OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# News Release: Military Commission Charges Referred

                         No. 478-07
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 24, 2007
Military Commission Charges Referred
The Department of Defense announced today that charges were referred to a military commission in the case of Omar Ahmed Khadr by the Convening Authority, Office of Military Commissions, Susan J. Crawford.
The convening authority referred charges of murder in violation of the law of war; attempted murder in violation of the law of war; conspiracy; providing material support for terrorism; and spying against Khadr, a non-capital case.
Khadr and his defense counsel will be served a copy of the charges. In accordance with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Manual for Military Commissions, Khadr will be arraigned within 30 days of the service of charges. Within 120 days of charges, the military judge will assemble the military commission. Assembly is the procedural step that usually occurs when all parties, including the members, are present and sworn, and the judge announces on the record that the commission is now assembled. The military judge will contact attorneys in the case to set an initial trial schedule.
Khadr is presumed innocent of any criminal charges unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at a military commission.
Military commissions are regularly constituted courts, affording all the necessary judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples for purposes of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
A copy of the charge sheet is available at the following Web site: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2007/KhadrReferral.pdf
# New Orleans v. Whitney

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
138 U.S. 595
New Orleans v. Whitney
[Syllabus from pages 595-597 intentionally omitted]
J. R. Beckwith, for city of New Orleans.
Thos. J. Semmes and Alfred Goldthwaite, for Whitney.
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
# New Poems (Shorter)/A Ballad of the Wailing Ghost

A BALLAD OF THE WAILING GHOST
As I between the dusk and dark Walked down by Hampton Towers, I strayed upon the haunted path In the forbidden hours.
I paced the long and lonesome way In meditation deep, And there I saw a little maid Who bitterly did weep.
Quaint was her silken robe and flowed In some disorder down, And on her slender shoulders fell Her locks of tangled brown.
"Too late! Too late!" she weeping cried, Her voice was like the wind— She passed and wrung her lily hands And left me far behind.
A maid distraught indeed was she Her anguish all confessed— In the sharp sighing that flew forth From out her heaving breast.
When she had gone an echo flew Across the haunted bower; "Too late! Too late!" the whisper came From ev'ry sleeping flower.
I met a youth upon the path And bade him tell to me If he had seen the little maid Who wept so dolefully.
Upon his cheek the ruddy rose Swift faded into white, "God pity you, for you have seen The wailing ghost this night.
"Pray, pray," he cried, "and shrive your soul, And so avert your fate," And as he flew me swift in fear A whisper cried "Too late!"
An evil prayer rose to my lip "Lord! This my soul's relief, To hold her slender hands in mine, And know her secret grief."
# New Orleans v. Warner (176 U.S. 92)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
176 U.S. 92
New Orleans v. Warner
Leave granted to file petition for rehearing December 11, 1899.
Decided January 15, 1900.
Messrs. S. L. Gilmore and Branch K. Miller for city of New Orleans.
Messrs. Richard De Gray, H. D. Rouse, Wm. Grant, and Wheeler H. Peckham for John G. Warner.
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
# New Poems

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "New Poems."
* 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.
* New Poems, collection by Matthew Arnold
* New Poems, collection by Gilbert Keith Chesterton
* New Poems, collection by Ford Madox Ford
* New Poems, a work by Richard Le Gallienne
* New Poems, collection by Edmund Gosse
* New Poems, collection by Hannah Flagg Gould
* New Poems, collection by Christina Georgina Rossetti
* New Poems, collection by Dora Sigerson Shorter
* New Poems, collection by Robert Louis Stevenson
* New Poems, 1909 collection by William Watson
* New Poems, collection by William Butler Yeats
# New Orleans v. Warner (176 U.S. 92)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
176 U.S. 92
New Orleans v. Warner
It appearing in this case that the court overlooked the fact that the drainage warrants which formed the basis of this suit were duly presented for payment on June 6, 1876, it is ordered that the decree heretofore entered in this case be, and is hereby, vacated and set saide, and that a new decree be entered nunc pro tunc as of March 13, 1899, affirming the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals in all respects.

