OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/4/Robert S. Finkbine

[R S Finkbine]
​ ROBERT S. FINKBINE, the builder of the permanent State House of Iowa in his fourteen years' superintendence of that structure, erected a monument to his own memory that will endure for many generations. From the day that he was appointed Superintendent of the construction of the Capitol not a dollar of the appropriations made from time to time, was misapplied. He was thoroughly competent from long experience in building and no contractor was ever able to deceive him in the quality of the material furnished. His eagle eye was on every part of the work and from start to finish the State never lost a dollar of the $2,876,300 expended under his supervision. Mr. Finkbine was born in Ohio on the 9th of July, 1828, removed to Iowa in 1850 and for many years was a resident of Iowa City, where he engaged in contracting and building. On the 22d of February, 1856, when a State Convention of the opponents of slavery assembled at Iowa City and proceeded to organize the Republican party in Iowa R. S. Finkbine was one of the delegates from Johnson County. He was one of the men who in the evening at the ratification meeting called out Samuel J. Kirkwood for a speech which was the first introduction of the afterwards famous “War Governor” to the public. In 1863 Mr. Finkbine was elected to the House of the Tenth General Assembly and two years later he was reëlected to the Eleventh General Assembly. He was not a speechmaker but was esteemed as a member of excellent judgment. Soon after his appointment as superintendent of the erection of the State House, Mr. Finkbine became a resident of Des Moines, where he died on the 8th of July, 1901.
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/4/Rush Clark

​ RUSH CLARK was born at Shellsburg, Pennsylvania, on the 1st of October, 1834. He was a graduate of Jefferson College and studied medicine. But in 1853 he decided upon the study of law and at Iowa City entered the law office of his brother. For a time he had editorial charge of the Iowa City Republican in the campaign which resulted in the election of James W. Grimes for Governor. This was the first defeat of a Democratic State ticket. In 1859 Mr. Clark was elected to the House of the ​Eighth General Assembly on the Republican ticket. He took high rank as a legislator, was reëlected in 1861 and chosen Speaker of the House in 1862. In 1875 he was again elected to the House, and in 1876 was elected to Congress. He was reëlected at the expiration of his first term and died during the first session of the next Congress, in 1879.
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/4/Samuel A. Cravath

​ SAMUEL A. CRAVATH, physician and journalist, was born at Conneaut, Pennsylvania, September 27, 1836. He entered the preparatory department of Oberlin College in 1852, graduating in 1858. On account of his high standing as a classical student he was chosen to teach Greek and Latin while pursuing his studies and also taught district school during vacations to defray his expenses. After graduating he became principal of Madison Seminary and later superintendent of the schools of Madison, ​studying medicine in the meantime. In 1864 he received the degree of M. D. from the Cincinnati College of Medicine and Surgery. He began the practice of medicine at Springfield, Ohio, but removed to Iowa in 1865, locating at Mitchell, where he established the Mitchell County News in 1869. In January, 1872, he purchased a half interest in the Grinnell Herald, where for a time he was associated with Albert Shaw, the founder of the Review of Reviews. Dr. Cravath retained editorial management of the Herald until 1890. He has held large business interests in Grinnell and has served as one of the trustees of Iowa College.
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/4/Robert Lucas

​ ROBERT LUCAS, first Governor of Iowa Territory, was born at Shepherdstown, Jefferson County, Virginia, on the 1st of April, 1781. His father was an officer in the Revolutionary War who, in 1800, liberated his slaves and removed to Scioto County, Ohio. Robert received his education under a private teacher and became a surveyor. When the War of 1812 began he was appointed captain in the regular army and as the war progressed attained the rank of colonel. He served nineteen years in the Ohio Legislature and during that period was presiding officer of both House and Senate. In 1832 he was president of the Democratic National Convention which nominated Andrew Jackson for President. In the same year he was elected Governor of Ohio and in 1834 was reëlected, serving four years. On the 7th of July, 1838, he was appointed by President Van Buren Governor of the new Territory of Iowa. As his services in that position have been mentioned quite fully elsewhere it is sufficient here to say that he gave to Iowa an able, intelligent and faithful administration. At its close he retired to his farm near Iowa City in June, 1841. Governor Lucas was chosen a member of the First Constitutional Convention which met in 1844 and was one of its ablest and most useful delegates. He died at his home February 7, 1853.
# History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/4/Robert Sloan

