OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# R. U. R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)/The cast of the Theatre Guild Production

Layout 2
The cast of the THEATRE GUILD PRODUCTION as originally presented at the GARRICK THEATRE, October 9, 1922
R. U. R.
(ROSSUM'S UNIVERSAL ROBOTS)
By KAREL CAPEK
English version by Paul Selver and Nigel Playfair
Staged by PHILIP MOELLER
Settings and Costumes by LEE SIMONSON
CHARACTERS (in order of appearance)
ACT I
Central Office of the Factory of Rossum's Universal Robots
ACT II
Helena's Drawing Room—Ten years later. Morning
ACT III
The same. Afternoon
EPILOGUE
A Laboratory. One year later.
Time: The Future.
Stage Manager: Walter Geer
​Stage and amateur rights for the United States and Canada for this translation and the original play are owned and controlled by The Theatre Guild, Inc., 65 West 35th Street, New York City. No performances or public readings may be given without their written consent.
# R. U. R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)/Front matter

THE THEATRE GUILD LIBRARY 🅡 🅤 🅡
KAREL CAPEK
R. U. R. (ROSSUM'S UNIVERSAL ROBOTS)
# R. U. R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)/Characters

* related portals: Czech literature, Modern texts, Plays.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Layout 2
R. U. R. (ROSSUM'S UNIVERSAL ROBOTS)
CHARACTERS
Sulla—A Robotess.
Marius—A Robot.
Helena Glory.
Mr. Fabry—Engineer General, Technical Controller of R. U. R.
Nana.
Radius—A Robot.
Helena—A Robotess.
Primus—A Robot.
A Servant.
First Robot.
Second Robot.
Third Robot.
ACT I
Central Office of the Factory of Rossum's Universal Robots,
ACT II
Helena's Drawing Room—Ten years later. Morning.
ACT III
The Same Afternoon
EPILOGUE
A Laboratory—One year later.
Time: The Future.
# R. U. R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)/Introduction

Layout 2
INTRODUCTION
Karel Capek was born in 1890 in Northern Bohemia. His literary work comprises plays, poems, criticism and short stories. Of his plays the earliest is "The Robber," which was begun as early as 1911, but was not completed until after the war. It may be described as an allegorical comedy. The anonymous central figure, from whom the title of the play is derived, represents the victorious and energetic spirit of youth, seizing all it covets, and ridiculing the sober and law-abiding logic of old age. As a play, it suffers from a lack of uniformity in its texture, in which lyrical romanticism alternates with the elements of farce and melodrama.
"The Robber" was followed by "R. U. R." which it is hardly necessary to discuss here in detail. The same applies to "The Life of the Insects," written by Capek in collaboration with his brother Josef, and performed in New York under the title, "The World We Live In." This curious satire on human society relies more upon scenic effects than does "R. U. R." Nevertheless the devastating third act, even from a purely literary point of view, must be regarded as a masterpiece of ​condensed and sustained satire. Capek's latest play, "The Makropoulos Affair," an amusing comment upon longevity, was first performed at Prague in November, 1922, and shows that his dramatic powers are as alert and ingenious as ever.
Capek's short stories also reveal a strong and original talent. The volume entitled "The Crucifix" contains penetrating psychological studies, which indicate the direction of Capek's philosophical interests. The "Tales of Distress," in which Capek skilfully, relentlessly, but compassionately demonstrates how human it is to err, also maintain a high standard, both in the actual style and in the handling of tragic or semi-tragic situations.
Of Capek's miscellaneous works, reference may be made to his "Criticism of Words," in which his capacity for wit, irony, and satire, is exercised to the full. His future development will be followed with great interest. It is significant that at the period when Czechoslovakia is so triumphantly justifying its establishment as an independent State, Capek is beginning to obtain for Czech literature, of whose vigorous and progressive spirit he is a typical representative, the world-wide attention which it merits, but of which it has hitherto been deprived owing to the adverse circumstances of its development.
P. Selver.
London, December 19, 1922.
PRODUCER'S NOTE
R. U. R. was first performed in New York at the Garrick Theatre on October 9, 1922. It was the first production of the fifth season of The Theatre Guild. The novelty of its idea and the unusual treatment found an immediate and enthusiastic welcome.
The following excerpts from the New York critcisms will be of interest:—
Alexander Woolcott in the New York Herald—
Heywood Broun in the New York World—
John Corbin in The New York Times—
Stephen Rathbun in The New York Evening Sun—
Maida Castellum in The Call—
New York Globe Editorial—
Dr. Frank Crane—
# Shaw v. California/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 277
Shaw v. California
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824.
Mr. Justice STEWART would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in his opinion concurring in the result in Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S., at 42, 87 S.Ct., at 837.

