care of W. H. R. Rivers.
​Lt. Siegfried Sassoon.
3rd Batt: Royal Welsh Fusiliers.
July, 1917.
I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority because I believe that the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that the war upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation has now become a war of agression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them and that had this been done the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.
I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.
On behalf of those who are suffering now, I make this protest against the deception which is being practised upon them; also I believe it may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share and which they have not enough imagination to realise.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Finite—to fail, but infinite to Venture—

Finite — to fail, but infinite to Venture — For the one ship that struts the shore Many's the gallant — overwhelmed Creature Nodding in Navies nevermore —
# Fink v. O'Neil

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 272
Fink v. O'Neil
This is a bill in equity filed by the appellee praying for a perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant, then United States marshal for the district, from further proceeding under a fi. fa., issued upon a judgment rendered in favor of the United States in the district court for the eastern district of Wisconsin, against the appellee and others, and which had been levied on real estate alleged to be the homestead of the appellee, and exempt under the laws of that state from sale on execution. The premises levied on are described in the bill as 40 acres of land, with a dwelling-house and appurtenances thereon, occupied by the appellee as a residence for himself and family, consisting of his wife and seven children, the same being used for agricultural purposes, not included in any town, city, or village plat, and alleged to be of the value of $6,000 and upwards; and it is averred that the cause of action upon which the judgment was rendered was not for any debt or liability contracted prior to January 1, 1849. To this bill there was filed a general demurrer, for want of equity, which being overruled, and the appellant declining to answer or plead, a decree was rendered granting the relief prayed for, from which this appeal is prosecuted. The provision of the statute of Wisconsin on the subject of homestead exemptions, the benefit of which was secured to the appellee by the decree appealed from, is as follows:
'A homestead to be selected by the owner thereof, consisting when not included in any village or city, of any quantity of land, not exceeding 40 acres, used for agricultural purposes, and when included in any city or village, of a quantity of land not exceeding one-fourth of an acre, and the dwelling-house thereon and its appurtenances, owned and occupied by any resident of this state, shall be exempt from seizure or sale on execution, from the lien of every judgment, and from liability in any form for the debts of such owner, except laborers', mechanics', and purchase-money liens, and mortgages lawfully executed, and taxes lawfully assessed, and except as otherwise specially provided in these statutes,' etc. Rev. St. Wis. 1878, p. 783, c. 130, § 2983.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for appellant.
No counsel for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 273-274 intentionally omitted]
MATTHEWS, J.

## 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
# Fink v. Shepard Steamship Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 810
Fink v. Shepard Steamship Company
Argued: Feb. 2, 1949. --- Decided: June 27, 1949
Mr. James Landye, Portland, Or., for petitioner Fink.
Mr. Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner Gaynor.
Mr. Leavenworth Colby, 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
# Francis v. United States (72 U.S. 338)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
72 U.S. 338
Francis v. United States
Although the consideration of this case might be dismissed, as the plaintiff in error is no party to the record, yet it may not be improper to notice the decision of the court below as stated in the exception taken.
In reference to that, it is to be observed, that the proceedings in this case were not instituted for the joint benefit of the informer and the United States. Francis did not offer to interpose in the case till three months after the proceedings had been instituted 'wholly for the benefit of the United States,' after issue joined with the claimants on proof furnished by others. An unofficial informer is liable for costs and damages in case of judgment in favor of the claimants. The informer should come forward and have the information made in his own name. He cannot thus intrude himself on the record after the case is prepared and about to be tried by a jury, and when a condemnation is imminent, and when he has avoided responsibility for costs in thus keeping back. If the claimants had succeeded they could have no judgment against the United States for costs, nor against him as not being a party to the suit.
The information given to the collector of the port is under the act of July 13, 1861, which is an act for the collection of duties on imports. By the supplement of May 20, 1862, to that act, the penalties are to be distributed according to the 91st section of the act of March 2, 1799, an act to regulate the collection of duties on imports.
Now, the act of August 6, 1861, differs entirely in its scope and character from that of July 13th, in the same year. It is not an act for the collection of revenue. The collector of customs is not the seizing officer, nor as such entitled to a share in the fines and penalties inflicted by the act and its supplement.
In this case the property is seized as liable to capture; and it is made the duty of the President to cause 'the same to be seized.'
The act for regulating process in the courts of the United States, passed May 8, 1792, sections 5 and 6, provides for the taxation and payment of costs by informers.
So the act of 28th of February, 1799, section 8, providing for compensation of marshals, &c., provides for cases of informers on penal statutes, as to payment of fees and costs.
All the laws on the subject are based upon the supposition that the informer should be a party to the original proceeding. He cannot thrust himself into a proceeding instituted by the Attorney-General, for the sole use of the government, when it is resisted by such officer, who denies all his allegations, and refuses any further partnership with him.
Even if the plaintiff in error had been a party to the litigation, which he was not, and entitled to be heard, it is evident that he could not support his case.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

## 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
# Francis v. Williams/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 693
Francis v. Williams
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

## 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
# Francis v. Williams

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 693
Francis v. Williams
Messrs. Adolf A. Berle, Jr., of New York City, and David Wallerstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles H. Gibson, of Thomas, Virgin Islands, for respondent.

## 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
# Francisca

FRANCISCA
Francisca walks in the shadow of night, But it is not to gaze on the heavenly light— But if she sits in her garden bower, 'Tis not for the sake of its blowing flower. She listens—but not for the nightingale, Though her ear expects as soft a tale. There winds a step through the foliage thick, And her cheek grows pale—and her heart beats quick. There whispers a voice thro' the rustling leaves, A moment more—and they shall meet— 'Tis past—her Lover's at her feet.
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
# Francklyn v. Sprague

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
121 U.S. 215
Francklyn v. Sprague
Wm. Allen Butler and James McKeen, for appellants.
B. F. Thurston and C. Frank Parkhurst, for appellees.
BRADLEY, J.

## 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
# Felicia Hemans in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine Volume 35 1834/On a Remembered Picture of Christ

Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 35, Page 632
II.
ON A REMEMBERED PICTURE OF CHRIST, AN ECCE HOMO BY LEONARDO DA VINCI.
I met that image on a mirthful day
Of youth; and sinking with a still'd surprise,
The pride of life, before those holy eyes,
In my quick heart died thoughtfully away,
Abash'd to mute confession of a sway
Awful, though meek:—and now, that from the strings
Of my soul's lyre, the Tempest's mighty wings
Have struck forth tones which there unwaken'd lay;
Now, that around the deep life of my mind,
Affections, deathless as itself, have twined,
Oft doth the pale bright vision still float by;
But more divinely sweet, and speaking now,
Of one whose pity, throned on that sad brow,
Sounded all depths of Love, Grief, Death–Humanity!