OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Collected poems, 1901-1918/The Keys of Morning

THE KEYS OF MORNING
WHILE at her bedroom window once, Learning her task for school,
Little Louisa lonely sat
In the morning clear and cool,
She slanted her small bead-brown eyes
Across the empty street,
And saw Death softly watching her
In the sunshine pale and sweet.
His was a long lean sallow face;
He sat with half-shut eyes,
Like an old sailor in a ship
Becalmed 'neath tropic skies.
Beside him in the dust he had set
His staff and shady hat;
These, peeping small, Louisa saw
Quite clearly where she sat —
The thinness of his coal-black locks,
His hands so long and lean
They scarcely seemed to grasp at all
The keys that hung between:
Both were of gold, but one was small,
And with this last did he
Wag in the air, as if to say,
"Come hither, child, to me!"
Louisa laid her lesson book
On the cold window-sill;
And in the sleepy sunshine house
Went softly down, until
She stood in the half-opened door,
And peeped. But strange to say,
Where Death just now had sunning sat
Only a shadow lay:
Just the tall chimney's round-topped cowl,
And the small sun behind,
Had with its shadow in the dust
Called sleepy Death to mind.
But most she thought how strange it was
Two keys that he should bear,
And that, when beckoning, he should wag
The littlest in the air.
# Confederate Military History/Volume 4

Scans

## Contents

* Opening Contents
* Preface
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Biographical
# Connor v. Johnson (386 U.S. 483)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 483
Connor v. Johnson
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set down for argument.

## 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
# Connor v. Johnson (386 U.S. 483)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 483
Connor v. Johnson
Carl Rachlin, Marvin M. Karpatkin, Arthur Kinoy, Melvin L. Wulf, Alvin J. Bronstein and Robert B. McKay, for appellants.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen. of Mississippi and Martin R. McLendon, Asst. Atty. Gen., 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
# Connor v. Featherstone

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
25 U.S. 199
Connor v. Featherstone
Jan. 1
THIS cause was argued by Mr. White, for the appellants, and by Mr. Isaacks, for the respondents. Feb. 1st.
Mr. Justice TRIMBLE 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
# Connor v. Johnson

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Connor v. Johnson."
* 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.
* Connor v. Johnson (386 U.S. 483)
* Connor v. Johnson (402 U.S. 690)
# Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
184 U.S. 540
Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Company
Argued: April 22, 23, 1901. --- Decided: March 10, 1902
Messrs. Henry D. Coghlan and Joseph A. O'Donnell for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Herbert Hamlin and Edwin Walker for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Harlan 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
# Connor v. Johnson (402 U.S. 690)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 690
Connor et al. v. Johnson et al.
On Application for Stay
No. N/A. Argued: N/A --- Decided: June 3, 1971
A three-judge District Court invalidated Mississippi apportionment statute as allowing impermissibly large variations among election districts. The court stated that single-member districts "would be ideal," but in light of a June 4, 1971, deadline for filing notices of candidacy, issued its apportionment plan providing for some multi-member districts, including Hinds County. Applicants, who had quickly submitted four plans calling for single-member districts in Hinds County, ask for a stay of that judgment and an extension of the filing deadline until the District Court provides single-member districts for Hinds County, or until the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia approves the District Court's apportionment plan under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Held: A stay is granted until June 14, 1971.
    (a) A decree of the district court is not within the reach of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
    (b) Single-member districts are generally preferable to large multi-member districts in court-fashioned apportionment plans.
    (c) In view of the availability of 1970 census data and the dispatch with which applicants devised their plans, the District Court is instructed, absent insurmountable difficulties, to devise and put into effect a single-member district plan for Hinds County by June 14, 1971, and to extend appropriately the filing date for candidates for that county.
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
# Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
207 U.S. 142
Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
Argued: October 17, 18, 1907. --- Decided: November 18, 1907
Messrs. Charles Koonce, jr., R. B. Murray, and W. S. Anderson for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 143 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George F. Arrel, James P. Wilson, and Arrel, wilson, & Harrington for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 144-146 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Moody delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company v. Stude

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Jackson

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 574
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company v. Stude
Argued: Jan. 18, 1954. --- Decided: Dec 2, 3, 1953
See 347 U.S. 924, 74 S.Ct. 512.
Messrs. Alden B. Howland, B. A. Webster, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner.
Messrs. Raymond A. Smith, Council Bluffs, Iowa, Harold W. Kauffman, Omaha, Neb., for respondents.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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
# Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company v. Stude/Concurrence Jackson

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Jackson
* Dissenting Opinions Black Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 574
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company v. Stude
Argued: Jan. 18, 1954. --- Decided: Dec 2, 3, 1953
Mr. Justice JACKSON concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice BLACK, 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
# Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railway Company v. Latta