[Robt Sloan]
​ ROBERT SLOAN is a native of Ohio, where he was born October 21, 1835. At eighteen years of age he came to Iowa with his parents, having been reared on a farm. His educational advantages were meager, being confined to the district schools and one year in the New Lisbon High School. After coming to Iowa he taught school until 1860 when he enter the law office of Judge George G. Wright at Keosauqua. So rapidly did advance in his studies that he was admitted to the bar the following year. Mr. Sloan was in 1868 chosen Judge of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District, serving twelve years. In 1894 he was elected Judge of the District Court, and has been repeatedly reëlected, still holding that position.
# Green v. United States (76 U.S. 655)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 655
Green v. United States
IN error to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
This was an action of debt brought by the United States against one Green, and the sureties on his official bond, as agent for paying pensions at Cincinnati. Seven sureties were named in the bond, all of whom executed it. The defendants charged as sureties, besides filing a joint plea of non est factum, each filed separate special pleas, first, to the effect that they signed the writing whilst the same was in blank, as to the names of the obligors, at the request of the principal, Green, upon the assurance and agreement that it should also be signed and sealed by other parties (named in the plea), as joint obligors with the defendants, and should not be delivered as a bond until signed and sealed by said persons; that those other persons never did sign the same; and that the defendants never would have executed the bond except upon the condition that they should sign it. A second plea averred that the bond was signed whilst it was in blank, as to the names of the obligors, on the conditions above-named, and being thus signed was left with Green as an escrow, to be by him delivered to the plaintiff in case it should be executed by the other persons named, and not otherwise; but that those other persons never did sign the bond, and it never was delivered as a valid bond of the defendants, and thereby became wholly annulled and vacated.

## 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
# Green v. United States (365 U.S. 301)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Stewart

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 301
Green v. United States (365 U.S. 301)
Argued: Jan. 10, 1961. --- Decided: Feb 27, 1961
See 365 U.S. 890, 81 S.Ct. 1024.
Mr. James Vorenberg, Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. Robert Kramer, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Judgment of the Court and opinion of Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, joined by Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice WHITTAKER, announced by Mr. Justice HARLAN.

## 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
# Green v. United States (365 U.S. 301)/Concurrence Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Stewart
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 301
Green v. United States (365 U.S. 301)
Argued: Jan. 10, 1961. --- Decided: Feb 27, 1961
Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring.
I join in affirming the judgments. Rule 32(a) does not seem to me clearly to require a district judge in every case to volunteer to the defendant an opportunity personally to make a statement, when the defendant has a lawyer at his side who speaks fully on his behalf. But I do think the better practice in sentencing is to assure the defendant an express opportunity to speak for himself, in addition to anything that his lawyer may have to say. I would apply such a rule prospectively, in the exercise of our supervisory capacity. See Couch v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 292, 235 F.2d 519.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice BRENNAN concur, 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
# Green v. Van Buskerk/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
70 U.S. 448
Green v. Van Buskerk
We have already held, at this term, in a case from Massachusetts, that when the Supreme Court renders final judgment, and sends the judgment to a court below for execution, and with the judgment the record, a writ of error to review the judgment may be issued to the latter court.
In that case, it is true, no question was made in respect to the operation of the writ as a supersedeas; but we think that the true construction of the act of Congress requires us to hold that a judgment cannot be regarded as final, in the sense of the act, until entered in a court from which execution can issue.
In the case now before us, the record was sent by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, and the judgment was entered in the latter court in conformity with the direction of the former. This was, it is true, the judgment of the Court of Appeals as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court; but it because a final judgment, on which execution could issue only when entered, on the 16th February, 1866, in the Supreme Court, to which the record was returned, and where it remained.
The unsuccessful party had ten days from that entry to take out a writ of error and make it a supersedeas; and he duly availed himself of this right by service of the writ of error on the 20th February, 1866, and giving the required bonds.
The direction to issue execution was given under a mistaken construction of the act; and its issue makes it necessary that a writ to stay the proceedings be sent from this court.
MOTION ALLOWED.