## 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
# New Poems (Shorter)

NEW POEMS
SECOND EDITION Being the second thousand copies.
* NEW POEMS
* DORA SIGERSON SHORTER
* MAUNSEL & COMPANY LTD.
* DUBLIN AND LONDON
* 1913
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
"The Collected Poems of Dora Sigerson Shorter," with an Introduction by George Meredith
"The Troubadour and Other Poems."
"Through Wintry Terrors": A Novel.
Etc., Etc.
All rights reserved.
CONTENTS
Printed by Maunsel and Co. Ltd., Dublin
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
# Moral Reflections, Sentences and Maxims/Moral Courage In Every-Day Life

Layout 2
​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/223 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/224 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/225 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/226
# Moral Reflections, Sentences and Maxims/The Life of Stanislaus

Layout 2
​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/189 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/190 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/191 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/192
# Moral Reflections, Sentences and Maxims/Published By William Gowans

Layout 2
​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/249 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/250 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/251 ​Page:Moralreflection00stangoog.djvu/252
# New Orleans v. Emsheimer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
181 U.S. 153
New Orleans v. Emsheimer
Argued: December 10, 1900. --- Decided: April 15, 1901

## 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
# New Orleans v. Emsheimer/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
181 U.S. 153
New Orleans v. Emsheimer
Argued: December 10, 1900. --- Decided: April 15, 1901
Messrs. Samuel L. Gilmore, Frank B. Thomas, and Branch K. Miller for appellant.
Messrs. J. D. Rouse and Wm. Grant for appellee.
Emsheimer filed his bill against the city of New Orleans, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, in the circuit court for the eastern district of Louisiana, seeking to collect certain certificates of indebtedness issued by the board of metropolitan police of New Orleans through an accounting; to which the city demurred on the grounds that the circuit court had no jurisdiction as such for want of proper averments of diverse citizenship; that necessary parties were lacking; in equity.
The circuit court held that the averments in respect of citizenship were sufficient, but sustained the demurrer on the ground that there was no equity in the bill, and dismissed the bill 'for want of equity with full reservation of complainant's right to sue and proceed at law.'
Subsequently an appeal was granted to this court, on application of the city, 'for the sole and exclusive purpose of having a review of the finding, decision, and decree of the court overruling the said first ground of the said demurrer, by which the jurisdiction of this court and the sufficiency of the averments of the bill purporting to show the same are put at issue.'
Defendant below sought no affirmative relief but simply to defeat the suit. In this it succeeded, and the decree is a bar to another suit in equity on this cause of action so long as it stands unreversed.
The decree did not injure defendant but sustained its contention, and defendant is in no position to complain that it is aggrieved by its own success. The decree cannot be reversed at its instance because put on one of the grounds it urged rather than another.
If complainant brings an action at law, and the question of Federal jurisdiction is in issue, or if this decree should be hereafter reversed and Federal and equity jurisdiction sustained, it will be time enough if final judgment or decree passes against defendant in the circuit court for the question of jurisdiction to be certified. United States v. Jahn, 155 U.S. 109, 39 L. ed. 87, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 39; Smith v. McKay, 161 U.S. 355, 40 L. ed. 731, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490.
Appeal dismissed.

## 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 III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Lying/Section 5

5. But whether a lie be at some times useful, is a much greater and more concerning question. Whether, as above, it be a lie, when a person has no will to deceive, or even makes it his business that the person to whom he says a thing shall not be deceived although he did wish the thing itself which he uttered to be false, but this on purpose that he might cause a truth to be believed; whether, again, it be a lie when a person willingly utters even a truth for the purpose of deceiving; this may be doubted. But none doubts that it is a lie when a person willingly utters a falsehood for the purpose of deceiving: wherefore a false utterance put forth with will to deceive is manifestly a lie. But whether this alone be a lie, is another question. Meanwhile, taking this kind of lie, in which all agree, let us inquire, whether it be sometimes useful to utter a falsehood with will to deceive. They who think it is, advance testimonies to their opinion, by alleging the case of Sarah, who, when she had laughed, denied to the Angels that she laughed: of Jacob questioned by his father, and answering that he was the elder son Esau: likewise that of the Egyptian midwives, who to save the Hebrew infants from being slain at their birth, told a lie, and that with God’s approbation and reward: and many such like instances they pick out, of lies told by persons whom you would not dare to blame, and so must own that it may sometimes be not only not blameworthy, but even praiseworthy to tell a lie. They add also a case with which to urge not only those who are devoted to the Divine Books, but all men and common sense, saying, Suppose a man should take refuge with thee, who by thy lie might be saved from death, wouldest thou not tell it? If a sick man should ask a question which it is not expedient that he should know, and might be more grievously afflicted even by thy returning him no answer, wilt thou venture either to tell the truth to the destruction of the man’s life, or rather to hold thy peace, than by a virtuous and merciful lie to be serviceable to his weak health? By these and such like arguments they think they most plentifully prove, that if occasion of doing good require, we may sometimes tell a lie.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. xviii. 15
* ↑ Gen. xxvii. 19
* ↑ Exod. i. 19, 20
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Lying/Section 7

