OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Executive Order 5918

more info.
See the Notes section for a list of Executive Orders affected by or related to the issuance of this Executive Order.
Signed by President Herbert Hoover Wednesday, September 7, 1932
External Information about this EO
The United States Civil Service Commission is authorized to test the qualifications of applicants for designation for appointment in the United States Military or Naval Academies on nomination of any Member of Congress.

## Notes
### Amends

* Executive Order 723, December 17, 1907

### Revoked by

* Executive Order 12553, February 25, 1986
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
# Executive Order 593

more info.
Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Saturday, March 16, 1907
Major William L. Sibert, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., Major David Du B. Gaillard, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., and Civil Engineer Harry H. Rousseau, U. S. N., are hereby appointed members of the Isthmian Canal Commission vice Benjamin Harrod, General Peter C. Hains, U. S. A., and Rear-Admiral Mordecai T. Endicott, U. S. N., resigned.
Major Sibert will receive compensation at the rate of $14,000. per annum, including his pay as Major in the Corps of Engineers.
Major Gaillard will receive compensation at the rate of $14,000. per annum, including his pay as Major in the Corps of Engineers.
Civil Engineer Rousseau will receive compensation at the rate of $14,000. per annum, including his pay as an officer of the Navy.
Major William L. Sibert, Major David Du B. Gaillard, and Civil Engineer Harry H. Rousseau will each be allowed the use of a furnished dwelling house on the Isthmus and will be allowed and paid their actual and necessary expenses while away from the Isthmus of Panama on official business.
The White House, March 16, 1907.

## Notes
### See related

* Executive Order 474, June 30, 1906
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
# Executive Order 596

more info.
Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Tuesday, March 19, 1907
1907 CSR 118
Frederick M. Kerby, of the District of Columbia, may be appointed to a clerical position in the Department of the Interior, without reference to civil-service rules.
The White House,
    March 19, 1907.
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
# Executive Order 591

more info.
Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Friday, March 15, 1907
1907 CSR 118
Dr. A. Brown may be appointed in the Department of Agriculture without examination on account of his special ability along the line of work in execution of the pure-food and drugs law.
The White House,
    March 15, 1907.
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
# Executive Order 594

more info.
Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Monday, March 18, 1907
1907 CSR 118
Mr. Charles P. Galpin, a messenger in the Pension Office, may be appointed to a clerical position in that office without examination.
The White House,
    March 18, 1907.
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
# Fables for the Fair/Fable 1

THE WOMAN WHO WAS NOT ATHLETIC
THE WOMAN WHO WAS NOT ATHLETIC
HERE was once a Woman who wore High-heeled Shoes and a Tight Corset. Both These are Highly Injurious and Inartistic to the Last Degree. One Day she Went out to the Links with a Sensible Friend who wore a Sweater and Man-fashioned Shoes. There they Met two Men playing Golf.
"I Fear I shall only Be in your Way," said the Woman who was Not Athletic. "I Cannot Play the Game at all. I do Not Know a Caddy from a Bunker, nor a Foursome from a Tee."
"Not at all. I will Describe the Game to You," said the Men.
"Oh, Thank you, but One will be ​Quite Enough," she replied, and she Selected the Best-looking and the Other Went out after the Sensible Friend.
"May I Carry your Parasol?" said he when they had Started.
"If you will Be so Good," she answered. "It is very Foolish, I know, but my Skin is so Absurdly Thin, and the Sun Blisters it so."
The Sensible Friend came up just Behind, and Mopping her Face, she said,
"You are too Ridiculous. A Rose-colored Parasol on the Links! You are Keeping Him from Playing, too. He will get Out of Practice."
"Oh, I Hope Not," said the Woman who was Not Athletic.
"Do not be Alarmed," said the Man, "It is All Right."
"Moreover, I Saw him Help you Over a Fence," said the Sensible Friend, as she ​Waded through a Muddy Brook. "That Game is Out of Date."
The Woman who was Not Athletic looked Pensively and for Some Time at the Man.
"I am Spoiling Everything," she said softly. "Let me Go Home, and then You can Play."
"But then You could Not Learn the Game," said he, Sitting down under a Kind of Artificial Watershed and Watching the Rose-colored Reflection of her Parasol.
"Is this a Bunker?" she asked.
"Yes," he replied; "Its Purpose is to shield People Who wish to be Alone from Observation."
"Oh!" said she. "Then What is a Hazard?"
"Well," he replied, "This is sometimes Called a Hazard, too, because There is a Chance that Some one may Come By after all."
​"Oh!" said she. "Then over That Wall Behind that Big Rock is one of the Best Bunkers on the Links, is n't it?"
"It is, indeed," he replied. "You Pick Up the Game very Rapidly. Come over There, and I will Explain it Further to You."
"You are So Good," she said, as he Lifted her Over the Wall.
"Not at All," he replied Politely.
Some Time Afterward the Sensible Friend, who was Engaged in Wallowing Through some Underbrush and Falling into a Pond in Search of her Ball, Passed by Them on the Return Course, and seeing them Seated against the Wall, noted their somewhat Unoriginal Attitudes. She was Surprised.
This teaches us that You need Not Teach an Old Dog New Tricks.
# Fables for the Fair/Fable 11