## 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
# Green v. Van Buskirk

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Green v. Van Buskirk."
* 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.
* Green v. Van Buskirk (72 U.S. 307), ( 18 L.Ed. 599 ), ( 5 Wall. 307 )
* Green v. Van Buskirk (74 U.S. 139), ( 19 L.Ed. 109 ), ( 7 Wall. 139 )
# Hiatt v. Brown/Concurrence Burton

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Burton
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 103
Hiatt v. Brown
Argued: Feb. 6-7, 1950. --- Decided: March 13, 1950
Mr. Justice BURTON, concurring.
I concur on the ground that the clause in the 8th Article of War, which deals with the availability of an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department and is here at issue, is purely directory, and not jurisdictional. The 8th Article, in any event, calls for the appointment as the law member of a general court-martial of an officer meeting certain specifications. He must be either an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department or he must be selected by the appointing authority as specially qualified for his duties. The unavailability of an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department merely opens the field of eligibility to other branches of the service.
It may be assumed that, when the general court-martial involved in this case was appointed, it was a jurisdictional requirement that there be a law member appointed to it. It also may be assumed that it was a jurisdictional requirement that, if the appointing authority determined that no officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department was then 'available for the purpose,' such authority was restricted to the appointment of 'an officer of some other branch of the service selected by (him) * * * as specially qualified to perform the duties of law member.' (Emphasis supplied.) If the officer who was appointed met neither requirement, it may be assumed that the court-martial would have been without jurisdiction. If, however, as in this case, it is not questioned that the law member met the second requirement, I believe that we should not permit a review here of the discretion used by the appointing authority in determining the preliminary administrative question of whether or not an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department was 'available for the purpose.' We should not permit it, even if it is alleged that the appointing authority's discretion in this regard was grossly abused. That detail was a matter within his administrative responsibility and should not be available as a basis for collateral attack upon the jurisdiction of an otherwise qualified and competent general court-martial.

## 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
# Hey Diddle Diddle

* related portals: Nursery rhymes.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, news, textbook, course, taxonomy, travel guide, Wikidata item.
This nursery rhyme may date back to at least the sixteenth century. The earliest recorded version of the poem resembling the modern form was printed around 1765 in London in Mother Goose's Melody. It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 19478.
* "Hey diddle diddle" in Nursery Rhymes (c. 1880).
* "Sing hey diddle diddle" in A Book of Nursery Songs and Rhymes by Sabine Baring-Gould (1895).
* "Hey! diddle diddle" in A Book of Nursery Rhymes by Charles Welsh (1901).
* "Hey! Diddle, Diddle" in The Nursery Rhymes of Mother Goose by Arthur Rackham (St. Nicholas, Oct. 1913)
* "The Cat and the Fiddle" in The Real Mother Goose by Blanche Fisher Wright (1916)
* "Hey Diddle, Diddle" in The Child's Own Music Book by Albert Ernest Wier (1918).
# Heymann v. Southern Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
203 U.S. 270
Heymann v. Southern Railway Company
Argued: October 17, 1906. --- Decided: December 3, 1906
Messrs. Milton Strasburger and Samuel H. Myers for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Joseph B. Cumming for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice White 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
# Heyer v. Duplicator Mfg Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 100
Heyer v. Duplicator Mfg Company
Argued: Oct. 15 and 16, 1923. --- Decided: Nov 12, 1923
Samuel W. Banning, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
George L. Wilkinson, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# Hiatt v. Brown

