OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# West African Studies

WEST AFRICAN STUDIES
Frontispiece.
Sirimba Players, Congo.
WEST AFRICAN STUDIES
BY
MARY H. KINGSLEY AUTHOR OF "TRAVELS IN WEST AFRICA"
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS
London
MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1899
All rights reserved
TO MY BROTHER
MR. C. G. KINGSLEY
AND TO MY FRIEND WHO IS DEAD
THIS BOOK IS
Dedicated
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
| SIRIMBA PLAYERS, CONGO | Frontispiece. | |
| SANTA CRUZ, TENERIFFE | To face page | 12 |
| FOR PALM WINE | To face page | 63 |
| SECRET SOCIETY LEAVING THE SACRED GROVE | To face page„ | 69 |
| JENGU DEVIL DANCE OF KING WILLIAM'S SLAVES, SETTE CAMMA, NOVEMBER 9, 1888 | To face page„ | 69 |
| BATANGA CANOES | To face page„ | 89 |
| FALLS ON THE TONGUE RIVER | To face page„ | 101 |
| LOANDA CANOE WITH MAT SAILS | To face page„ | 101 |
| ST. PAUL DO LOANDA | To face page„ | 102 |
| ROUND A KACONGO CAMP FIRE | To face page„ | 105 |
| FANTEE NATIVES OF THE GOLD COAST | To face page„ | 137 |
| YORUBA | To face page„ | 141 |
| A CALABAR CHIEF | To face page„ | 145 |
| NATIVES OF GABOON | To face page„ | 151 |
| FJORT NATIVES OF KACONGO AND LOANGO | To face page„ | 155 |
| OIL RIVER NATIVES | To face page„ | 245 |
| ST. PAUL DO LOANDA | To face page„ | 281 |
| CLIFFS AT LOANDA | To face page„ | 285 |
| DONDO ANGOLA | To face page„ | 287 |
| TRADING STORES | To face page„ | 289 |
| ST. PAUL DO LOANDA | To face page„ | 291 ​ |
| IN AN ANGOLA MARKET | To face page | 297 |
| A MAN OF SOUTH ANGOLA | To face page„ | 297 |
| A HOUSA | To face page„ | 420 |
| HOUSE PROPERTY IN KACONGO | To face page„ | 423 |
| BUBIES OF FERNANDO PO | To face page„ | 423 |
| JA JA, KING OF OPOBO | To face page„ | 443 |
| JA JA MAKING JU JU | To face page„ | 540 |
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
# Wessex Poems and Other Verses/Unknowing

UNKNOWING
WHEN, soul in soul reflected, We breathed an æthered air, When we neglected All things elsewhere, And left the friendly friendless To keep our love aglow, We deemed it endless ... —We did not know!
When, by mad passion goaded, We planned to hie away,
But, unforeboded, The storm-shafts gray So heavily down-pattered That none could forthward go, Our lives seemed shattered ... —We did not know!
When I found you, helpless lying, And you waived my deep misprise, And swore me, dying, In phantom-guise To wing to me when grieving, And touch away my woe, We kissed, believing ... —We did not know!
But though, your powers outreckoning, You hold you dead and dumb, Or scorn my beckoning, And will not come; And I say, “'Twere mood ungainly To store her memory so:" I say it vainly— I feel and know!
# War Department letter to Eloise Lindauer II

* related portals: Eloise Lindauer.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, travel guide, Wikidata item.
Layout 2
WAR DEPARTMENT QUARTERMASTER CORPS GRAVES REGISTRATION SERVICE PIER 2, HOBOKEN, N. J.
(Freudenberg, Private Louis J.) Serial No. 1749623
July 16th, 1921.
Drs. Eloise Freudenberg, 22 Hopkins Avnue, Jersey City, N.J.
Dear Madam;
Dear Madam; Receipt of your letter of July 10th is hereby acknowledged and your wishes will be complied with. We will deliver the body of Private Louis J. Freudenberg to Undertaker, Christian Epple, of 250 Central Avenue, Jersey City, N.J., when he calls at this office on Monday, July 18th, 1921,
Very respectfully yours,
R. E. SHANNON, Captain, Q.M. Corps. Officer in Charge.
BY: J.P. Butler J. P. BUTLER, Captain, Infantry.
3 incls. fec
# War Crimes Act

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "War Crimes Act."
* 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.
* War Crimes Act 1945 (Cth.) an Australian Act enacted to prosecute naturalized World War II war criminals, later includes acts conducted during Soviet occupation of the Baltic States.
* War Crimes Act 1991 (c. 13), an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that extends England and Wales and Northern Ireland court jurisdiction with respect to World War II German war crimes, and provides for pre-trial procedures.
* War Crimes Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–192, 110 Stat. 2104), a United States Act of Congress to penalize grave breaches of Geneva Convention. Codified in 18 U.S.C. 2441.