THE WOMAN WHO BELIEVED IN EARLY RISING
THE WOMAN WHO BELIEVED IN EARLY RISING
THERE was once a Woman who Felt that her Husband stayed Out too Late at Night. She therefore Devised a Plan to Cure him of this. Her Plan was to Rise Early in order to Insure his Retiring Early.
"Only in this Way will he be Able to get Enough Sleep," she said.
Her Husband, who usually Endeavored to Please her, rose Without Complaint at Six O’clock, but Continued to stay Out Late. Perceiving that her Purpose was Not Accomplished, the Woman Changed the Hour to Five O'clock.
"The Morning Hours are the Best for Work," she said, "and I Understand that the Morning Air possesses Great Virtues."
​Her Husband objected, but Rose at Five, as she Wished.
Still he Continued to Come In Late. Then the Woman fixed the Hour at Four-thirty.
"I have Always Enjoyed seeing the Sun Rise," she said.
"In that Case," said her Husband decidedly, "I Shall Not go to bed At All, since it would Not be Worth my While. I will Stay up All Night and take my Sleep at My Office in the Afternoon. So We will have Breakfast at Three O'clock, if you like."
This teaches us that the Early Worm will Turn.
# Fables for the Fair/Fable 14

THE WOMAN WHO HAD BROAD VIEWS
THE WOMAN WHO HAD BROAD VIEWS
THERE was once a Woman who Held very Broad Views. Of these Views she Often Spoke, as is the Habit of Those who Hold them. But though she was Very Advanced, she had her Little Plans, just Like the Rest of Us. One Day she was Talking with a Man who was Interested in Her, and therefore, as she Thought, in Her Views. For even Advanced Women make this Error Occasionally.
"If I were Married," she said, "I should Never for One Moment expect My Husband to Confide his Past to me. I should Consider it to be None of My Business. Nor should I Feel that he was Necessarily Immoral if he Looked at Any Other Woman but Me. For that is ​Idiotic, considering that Men are only Human."
The Man smiled Approvingly.
"You are Quite Right," he said. "If More Women were Like You, the World would be a Happier Place. But Few are so Broad-minded."
"And then," said the Woman, "I should Expect the Same Tolerance from Him; for Women are Only Human, too."
The Man Drew away his Chair. "I Fear," said he, somewhat Coldly, "that you are Carrying Matters a Little Too Far. The Constitution of Society requires Some Foundation. There are Certain Things a Man has a Right to Exact from His Wife."
And he Engaged Himself to a Recent Graduate of a Convent School.
This teaches us that the Broad Road is More than Likely to Lead to Destruction.
# Fables for the Fair/Fable 12

THE WOMAN WHO TOOK ADVICE
THE WOMAN WHO TOOK ADVICE
THERE was once a Woman who Had the Opportunity of Marrying Either of Two Brothers she Preferred. Since they had Both of them Good Points she decided to Consult their Sister as to Which in her Opinion would Make the Best Husband. "I Think," she said, "that I shall Take John. He is So Good."
"Yes," said the Sister; "but He Sups his Soup and Sugars his Lettuce. To say nothing of Buttering his Bread in Slabs. We have Never been Able to Teach him Better."
"But he Reads Browning so Beautifully!" cried the Woman.
"You will Hear him Eat Soup Oftener than you will Hear him Read Browning," said the Sister.
​"I am Sure that he would Never Love any Other Woman but Me so Long as he Lived," said the Woman.
"But he has an Inveterate Habit of Reading Aloud all the Jokes in all the Funny columns of all the Papers, No Matter what You are Reading," replied the Sister. "You would Find that very Trying, as you are Fond of Reading to Yourself."
"I am Sure he would Give his Life for Me!" cried the Woman.
"If you will Pause and Consider," replied the Sister, "you will Realize that the Probabilities of his being Called upon to Do That are very Few indeed. Whereas the fact that he is very Careless about Brushing his Clothes will be Daily Apparent to you."
"Dear Me!" said the Woman. "And are Henry's Manners so Perfect?"
​"They are All a Woman could Desire," replied the Sister. "He will Escort you Anywhere Evenings and he Always Admires your Singing."
"But are you Sure that Down in the Bottom of his Heart he is a Perfectly Good Man?" asked the Woman.
"Not at all," replied the Sister. "I have No Means of Seeing the Bottom of his Heart. But he Always Opens the Door for me and Hopes I Slept Well."
"How do you Know," said the Woman, "that in some Tremendous Spiritual Crisis he would not Fail Me?"
"I Don't," the Sister replied. "We have Never had Any of Those in the Family. I should Not Marry with a View to having Them, I Think. But you are Certain to have Soup."
"Very well," said the Woman, "if that is your Advice, I will take Henry."
​Which she Did and Lived Happily ever Afterward.
This teaches us to Take Care of the Manners, and the Morals will Take Care of Themselves.
# Fables for the Fair/Fable 10