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 103
Hiatt v. Brown
Argued: Feb. 6-7, 1950. --- Decided: March 13, 1950
See 339 U.S. 939, 70 S.Ct. 672.
Consistent interpretation of Article of War by the Army as vesting a discretion in appointing authority as to availability of a member of the Judge Advocate General's Department for appointment as law member of a general court-martial was entitled to great weight in determination by Supreme Court of the meaning of the article. Articles of War, art. 8, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1479.
Exercise of discretion conferred on appointing authority by Article of War in matter of designating a member of the Judge Advocate General's Department as law member for general court-martial could be reviewed by courts only if gross abuse of that discretion would have given rise to a defect in jurisdiction of the court-martial. Articles of War, art. 8, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1479.
Under Article of War requiring that law member of general court-martial be an officer of Judge Advocate General's Department unless one was not available for the purpose, neither appointment of officer from Judge Advocate General's Department to a capacity other than law member on court nor reassignment of that officer to other duty at time of trial disclosed abuse of discretion. Articles of War, art. 8, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1479.
Where court-martial had jurisdiction of accused and of offense of murder charged, and acted within its lawful powers, correction of any errors was for the military authorities and it was improper for Court of Appeals to extend its review, for purpose of determining compliance with due process of law, to such matters as propositions of law set forth in Staff Judge Advocate's report, sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction, adequacy of pretrial investigation, and competency of law member and defense counsel. Articles of War, arts. 8, 92, 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 1479, 1564; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1254(1); U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5.
[Syllabus from pages 103-105 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Stanley M. Silverberg, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Walter G. Cooper, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# History of Alabama and Dictionary of Alabama Biography

* information about this edition.
* related portals: Alabama.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, news, Wikidata item.
This four-volume work serves as an encyclopedia of Alabama's history, with biographies of selected public figures. Thomas M. Owen died on March 25, 1920, and the volumes were published posthumously by his wife, Marie Bankhead Owen.
History of Alabama and Dictionary of Alabama Biography
BY THOMAS McADORY OWEN, LL.D. Lawyer, Founder and Director Alabama State Department of Archives and History, and author of numerous historical and bibliographical publications
Chicago
The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company
1921

## Index
### Volume II

* Montgomery

### Volume IV

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
# History of Africa south of the Zambesi from 1505 to 1795/Volume 2

First Edition . . . Sept. 1907
Second Edition . . . June 1910
Third Edition . . . Feb. 1922
(All rights reserved)
# History of Africa south of the Zambesi from 1505 to 1795

This book forms part of a series by Theal covering South African history from pre-colonial times to 1884:
* Ethnography and Condition of South Africa before A.D. 1505
* History of Africa south of the Zambesi from 1505 to 1795
* History of South Africa from 1795 to 1872
* History of South Africa from 1873 to 1884
* Volume I
* Volume II
* Volume III
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
# H.R. 3200/Division B/Title VI/Subtitle A
## SUBTITLE A — INCREASED FUNDING TO FIGHT WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE
### Sec. 1601. Increased Funding and Flexibility to Fight Fraud and Abuse.

    (a) In General.—
       Section 1817(k) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)) is amended—
          (1) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
             ``(7) Additional funding.—In addition to the funds otherwise appropriated to the Account from the Trust Fund under paragraphs (3) and (4) and for purposes described in paragraphs (3)(C) and (4)(A), there are hereby appropriated an additional $100,000,000 to such Account from such Trust Fund for each fiscal year beginning with 2011. The funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be allocated in the same proportion as the total funding appropriated with respect to paragraphs (3)(A) and (4)(A) was allocated with respect to fiscal year 2010, and shall be available without further appropriation until expended.´´.