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 519
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railway Company v. Latta
Argued: March 8 and 11, 1912. --- Decided: October 22 and 23, 1912
Messrs. James B. Sheean, B. H. Dunham, Carl C. Wright, and Benjamin T. White for petitioner.
Messrs. H. C. Brome and W. M. Hopewell for respondent.
Mr. Justice Lurton 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
# Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company v. Stude/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Jackson
* Dissenting Opinions Black Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 574
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company v. Stude
Argued: Jan. 18, 1954. --- Decided: Dec 2, 3, 1953
Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting.
I think the railroad has a right to have its case tried in the United States District Court. Congress has given such courts power to try any case that is (1) a 'civil' action, (2) between 'Citizens of different States', (3) a 'controversy,' and (4) involves a matter which 'exceeds the sum or value of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs'. 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. If a complaint alleges these four things a district court has jurisdiction. Here the railroad's complaint shows all four. The case is plainly a 'civil' action, not a criminal one. The railroad is a 'citizen' of Delaware and the other parties are 'citizens' of Iowa. There is a 'controversy' about transferring title to property and how much the railroad must pay for it. And the dispute concerns more than $3,000-the owners want $23,888.60, the railroad is willing to pay only $10,000. The foregoing allegations were sufficient to establish and did establish district court jurisdiction. Other facts were also alleged. If these facts were relevant to nonjurisdictional issues they were properly alleged; if immaterial they could have been stricken. In any event, a court cannot lose its power to act merely because of unnecessary words. A point is made of the railroad's reference to certain prior state proceedings as though it had a right to 'appeal' to the federal court from these proceedings. But assuming that the railroad confidently believed it had a right to appeal from the state commission, and therefore put a wrong label on its civil action, the District Court was still under a duty to try the case. After all, the railroad simply asked the court to fix damages for the property taken at 'not to exceed $10,000,' and for 'such further relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances.' And the pendency of a similar condemnation proceeding in the state court certainly did not destroy the federal court's jurisdiction. Nor did the District Court lose its jurisdiction because the railroad failed to invoke Rule 71A or to observe its procedure. In trying the case, the court should of course require observance of the Rule, if applicable, but failure of the railroad to comply with it is no sufficient reason for the court's refusal to settle the controversy. All of the alleged procedural mistakes attributed to the railroad could easily have been cured; none could possibly justify a final, unconditional dismissal of its cause of action. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939; Brown v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 338 U.S. 294, 298 299, 303, 70 S.Ct. 105, 107-108, 110, 94 L.Ed. 100.

## 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
# Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railroad Company v. Holmberg

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 162
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railroad Company v. Holmberg
Argued: Oct. 23, 1930. --- Decided: Dec 1, 1930
Messrs. Wymer Dressler and Robert D. Neely, both of Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. O. S. Spillman, of Norfolk, Neb., and Hugh La Master, of Lincoln, Neb., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railway Company v. Latta/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 519
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railway Company v. Latta
Argued: March 8 and 11, 1912. --- Decided: October 22 and 23, 1912
This was an action to recover the full value of two horses lost in the course of interstate transportation.
The defense in substance was that the plaintiff had declared the value of each of the animals to not exceed $100, and had signed a shipping contract wherein he agreed that that was the value, and that the company's liability in case of loss or damage should not exceed the agreed value. It was also shown that the schedule of tariff rates was based upon values, and that a higher rate was allowable if a higher value had been declared. It was claimed that a limitation of liability, made for the purpose of obtaining the lower of alternative rates, was admissible under the provisions of the 7th section of the interstate commerce act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U.S.C.omp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1288).
The circuit court instructed a verdict for the agreed value, ruling that the contract was valid and was controlled by the interstate commerce acts. The circuit court of appeals reversed this judgment, upon the ground that the contract was invalid under the Constitution of the state of Nebraska, and held the plaintiff entitled to recover the full value of the animals. 97 C. C. A. 198, 172 Fed. 850. The case was remanded to the circuit court, where, in pursuance of the judgment and opinion of the circuit court of appeals, the jury was instructed that it should find the actual value of the animals lost, and return a verdict for that amount. Upon a second writ of error this judgment was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, and the cause has come to this court upon a writ of certiorari.
The case is governed by the cases of Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 57 L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148, and Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U.S. 513, 57 L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 155, both just decided.
Judgment reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

## 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
# County of Moultrie v. Rockingham Ten-Cent Savings-Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 631
County of Moultrie v. Rockingham Ten-Cent Savings-Bank
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. John R. Eden and Mr. W. J. Henry for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. S. M. Cullom, contra.
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
# County of Nemaha v. Frank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 41
County of Nemaha v. Frank
W. J. Lamb and John M. Thurston, for plaintiff in error.
J. M. Woolworth, for defendant in error.
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
# County of Moultrie v. Fairfield