THE WOMAN WHO DELIBERATED
THE WOMAN WHO DELIBERATED
THERE was Once a Woman who Endeavored to Please her Husband in Every Particular. This is a very Difficult Thing to do.
"Among the Many Faults of your Sex," he was Accustomed to Say, "is Flightiness. You Jump too Hastily at Conclusions. If you would Devote the Mature Consideration of a Business Man to Your Affairs, they would Meet with Better Success. I Wish you would Remember This."
On one Occasion he Informed her that he was About to Present her with a Fine Piece of Fur for a Christmas Present. He Invited her to Accompany Him and Make her Own Selection.
When they Reached the Fur Shop the Woman Said to Herself, "Now is the ​Time to Delight Him with my Mature Consideration. I will Not Jump too Hastily at That Jacket, but Weigh the Merits of the Other Pieces."
Accordingly she Reasoned as follows:
"I will Not take the Long Coat, for it is Too Expensive, but I will Try it On. I will Not take the Collarette, for it would Not be Warm Enough, but I will Try it On. I will not take the Boa, for it will Not Look as if it Cost Enough, but I will Try it On. I will Not take the Cape, for it is Not Fashionable, but I will Try it On." And she did So.
Her Husband could Contain himself No longer. "For Heaven's Sake, woman. Make Up your Mind!" he cried. "You will Drive Me to an Insane Asylum with your Diddling Ways! I should Have Had the Garment half Worn Out by Now. I will Cure you of Shopping if I ​Cure you of Nothing Else. Take what you Have On and Let us Get Away!"
When they had Reached their Home he Addressed her Thus:
"That Cape is Not Nearly so Becoming as the Jacket would Have Been!"
This teaches us that the Woman who Deliberates is Bossed.
# Fables for the Fair/Fable 13

THE WOMAN WHO TOOK THINGS LITERALLY
THE WOMAN WHO TOOK THINGS LITERALLY
THERE was once a Woman who Invited a Celebrated Scientist to Take Tea with her. After Tea a Beggar came to the Door and Asked for a Meal. She remembered the Last Page of the Celebrated Scientist's last Essay, and addressed the Beggar thus:
"While I Regret to see you Suffering from Hunger, I Realize that I Injure Society more in Catering to Your Idleness than I Hurt my Feelings in Refusing your intrinsically Vicious Request." And she Sent him Away.
"Great Heavens!" cried the Celebrated Scientist. "It is Hard Enough for Me to act Thus, and I am Forced to in Order to be Consistent. But a Woman, whose Every Instinct should be Charity ​and Sympathy Incarnate—it is Disgusting!"
This teaches us that What is Sauce for the Gander may be Saucy for the Goose.
# Florida Ordinance of Secession

Adopted January 10, 1861. This edition is from Journal of the proceedings of the Convention of the people of Florida.
Ordinance of Secession.
We, the People of the State of Florida, in Convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish and declare,
That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the Confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America, and from the existing government of said States; and that all political connection between her and the government of said States ought to be and the same is hereby totally annulled and said Union of States dissolved, and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent Nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded, and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be and they are hereby repealed.
Done in open Convention, January 10th, 1861.
# Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 73
Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen
Argued: Dec. 9, 10, 1959. --- Decided: March 7, 1960
Mr. Isaac E. Ferguson, North Hollywood, Cal., for appellants.
Mr. John Fourt, Sacramento, Cal., for appellees.
Mr. Justice WHITTAKER 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
# Florida Senate Bill 69 (2001)

* related portals: Florida.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Source
An act relating to pharmacy; requiring the removal of specified drugs from the negative formulary for generic and brand-name drugs established in s. 465.025(6), F.S.; providing that the act does not amend existing law relating to a physician's authority to prohibit generic drug substitution by writing "medically necessary" on the prescription; providing an effective date.