7. Neither do they confess that they are awed by those citations from the Old Testament which are alleged as examples of lies: for there, every incident may possibly be taken figuratively, although it really did take place: and when a thing is either done or said figuratively, it is no lie. For every utterance is to be referred to that which it utters. But when any thing is either done or said figuratively, it utters that which it signifies to those for whose understanding it was put forth. Whence we may believe in regard of those persons of the prophetical times who are set forth as authoritative, that in all that is written of them they acted and spoke prophetically; and no less, that there is a prophetical meaning in all those incidents of their lives which by the same prophetic Spirit have been accounted worthy of being recorded in writing. As to the midwives, indeed, they cannot say that these women did through the prophetic Spirit, with purpose of signifying a future truth, tell Pharaoh one thing instead of another, (albeit that Spirit did signify something, without their knowing what was doing in their persons:) but, they say that these women were according to their degree approved and rewarded of God. For if a person who is used to tell lies for harm’s sake comes to tell them for the sake of doing good, that person has made great progress. But it is one thing that is set forth as laudable in itself, another that in comparison with a worse is preferred. It is one sort of gratulation that we express when a man is in sound health, another when a sick man is getting better. In the Scripture, even Sodom is said to be justified in comparison with the crimes of the people Israel. And to this rule they apply all the instances of lying which are produced from the Old Books, and are found not reprehended, or cannot be reprehended: either they are approved on the score of a progress towards improvement and hope of better things, or in virtue of some hidden signification they are not altogether lies.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Patience

On Patience
[De Patientia.]
Translated by Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
Of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; Late Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester.

## Contents

* Translator's Preface
* Section 1
* Section 2
* Section 3
* Section 4
* Section 5
* Section 6
* Section 7
* Section 8
* Section 9
* Section 10
* Section 11
* Section 12
* Section 13
* Section 14
* Section 15
* Section 16
* Section 17
* Section 18
* Section 19
* Section 20
* Section 21
* Section 22
* Section 23
* Section 24
* Section 25
* Section 26
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Patience/Section 10

10. To this man let them look who put themselves to death when they are sought for to have life put upon them; and by bereaving themselves of the present, deny and refuse also that which is to come. Why, if people were driving them to deny Christ or to do any thing contrary to righteousness, like true Martyrs, they ought rather to bear all patiently than to dare death impatiently. If it could be right to do this for the sake of running away from evils, holy Job would have killed himself, that being in so great evils, in his estate, in his sons, in his limbs, through the devil’s cruelty, he might escape them all. But he did it not. Far be it from him, a wise man, to commit upon himself what not even that unwise woman suggested. And if she had suggested it, she would with good reason here also have had that answer which she had when suggesting blasphemy; “Thou hast spoken as one of the foolish women. If we have received good at the hand of the Lord, shall we not bear evil?” Seeing even he also would have lost patience, if either by blasphemy as she had suggested, or by killing himself which not even she had dared to speak of, he should die, and be among them of whom it is written, “Woe unto them that have lost patience!” and rather increase than escape pains, if after the death of his body he should be hurried off to punishment either of blasphemers, or of murderers, or of them which are worse even than parricides. For if a parricide be on that account more wicked than any homicide, because he kills not merely a man but a near relative; and among parricides too, the nearer the person killed, the greater criminal he is judged to be: without doubt worse still is he who kills himself, because there is none nearer to a man than himself. What then do these miserable persons mean, who, though both here they have inflicted pain upon themselves, and hereafter not only for their impiety towards God but for the very cruelty which they have exercised upon themselves will deservedly suffer pains of His inflicting, do yet seek moreover the glories of Martyrs? since, even if for the true testimony of Christ they suffered persecution, and killed themselves, that they might not suffer any thing from their persecutors, it would be rightly said to them, “Woe unto them which have lost patience!” For how hath patience her just reward, if even an impatient suffering receives the crown? or how shall that man be judged innocent, to whom is said, “Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself,” if he commit murder upon himself which he is forbidden to commit upon his neighbor?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Donatists
* ↑ Job ii. 10
* ↑ Ecclus. ii. 14
* ↑ Matt. xix. 19
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Lying/Section 43