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 370
County of Moultrie v. Fairfield
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.
This action was brought by Fairfield against the county of Moultrie, upon the common counts, for money lent, money had and received, and money due on account stated, with notice that he would give in evidence coupons detached from certain bonds of the county issued in satisfaction of its respective donations in aid of the Bloomington and Ohio River Railroad Company, and the Decatur, Sullivan, and Mattoon Railroad Company. Plea, non assumpsit, under which, by agreement, the county was allowed to offer any evidence and make any defence that would be competent under any special plea well pleaded. The parties submitted the issues of fact as well as of law to the court; and a special finding of facts was made, upon which judgment in his favor was rendered, to reverse which the county brought this writ of error. The material facts are set forth in the opinion of this court.
Mr. John R. Eden for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Shelby M. Cullom and Mr. E. S. Bailey for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE WOODS 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
# County of Ouachita v. Wolcott

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 559
County of Ouachita v. Wolcott
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Augustus H. Garland and Mr. F. W. Compton for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. U. M. Rose, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# Converse

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Converse."
* 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.
* Converse, hymn tune by Charles Crozat Converse, 1868.
* Converse, United States Supreme Court decision by Melville Fuller, 1891.
# Converse (United States Supreme Court)

United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 624
Converse
[Statement of Case from pages 624-630 intentionally omitted]
J. C. Patterson, for appellant.
B. W. Huston, Atty. Gen. Mich., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago/Chapter 11A

141A.-1. There shall be an Assembly for Tobago to be called "the Tobago House of Assembly", in this Chapter referred to as "the Assembly".
2. The Assembly shall consist of a Presiding Officer and such other members qualified and appointed in such manner and holding office upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
141B.-Subject to this Constitution, the Assembly shall have such powers and functions in relation to Tobago as may be prescribed.
141C.-1. There shall be an Executive Council of the Assembly consisting of a Chief Secretary and such number of Secretaries as may be prescribed, to be appointed in such manner as may be prescribed.
2. The functions of the Chief Secretary and other Secretaries shall be prescribed.
141D.-There is established a fund to be called "the Tobago House of Assembly Fund" which shall consist of -
a. such monies as may be appropriated by Parliament for the use of the Assembly; and
b. such other monies as the Assembly may lawfully collect.
# Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago/Chapter 10
## The Integrity Commission

138.- 1. There shall be an Integrity Commission (in this section and in section 139 referred to as "the Commission") for Trinidad and Tobago consisting of such number of members, qualified and appointed in such manner and holding office upon such tenure as may be prescribed.
2. The Commission shall be charged with the duty of-
a. receiving from time to time, declarations in writing of the assets, liabilities and income of members of the House of Representatives, Ministers of Government, Parliamentary Secretaries, Senators, Judges, Magistrates, Permanent Secretaries, Chief Technical Officers, Members of the Tobago House of Assembly, Members of Municipalities, Members of Local Government Authorities and members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies, State Enterprises and the holders of such other offices as may be prescribed.
b. the supervision of all matters connected therewith as may be prescribed;
c. the supervision and monitoring of standards of ethical conduct prescribed by Parliament to be observed by the holders of offices referred to in paragraph (a), as well as members of the Diplomatic Service, Advisers to the Government and any person appointed by a Service Commission or the Statutory Authorities' Service Commission;
d. the monitoring and investigating of conduct, practices and procedures which are dishonest or corrupt.

## Power to Make Laws Relating to Commission

139.- Subject to this Constitution, Parliament may make provision for-
a. the procedure in accordance with which the Commission is to perform its functions;
b. conferring such powers on the Commission and imposing such duties on persons concerned as are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out effectively the purposes of section 138;
c. the proper custody of declarations and other documents delivered to the Commission;
d. the maintenance of secrecy in respect of all information received by the Commission in the course of its duties with respect to the assets, liabilities and income of any member of Parliament and any other person;
da. the preparation by the Commission, of a Register of Interests for public inspection.
e. generally to give effect to the provisions of section 138.
# Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago/Chapter 11
## Constitution of Commission

140.- 1. There shall be a Salaries Review Commission which shall consist of a Chairman and four other members all of whom shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
2. The members of the Salaries Review Commission shall hold office in accordance with section 126.

## Fuction of Commission

141.- 1. The Salaries Review Commission shall from time to time with the approval of the President review the salaries and other conditions of service of the President, the holders of offices referred to in section 136(12) to (15), members of Parliament, including Ministers of Government and Parliamentary Secretaries, and the holders of such other offices as may be prescribed.
2. The report of the Salaries Review Commission concerning any review of salaries or of the conditions of service, or both, shall be submitted to the Prime Minister for presentation to the Cabinet and shall be laid as soon as posible thereafter on the table of each House.
# Crime and Punishment/Part V

PART V