## Section 1

The Board of Pharmacy and the Board of Medicine shall remove any generic named drug product from the formulary established by s. 465.025(6), Florida Statutes, if every commercially marketed equivalent of that drug product is "A" rated as therapeutically equivalent to a reference listed drug or is a reference listed drug as referred to in "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations" (Orange Book) published by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

## Section 2

Nothing in this act shall alter or amend s. 465.025, Florida Statutes, as to existing law providing for the authority of physicians to prohibit generic drug substitution by writing "medically necessary" on the prescription.

## Section 3

This bill shall take effect upon becoming a law.
# Florida State Board of Dentistry v. Mack

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 960
Florida State Board of Dentistry v. Mack
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 966.
Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 430 F. 2d 862.

## 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
# Estes v. Texas/Dissent White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
* Dissenting Opinions Stewart White Brennan
* Wikipedia article
Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN joins, dissenting.
I agree with Mr. Justice STEWART that a finding of constitutional prejudice on this record entails erecting a flat ban on the use of cameras in the courtroom and believe that it is premature to promulgate such a broad constitutional principle at the present time. This is the first case in this Court dealing with the subject of television coverage of criminal trials; our cases dealing with analogous subjects are not really controlling, cf. Rideau v. State of Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663; and there is, on the whole, a very limited amount of experience in this country with television coverage of trials. In my view, the currently available materials assessing the effect of cameras in the courtroom are too sparse and fragmentary to constitute the basis for a constitutional judgment permanently barring any and all forms of television coverage. As was said in another context, 'we know too little of the actual impact * * * to reach a conclusion on the bare bones of the * * * evidence before us.' White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253, 261, 83 S.Ct. 696, 701, 9 L.Ed.2d 738. It may well be, however, that as further experience and informed judgment do become available, the use of cameras in the courtroom, as in this trial, will prove to pose such a serious hazard to a defendant's rights that a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment will be found without a showing on the record of specific demonstrable prejudice to the defendant. Compare Wolf v. People of State of Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, with Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081; Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595, with Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Stein v. People of State of New York, 346 U.S. 156, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522, with Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 389-390, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1787-1788, 12 L.Ed.2d 908.
The opinion of the Court in effect precludes further opportunity for intelligent assessment of the probable hazards imposed by the use of cameras at criminal trials. Serious threats to constitutional rights in some instances justify a prophylactic rule dispensing with the necessity of showing specific prejudice in a particular case. Rideau v. State of Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 727, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1419, 10 L.Ed.2d 663; Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 389, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1787, 12 L.Ed.2d 908. But these are instances in which there has been ample experience on which to base an informed judgment. Here, although our experience is inadequate and our judgment correspondingly infirm, the Court discourages further meaningful study of the use of television at criminal trials. Accordingly, I dissent.
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
# Estes v. Texas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court overturned the swindling conviction of petitioner Billy Sol Estes, holding that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights had been violated by the publicity associated with the pretrial hearing, which had been carried live on both television and radio. News photography was permitted throughout the trial and parts of it were broadcast as well. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan

## Dissenting Opinions

    Stewart
    White
    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 532
Estes v. Texas
Argued: April 1, 1965. --- Decided: June 7, 1965
See 86 S.Ct. 18.
[Syllabus from pages 532-534 intentionally omitted]
John D. Cofer and Hume Cofer, Austin, Tex., for petitioner.
Waggoner Carr, Austin, Tex., and Leon Jaworski, Houston, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

* ↑ Mr. Justice HARLAN concurs in this opinion subject to the reservations and to the extent indicated in his concurring opinion, post, p. 587
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
# Estes v. Texas/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
* Dissenting Opinions Stewart White Brennan
* Wikipedia article
Mr. Justice BRENNAN.
I write merely to emphasize that only four of the five Justices voting to reverse rest on the proposition that televised criminal trials are constitutionally infirm, whatever the circumstances. Although the opinion announced by my Brother CLARK purports to be an 'opinion of the Court,' my Brother HARLAN subscribes to a significantly less sweeping proposition. He states:
'The Estes trial was a heavily publicized and highly sentational affair. I therefore put aside all other types of cases * * *. The resolution of those further questions should await an appropriate case; the Court should proceed only step by step in this unplowed field. The opinion of the Court necessarily goes no farther, for only the four members of the majority who unreservedly join the Court's opinion would resolve those questions now.' Ante, pp. 590-591. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus today's decision is not a blanket constitutional prohibition against the televising of state criminal trials.
While I join the dissents of my Brothers STEWART and WHITE, I do so on the understanding that their use of the expressions 'the Court's opinion' or 'the opinion of the Court' refers only to those views of our four Brethren which my Brother HARLAN explicitly states he shares.
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
# Estes v. Timmons

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
199 U.S. 391
Estes v. Timmons
Argued: November 10, 1905. --- Decided: November 27, 1905
Mr. S. D. Luckett for appellant.
Mr. J. H. Everest for appellee.
Mr. Justice McKenna 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