43. So great blindness, moreover, hath occupied men’s minds, that to them it is too little if we pronounce some lies not to be sins; but they must needs pronounce it to be sin in some things if we refuse to lie: and to such a pass have they been brought by defending lying, that even that first kind which is of all the most abominably wicked they pronounce to have been used by the Apostle Paul. For in the Epistle to the Galatians, written as it was, like the rest, for doctrine of religion and piety, they say that he has told a lie, in the passage where he says concerning Peter and Barnabas, “When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel.” For, while they wish to defend Peter from error, and from that pravity of way into which he had fallen; the very way of religion in which is salvation for all men, they by breaking and mincing the authority of the Scriptures do endeavor themselves to overthrow. In which they do not see that it is not only lying, but perjury that they lay to the charge of the Apostle in the very doctrine of piety, that is, in an Epistle in which he preaches the Gospel; seeing that he there saith, before he relates that matter, “What I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.” But it is time that we set bounds to this disputation: in the consideration and treatment whereof altogether there is nothing more meet to be, before all else, borne in mind and made our prayer, than that which the same Apostle saith: “God is faithful, Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able to bear, but will with the temptation make also a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. ii. 14
* ↑ Gal. i. 20
* ↑ 1 Cor. x. 13
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Lying/Section 6

6. On the other hand, those who say that we must never lie, plead much more strongly, using first the Divine authority, because in the very Decalogue it is written “Thou shall not bear false witness;” under which general term it comprises all lying: for whoso utters any thing bears witness to his own mind. But lest any should contend that not every lie is to be called false witness, what will he say to that which is written, “The mouth that lieth slayeth the soul:” and lest any should suppose that this may be understood with the exception of some liars, let him read in another place, “Thou wilt destroy all that speak leasing.” Whence with His own lips the Lord saith, “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” Hence the Apostle also in giving precept for the putting off of the old man, under which name all sins are understood, says straightway, “Wherefore putting away lying, speak ye truth.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Exod. xx. 16
* ↑ Wisdom i. 11. Os quod mentitur. “The mouth that belieth,” E.V., στόμα καταψευδόμενον
* ↑ Psalm v. 6
* ↑ Matt. v. 37. [See R.V.]
* ↑ Eph. iv. 25
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Lying/Translator's Preface

This book appears from its place in the Retractations to have been written about a.d. 395, as it is the last work named in the first book, which contains those which he wrote before he was Bishop. Some editions represent it as addressed to Consentius, but not the mss. The latter are probably right, as his other work on the subject was written in answer to the inquiries of Consentius on the case of the Priscillianists many years later.—Bened. Ed.
Retractations, Book I. last Chapter.
“I have also written a Book on Lying, which though it takes some pains to understand, contains much that is useful for the exercise of the mind, and more that is profitable to morals, in inculcating the love of speaking the truth. This also I was minded to remove from my works, because it seemed to me obscure, and intricate, and altogether troublesome; for which reason I had not sent it abroad. And when I had afterwards written another book, under this title, Against Lying, much more had I determined and ordered that the former should cease to exist; which however was not done. Therefore in this retractation of my works, as I have found this still in being, I have ordered that it should remain; chiefly because therein are to be found some necessary things which in the other are not. Why the other has for its title, Against Lying, but this, Of Lying, the reason is this, that throughout the one is an open assault upon lying, whereas great part of this is taken up with the discussion of the question for and against. Both, however, are directed to the same object. This book begins thus: “Magna quæstio est de Mendacio.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/On Patience/Section 1

1. That virtue of the mind which is called Patience, is so great a gift of God, that even in Him who bestoweth the same upon us, that, whereby He waiteth for evil men that they may amend, is set forth by the name of Patience, [or long-suffering.] So, although in God there can be no suffering, and “patience” hath its name a patiendo, from suffering, yet a patient God we not only faithfully believe, but also wholesomely confess. But the patience of God, of what kind and how great it is, His, Whom we say to be impassible, yet not impatient, nay even most patient, in words to unfold this who can be able? Ineffable is therefore that patience, as is His jealousy, as His wrath, and whatever there is like to these. For if we conceive of these as they be in us, in Him are there none. We, namely, can feel none of these without molestation: but be it far from us to surmise that the impassible nature of God is liable to any molestation. But like as He is jealous without any darkening of spirit, wroth without any perturbation, pitiful without any pain, repenteth Him without any wrongness in Him to be set right; so is He patient without aught of passion. Now therefore as concerning human patience, which we are able to conceive and beholden to have, of what sort it is, I will, as God granteth and the brevity of the present discourse alloweth, essay to set forth.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Pati
* ↑ Nihil patientem
* ↑ Livore