OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Southern Historical Society Papers/Volume 01/February/A Correction

February 1876
A Correction.
Selma, Ala., March 11th, 1875.
Dr. J. Wm. Jones, Secretary Southern Historical Society, Richmond, Va.:
Dear Sir—I wish to correct my narrative of the services of the Ironclad "Virginia," in which the Teaser, Beaufort and Raleigh are called "tugs." In the fight they did good service as "gunboats," and should have been so designated. The Beaufort had a ​converted, single-handed rifle gun, 32-pound calibre, and a 24-pound carronade. The Teaser and Raleigh were, I think, similarly armed.
Please annex this to my narrative, and you will oblige,
Your obedient servant,
CATESBY ap. R. JONES.
# Southern Historical Society Papers/Volume 01/February/Letter from General J. E. Johnston

February 1876
Letter from General J. E. Johnston.
Rev. J. William Jones, D. D.,  Secretary Southern Historical Society:
Dear Sir—In the account of "The Seven Days' Fighting" published by your Society in the June No. of the Southern Magazine, there are some errors as to the strength of the Army of Northern Virginia in the beginning of June, 1862. As they contradict previous statements of mine, I beg leave to point them out. In the statement of the strength of Holmes' division, at least 4,000 brought by him to the army from Petersburg, June 1st, are omitted; only those brought at the end of the month are referred to—they may have been 6,500.
In that of Longstreet's, the strength was near 14,000 June 1st. The six brigades that then joined it had been reduced to 9,000 when they marched, late in August, to Northern Virginia. The cavalry ​could not have exceeded 3,000, nor the reserve artillery 1,000, June 1st.
G. W. Smith's division of five brigades amounted to near 13,000 June 1st; only two of these brigades, guessed by the author to number 5,300, are mentioned, under Whiting, as belonging to Jackson's command. Jackson's and Ewell's divisions are set down at 9,000. General Ewell, with whom I had repeated conversations on the subject, told me that he had in his 8,000 men. General Jackson had a brigade more, and at the first of the year amounted to 10,200.
General Lawton had about 3,500 men at Cold Harbor, but (he still says) brought 6,000 into the army, many being left behind in Jackson's march—as rapid as usual—and they unaccustomed to marching, having served only in garrison.
General Ripley's troops are also omitted. He reported to the Adjutant-General of the army, the afternoon of May 31st, his arrival in Richmond with 5,000 men to join it.
The author gives our loss at "Seven Pines," on the Williamsburg road, at above 4,800. General Longstreet, in his official report dated June llth, when, if ever, the number of killed and wounded must have been known, gives it roughly at 3,000. General D. H. Hill, whose division did all the fighting on that road from three o'clock (when it began) to six, and four-fifths of it from six to seven, when it ended, set his down at 2,500—leaving 500 for that of R. H. Anderson, who came into the first line at six, on the 31st, and Pickett's, and part (two regiments) of Pryor's June 31st, which is consistent. According to the writer, two brigades and a half in two hours lost about as heavily as four in four hours of harder fighting.
Very truly yours,
J. E. JOHNSTON.
# Tales of the Jazz Age/O Russet Witch!

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This short story was first published in the "Metropolitan," and first published in book form in Tales of the Jazz Age in 1922.
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
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
# Spinifex and Sand/Introduction
## Introduction

    "An honest tale speeds best, being plainly told."
The following pages profess to be no more than a faithful narrative of five years spent on the goldfields and in the far interior of Western Australia. Any one looking for stirring adventures, hairbreadth escapes from wild animals and men, will be disappointed. In the Australian Bush the traveller has only Nature to war against—over him hangs always the chance of death from thirst, and sometimes from the attacks of hostile aboriginals; he has no spice of adventure, no record heads of rare game, no exciting escapades with dangerous beasts, to spur him on; no beautiful scenery, broad lakes, or winding rivers to make life pleasant for him. The unbroken monotony of an arid, uninteresting country has to be faced. Nature everywhere demands his toil. Unless he has within him impulses that give him courage to go on, he will soon return; for he will find nothing in his surroundings to act as an incentive to tempt him further.
I trust my readers will be able to glean a little knowledge of the hardships and dangers that beset the paths of Australian pioneers, and will learn something of the trials and difficulties encountered by a prospector, recognising that he is often inspired by some higher feeling than the mere "lust of gold."
Wherever possible, I have endeavoured to add interest to my own experiences by recounting those of other travellers; and, by studying the few books that touch upon such matters to explain any points in connection with the aboriginals that from my own knowledge I am unable to do. I owe several interesting details to the "Report on the Work of the Horn Scientific Expedition to Central Australia," and to "Ethnological Studies among the North-West Central Queensland Aboriginals," by Walter E. Roth. For the identification of the few geological specimens brought in by me, I am indebted to the Government Geologist of the Mines Department, Perth, W.A., and to Mr. W. Botting Hemsley, through the courtesy of the Director of the Royal Gardens, Kew, for the identification of the plants.
I also owe many thanks to my friend Mr. J. F. Cornish, who has taken so much trouble in correcting the proofs of my MSS.
# Spinelli v. United States/Dissent Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion White
* Dissenting Opinions Black Fortas Stewart
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 410
Spinelli v. United States
Argued: Oct. 16 and 17, 1968. --- Decided: Jan 27, 1969
Mr. Justice STEWART, dissenting.
For substantially the reasons stated by my Brothers BLACK and FORTAS, I believe the warrant in this case was supported by a sufficient showing of probable cause. I would therefore affirm the judgment.