## 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
# Shaw v. Covington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
194 U.S. 593
Shaw v. Covington
Argued: April 22, 25, 1904. --- Decided: May 31, 1904
Messrs. Miller Outcalt, Alfred. C. Cassatt, and Richard P. Ernst for appellants.
Mr. F. J. Hanlon for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 594-596 intentionally omitted]
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
# Shaw v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 277
Shaw v. California
Valerian J. Lavernoich, for petitioner.
Roger Arnebergh and Philip E. Grey, for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
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
# Shaw v. Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 575
Shaw v. Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corporation
Argued: Feb. 29 and March 1, 1928. --- Decided: April 9, 1928
Messrs. V. P. Crowe, of Enid, Okl., and Edwin Dabney, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for Show. Shaw. for Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corporation.
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
# Resolve of the Senate on the report of the Joint Committee on the Mode of Communication between the two Houses

* related portals: United States Senate.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States of America
In Senate April 23 1789.
The Committee appointed on the 16 April, to report a mode of communication to be observed between the Senate & House of Representatives, with respect to Papers, Bills & Messages, and to confer thereon with such Committee as might be appointed, by the House of Representatives for that purpose, have conferred with a Committee of the House, and have agreed to the following Report.
When a Bill or other message shall be sent from the Senate to the House of Representatives it shall be carried by the Secretary, who shall make one Obeisance to the Chair on entering the door of the House of Representatives, & another on delivering it at the Table, into the hands of the Speaker. After he shall have delivered it, he shall make an Obeisance to the Speaker and repeat it as he retires from the House.
When a Bill shall be sent up by the House of Representatives to the Senate, it shall be carried by two Members, who at the bar of the Senate, shall make their Obeisance to the President, and thence advancing to the Chair make a second Obeisance, and deliver it into the hands of the President. After having delivered the Bill, they shall make their obeisance to the President, and repeat it as they retire from the bar. The Senate shall rise on the entrance of the Members within the bar, & continue standing till they retire.
All other messages from the House of Representatives shall be carried by a single Member, who shall make his Obeisance as above mentioned, but the President ​of the Senate alone shall rise.
Read & accepted
A true copy from the Journals of Senate.
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
# Resolve

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Resolve."
* 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.
* Resolve, a poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox
* Resolve, a poem by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
# Resolutions of the Joint Committee on the Washington Monument

​Resolved, That the Resolution of Congress passed in 1783, respecting an Equestrian Statue of General Washington, be carried into immediate execution, and the the Statue be placed in the centre of an Area to be formed in front of the Capitol.
Resolved, That a marble monument be erected by the United States in the Capitol at the City of Washington, in honor of General Washington, to commemorate his services and to express the regrets of the American People for their irreparable loss.
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to give such directions as may appear to him proper for carrying into effect the preceeding resolutions, and that for the present the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be appropriated for these purposes.
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
# Schwabacher v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 182
Schwabacher v. United States
Argued: Jan. 6, 7, 1948. --- Decided: May 3, 1948
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Mr. Carl McFarland, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. Daniel H. Kuk el, of Washington, D.C., for appellee I.C.C.
[Argument of Counsel from page 183 intentionally omitted]
Mr. George D. Gibson, of Richmond, Va., for appellee C. & O. Ry. Co. and others.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 232
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico
Argued: Jan. 14, 15, 1957. --- Decided: May 6, 1957
Mr. Herbert Monte Levy, New York City, for the petitioner.
Mr. William A. Sloan, Albuquerque, N.M., for the respondent.
Mr. Fred M. Standley, Clovis, N.M., for the respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Schwartz v. Irving Trust Company

United States Supreme Court
299 U.S. 456
Schwartz v. Irving Trust Company
Argued: Dec. 16, 1936. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1937
Mr. Murray C. Bernays and Miss Susan Brandeis, both of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. Wm. D. Whitney, of New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# San Mateo v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 138
San Mateo v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Argued: December 21, 1885. ---
John W. Ross, for the motion.
A. L. Rhodes, in opposition.
WAITE, C. 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
# San Miniato

* "San Miniato" in The Writings of Oscar Wilde (1907)
* "San Miniato" in The Poems of Oscar Wilde (1909)
# San Pedro Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
247 U.S. 307
San Pedro Company v. United States
Argued: Nov. 12, 1917. --- Decided: June 3, 1918
Messrs. Alexander Britton, Evans Browne, and F. W. Clements, all of Washington, D. C., and A. S. Halsted, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for the United States.
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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
# San Lorenzo's Mother

* Meynell, Alice (1875), as "San Lorenzo Giustiniani's Mother" in Preludes.
* Meynell, Alice (1921), "San Lorenzo's Mother" in Poems.
# Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
228 U.S. 433
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore
Argued: and submitted December 3, 1912. --- Decided: April 28, 1913
Messrs. James F. Glen and P. O. Knight for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. George C. Bedell, A. H. King, Roswell King, Hilton S. Hampton, and Horatio Bisbee for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by Mr. Chief Justice White:

## 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
# Seaboard Air Line Railway v. North Carolina

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 298
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. North Carolina
Argued: Nov. 7, 1917. ---
Decided Dec. 10,
Mr. Murray Allen, of Raleigh, N. C., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. James S. Manning, of Raleigh, N. C., and Robert H. Sykes, of Durham, N. C., for the State of North Carolina.
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
# Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Lorick

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 572
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Lorick
Argued: April 10, 1917. --- Decided: April 23, 1917
Mr. J. B. S. Lyles for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Frank G. Tompkins and George Bell Timmerman for defendant in error.
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
# Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Lorick/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 572
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Lorick
Argued: April 10, 1917. --- Decided: April 23, 1917
The Federal Safety Appliance Acts (as supplemented by Act of April 14, 1910, chap. 160, 36 Stat. at L. 299, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8621) prohibit a carrier engaged in interstate commerce from hauling a car with a defective coupler, if it can be repaired at the place where the defect is discovered. United States v. Erie R. Co. 237 U.S. 402, 409, 59 L. ed. 1019, 1023, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621. The Seaboard Air Line Railway received such a car at one of its yards. Lorick, the local car inspector and repairer, who discovered the defect, undertook to make the repairs, as was in the line of his duty. To do so it was neecssary to raise the coupler; and for this a jack was the appropriate appliance. None having been furnished him, he sat down under the coupler and raised it with his shoulder, which was thereby seriously strained. Occasion to make similar repairs had previously arisen at this yard at short intervals. Lorick had for this purpose repeatedly asked the chief car inspector for a jack; and a few weeks before the accident had been promised one. Lorick sued the company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, in a state court of South Carolina, and testified to the facts above stated.
The case was tried twice before a jury and was twice reviewed by the supreme court of South Carolina. At the first trial the court directed a nonsuit on the ground that Lorick had assumed the risk. The supreme court set aside the nonsuit (102 S.C.. 276, 86 S. E. 675), holding that, in view of the promise to supply a jack, the question of assumption of risk should have been left to the jury, citing McGovern v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 235 U.S. 389, 59 L. ed. 283, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127, 8 N. C. C. A. 67. At the second trial defendant asked for a directed verdict on the grounds both that Lorick had assumed the risk and that there was no evidence of negligence on defendant's part. This request being refused, the case was submitted to the jury under instructions which were not objected to; and a verdict was rendered for plaintiff. Defendant's exceptions to the refusal to direct a verdict were overruled by the supreme court. The case comes here on writ of error where only these same alleged errors may be considered.
The appellate court was unanimous in holding that the trial court had properly left the case to the jury. No clear and palpable error is shown which would justify us in disturbing that ruling. Great Northern R. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U.S. 464, 466, 60 L. ed. 745, 754, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U.S. 169, 171, 61 L. ed. 228, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33. The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter and Mr. Justice McReynolds dissent.

## 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
# Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Railroad Commission of Georgia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 324
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Railroad Commission of Georgia
Argued: January 13 and 14, 1916. --- Decided: February 21, 1916
Messrs. Edgar Watkins, W. G. Loving, and W. Carroll Latimer for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 325 intentionally omitted]
Mr. James K. Hines for appellees.
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
# Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Pakgett

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 668
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Pakgett
Argued: February 24, 1915. --- Decided: March 22, 1915
Mr. J. B. S. Lyles for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 669 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. W. Boyd Evans, James H. Fanning, W. H. Sharpe, and A. D. Martin for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief 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
# Schlesinger v. Wisconsin

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Wendell Holmes, Jr.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 230
Schlesinger v. Wisconsin
Argued: Jan. 18, 1926. --- Decided: March 1, 1926
Messrs. Charles F. Fawsett, Edward M. Smart, and Charles E. Monroe, all of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 230-234 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. F. E. Bump and Herman L. Ekern, both of Madison, Wis., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 234-236 intentionally omitted]
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
# Schlesinger v. Beard Same

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 264
Schlesinger v. Beard Same
L. S. Dabney and W. S. Hall, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol Gen. Jenks, for defendants in error.
WAITE, C. 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
# Rockefeller v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 176
Rockefeller v. United States
Argued: Oct. 11, 12, 1921. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1921
Mr. George Welwood Murray, of New York City (Mr. Harrison Tweed, of New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 177-179 intentionally omitted]
Mr James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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
# Rockefeller v. Wells/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 421
Rockefeller v. Wells
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, 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
# Rockefeller v. Orans

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 10
Rockefeller v. Orans
See 382 U.S. 934, 86 S.Ct. 311.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, Leonard Joseph and Malcolm H. Bell, for appellants.
Justin N. Feldman, for appellee Orans.
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