## 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
# Spinifex and Sand

Spinifex and Sand A Narrative of Five Years' Pioneering and Exploration in Western Australia
by the Hon. David W. Carnegie (1871–1900)
To my mother
* Introduction
* Part I: Early Days in Coolgardie
** Chapter I: Early Days in the Colony
** Chapter II: "Hard Up"
** Chapter III: A Miner on Bayley's
* Part II: First Prospecting Expedition
** Chapter I: The Rush to Kurnalpi — We Reach Queen Victoria Spring
** Chapter II: In Unknown Country
** Chapter III: From Mount Shenton to Mount Margaret
* Part III: Second Prospecting Expedition
** Chapter I: The Joys of Portable Condensers
** Chapter II: Granite Rocks, "Namma Holes" and "Soaks"
** Chapter III: A Fresh Start
** Chapter IV: A Camel Fight
** Chapter V: Gold at Lake Darlot
** Chapter VI: Alone in the Bush
** Chapter VII: Sale of Mine
* Part IV: Mining
** Chapter I: Quartz Reefing and Dry Blowing
* Part V: The Outward Journey
** Chapter I: Previous Explorers in the Interior of Western Australia
** Chapter II: Members and Equipment of Expedition
** Chapter III: The Journey Begins
** Chapter IV: We Enter the Desert
** Chapter V: Water at Last
** Chapter VI: Woodhouse Lagoon
** Chapter VII: The Great Undulating Desert of Gravel
** Chapter VIII: A Desert Tribe
** Chapter IX: Dr. Leichardt's Lost Expedition
** Chapter X: The Desert of Parallel Sand-ridges
** Chapter XI: From Family Well to Helena Spring
** Chapter XII: Helena Spring
** Chapter XIII: From Helena Spring to the Southesk Tablelands
** Chapter XIV: Death of Stansmore
** Chapter XV: Well's Exploring Expedition
** Chapter XVI: Kimberley
** Chapter XVII: Aboriginals at Hall's Creek
** Chapter XVIII: Preparations for the Return Journey
** Appendix to Part V: Some Native Weapons and Ceremonial Implements
* Part VI: The Journey Home
** Chapter I: Return Journey Begins
** Chapter II: Sturt Creek and "Gregory's Salt Sea"
** Chapter III: Our Camp on the "Salt Sea"
** Chapter IV: Desert Once More
** Chapter V: Stansmore Range to Lake Macdonald
** Chapter VI: Lake Macdonald to the Deep Rock-Holes
** Chapter VII: The Last of the Ridges of Drift Sand
** Chapter VIII: Woodhouse Lagoon Revisited
** Chapter IX: Across Lake Wells to Lake Darlot
** Chapter X: The End of the Expedition
* Appendix
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
# Slayton v. Smith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 53
Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Smith
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 70-108
Court of Appeals, having determined that state remedies had not been exhausted by respondent, whose habeas corpus petition alleged that he had been tried and sentenced by a senile state judge, should not have made implications as it did as to merits of the delicate subject involved and, absent special circumstances, should not have ordered the District Court, which had dismissed the petition, to retain the case on its docket until respondent had sought state court relief.
Certiorari granted; 435 F. 2d 453, vacated and remanded.
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
# Slee v. Erhard, Affidavit of Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D. (1987)

DOCUMENT NO. 28, 131, (4) pages, FILED SEP 29 87 4 53 PM U.S. DISTRICT COURT NEW HAVEN, CONN, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, CIVIL ACTION NO. N 84 497 (JAC), Slee v Erhard, AFFIDAVIT OF DR. MARGARET T. SINGER
DOCUMENT NO. 28, 131, (4) pages
FILED
SEP 29 87 4 53 PM U.S. DISTRICT COURT NEW HAVEN, CONN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ALFRIEDA SLEE, Administratrix Of the Estate of Jack Andrew Slee Deceased,
Plaintiff
v.
WERNER ERHARD, ET AL Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. N 84 497 (JAC)
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. MARGARET T. SINGER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF BERKKELEY
SS
I, Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D., being duly sworn according to law do hereby state as follows:
I am a licensed Clinical Psychologist, licensed in the state of California. I have observed the est training, interviewed many who have taken the training, viewed video tapes of the trainings, studied literature pertaining to the training as well as sudden death, etc. I have reviewed materials sent by Mr. Ragland pertaining to this case. I have not attempted to outline in detail the materials since this was covered in my deposition.
Counsel for plaintiff in the above case, Gerald F. Ragland, Jr., has requested that I briefly outline my opinions as to the foreseeability of harm from the est training, the role of emotional distress in the marketing of the trainings and the question of the cause of Jack Slee’s death. It is my opinion that the defendants in this case either knew of or should have known that the est training caused emotional distress on the part of most individuals taking the training and that this emotional distress created the high probability of psychological and physiological harm. While it was not the highest probability, the range of foreseeable physiological harm included death. It is further my opinion that the defendants intentionally inflict emotional distress as part of their system of marketing the training. While his death was not predictable, harm of that general nature was foreseeable and, in retrospect, his death was the product of a well known harm produced by the defendants, emotional distress.
[signature] Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D.
Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned notary public this 16th day of September, 1987.
[signature] My commission expires: Jan. 14, 1991
OFFICIAL SEAL LISBETH A. HIBBARD NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA My Commission Expires Jan. 14, 1991
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed postage prepaid to John R. McGrail, Esq., P.O. Box 1111, New Haven, Connecticut 06505 and Michael M. Futterman, Bower & Gardner, 110 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022 this 24th day of September, 1987.
[signature] Gerald F. Ragland, Jr.
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

## See also

* Slee v Erhard
# Slayton v. Smith/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 53
Slayton v. Smith
Respondent's petition for habeas corpus alleged, among other things, that he had been tried and sentenced in the state courts by a senile judge. On appeal from the District Court's dismissal of the petition without a hearing, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted that state remedies had not been exhausted, expressed its confidence that 'if the contention is squarely raised, the state courts will be willing to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to prove his case,' and observed that a claim of judicial senility raised a most 'sensitive issue of state administration of state criminal justice.' 435 F.2d 453, 460 (1970). Despite these judicious observations underscoring the fact that this case was not ripe for federal cognizance, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings with instructions to stay the case until respondent had sought relief in the Virginia state courts.
The Court of Appeals' form of 'abstention' is perhaps technically consistent with the statutory prohibition against issuing the writ where state remedies have not been exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But, having determined that state remedies had not been exhausted, the Court of Appeals would have better served the policy of the statute had it avoided any implication as to the merits of so delicate a subject. Further, absent special circumstances, cf. Nelson v. George, 399 U.S. 224, 90 S.Ct. 1963, 26 L.Ed.2d 578 (1970), Wade v. Wilson, 396 U.S. 282, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470 (1970), rather than ordering retention of the case on the District Court's docket, the Court of Appeals should simply have vacated the judgment of the lower court and directed dismissal of the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART joins, believing that the Court of Appeals has observed all the proprieties as well as the requirements of the Act, would affirm its judgment.

## 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
# Slee v. Erhard, Affidavit of James Merikangas, M.D. (1987)

DOCUMENT NO. 27, 130, (3) pages, FILED, Sep 25 1987, 9 45 AM, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NEW HAVEN, CONN CIVIL ACTION NO., N 84 497 (JAC), Affidavit of James Merikangas, M.D.
DOCUMENT NO. 27, 130, (3) pages
FILED
Sep 25 1987 9 45 AM U.S. DISTRICT COURT NEW HAVEN, CONN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ALFRIEDA SLEE, Administratrix Of the Estate of Jack Andrew Slee Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
WERNER ERHARD, ET AL,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
N 84 497 (JAC)
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JAMES MERIKANGAS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
CITY OF NEW HAVEN
SS
I, James R. Merikangas, M.D., being duly sworn according to law do hereby state as follows:
I am informed by counsel for plaintiff, Gerald F. Ragland, Jr., in the case of Slee v Werner Erhard and Associates, et al., that defendants’ have filed a motion based in part on my testimony in deposition to the effect that no one could have predicted, in advance, the death of Jack Slee. While this is true, this statement does not fully reflect the nature of my opinions pertaining to this case. Mr. Ragland has requested that I outline my opinions as to forseeability and causation in this affidavit.
It is my opinion that defendants had every reason to know, prior to the death of Jack Slee, that their training was likely to cause emotional distress, stress, adverse changes in the autonomic nervous system and both psychological and physiological harm.
It is further my opinion that it is a known fact that deaths from cardiac arrhythmia can and have resulted from emotional distress.
While it was not possible to predict the exact occurrence of the death of Jack Slee, his death was within the range of foreseeable harm that could likely result from the est training. Viewing the events in retrospect, it is my opinion that the death of Jack Slee was caused by the est training.
[signature] James R. Merikangas, M.D.
Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned notary public this 18 day of September, 1987.
[signature] My commission expires:
Susan J. Moffa Notary Public My commission expires March 31, 1990.
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

## See also

* Slee v Erhard
# State Farm Fire Casualty Company v. Tashire

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 523
State Farm Fire Casualty Company v. Tashire
Argued: Feb. 14 and 15, 1967. --- Decided: April 10, 1967
[Syllabus from pages 523-524 intentionally omitted]
Otto R. Skopil, Jr., Salem, Or., and John Gordon Gearin, Portland, Or., for petitioners.
Nick Chaivoe and James Griswold, Portland Or., for respondents.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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
# State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Coughran

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 485
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Coughran
Argued: March 4, 1938. --- Decided: March 28, 1938
Messrs. Joseph A. Spray, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Sidney L. Graham, of Bloomington, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Raymond G. Stanbury, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# State Documents on Federal Relations/8

8. The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to Virginia.
In General Assembly, February, A. D. 1799.
Certain resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia, passed on the 21st of December last, being communicated to the Assembly,—
1. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this legislature, the second section of the third article of the Constitution of the United States, in these words, to wit,—"The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the laws of the United States,"—vests in the Federal Courts, exclusively, and in the Supreme Court of the United States, ultimately, the authority of deciding on the constitutionality of any act or law of the Congress of the United States.
2. Resolved, That for any state legislature to assume that authority would be—
    1st. Blending together legislative and judicial powers;
    2d. Hazarding an interruption of the peace of the states by civil discord, in case of a diversity of opinions among the state legislatures; each state having, in that case, no resort, for vindicating its own opinions, but the strength of its own arm;
    3d. Submitting most important questions of law to less competent tribunals; and,
    4th. An infraction of the Constitution of the United States, expressed in plain terms.
3. Resolved, That, although, for the above reasons, this legislature, in their public capacity, do not feel themselves authorized to consider and decide on the constitutionality of the Sedition and Alien laws, (so called,) yet they are called upon, by the exigency of this occasion, to declare that, in their private opinions, these laws are within the powers delegated to Congress, and promotive of the welfare of the United States.
4. Resolved, That the governor communicate these resolutions to the supreme executive of the state of Virginia, and at the same time express to him that this legislature cannot contemplate, without extreme concern and regret, the many evil and fatal consequences which may flow from the very unwarrantable resolutions aforesaid, of the legislature of Virginia, passed on the twenty-first day of December last.
[Elliot's Va. and Ky. Res., 9, 10.]
# State Dyer v. Sims

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 22
State Dyer v. Sims
Argued: Dec. 5, 1950. --- Decided: April 9, 1951
[Syllabus from pages 22-23 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John B. Hollister, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioners.
Mr. Charles C. Wise, Charleston, W.Va., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# The Assigned Car Cases

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 564
Assigned Car Cases United States v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Company
Argued: and Submitted March 2, 3, 1927. --- Decided: May 31, 1927
[Syllabus from pages 564-566 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Blackburn Esterline, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
Messrs. Francis I. Gowen and F. M. Rivinus, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for Akron, Canton & Y. Ry. Co.
Mr. Frederick H. Wood, of New York City, for Bethlehem Steel Co.
Mr. Walker D. Hines, of New York City, for Berwind-White Coal Mining Co.
Mr. R. Granville Curry, of Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Wayne Johnson, of New York City, for Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Co.
Messrs. Ralph J. Baker, of Harrisburg, Pa., and John Lord O'Brien, of New York City, for Rainey-Wood Coke Co.
Messrs. Frank Bergen and William H. Speer, both of Newark, N. J., and August Gutheim, of Washington, D. C., for Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
Mr. E. L. Greever, of Tazewell, Va., for Pocahontas Operators' Ass'n.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# The Assault

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "The Assault."
* 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.
* The Assault by George Herbert Leigh Mallory
* The Assault, a poem by Robert Nichols