## See also

* Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24) (Canada)
# War Drums

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "War Drums."
* 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.
* War Drums (1928), a novel by Herbert Ravenel Sass
* War Drums (1899), a poetry collection by Louis Edward Scharkie
# War Drums (Sass)

* related portals: Charleston, South Carolina.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.
War Drums
By Herbert Ravenel Sass
Grosset & Dunlap PublishersNew York
Copyright, 1928, by Doubleday, Doray & Company, Inc. Copyright, 1927, 1928 by the Crowell Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States at the Country Life Press, Garden City, N. Y.
To M. H. S. Comrade of many happy days
* Foreword
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1958, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 65 years or less. 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
# United States v. Michigan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
190 U.S. 379
United States v. Michigan
Argued: April 20, 21, 1903. --- Decided: June 1, 1903
The United States, by leave of court, duly filed in this court its original bill in equity against the state of Michigan, to which bill the defendant has filed a demurrer substantially for want of equity, and also because it appears therefrom that the complainant has been guilty of gross laches in regard to the matters therein set forth. It will be most convenient to set forth the bill, with the exception of some portions thereof which do not seem to be material, and it is as follows:
'To the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Equity:

## 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
# United States v. Midstate Horticultural Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 161
United States v. Midstate Horticultural Company
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 13, 1939. --- Decided: Jan 30, 1939
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Wendell Berge, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Francis Biddle, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Pennsylvania R. Co.
Messrs. Henry Silverman, of New York City, and Samuel L. Einhorn, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Messrs. Samuel Hassen and David Siskind, all of New York City, on the brief), for appellees Midstate Horticultural Co.
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
# United States v. Midland-Ross Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 54
United States v. Midland-Ross Corporation
Argued: March 31, 1965. --- Decided: May 3, 1965
Frank I. Goodman for petitioner.
Theodore R. Colborn, Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# United States v. Michigan Portland Cement Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 521
United States v. Michigan Portland Cement Company
Argued: March 16 and 17, 1926. --- Decided: April 12, 1926
The Attorney General and Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., Blackburn Esterline, Asst. Sol. Gen., both of Washington, D. C., and William H. Bonneville, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Hal H. Smith, of Detroit, Mich. (Mr. Thomas B. Moore, of Detroit, Mich., of counsel), for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# West v. Carr

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 557
West v. Carr
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Division.
Harris A. Gilbert, for appellants.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen. of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
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
# West v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore City

United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 662
West v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore City
Argued: April 10, 11, 1935. --- Decided: June 3, 1935
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.
[Syllabus from pages 662-664 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Richard F. Cleveland and John Henry Lewin, both of Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
Mr. Charles McHenry Howard, of Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
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
# West v. Carr/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 557
West v. Carr
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

## 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
# West v. California/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 663
West 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 is remanded for a hearing as provided in Sims v. State of Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593, and Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted and the case set for oral argument.

## 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
# Ward v. Board of County Com'rs of Love County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 17
Ward v. Board of County Com'rs of Love County
Argued: March 11, 1920. --- Decided: April 26, 1920
Messrs. John Emerson Bennett, of Ft. Worth, Tex., and George P. Glaze, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioners.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# Ward v. Gregory/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
32 U.S. 633
Ward v. Gregory
APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for the territory of Florida.
White moved to dismiss these cases, on the grounds that the proceedings were at law in the courts of the United States for the territory of Florida, and that they had been brought up from the court of appeals of that territory, by appeals instead of by writs of error.
On the 13th December, 1826, on the applications of the appellees to the superior court of appeals for the middle district of Florida, a mandamus was issued directed to George W. Ward, the register of the western land-district of Florida, and to Richard K. Call, receiver of public moneys in said district, commanding them to permit the persons praying for the mandamus to enter and purchase certain sections of land, described in the writ, under the provisions of the act of congress of the 22d of April 1826, which gave rights of pre-emption in the purchase of land to certain settlers in the states of Alabama and Mississippi, and the territory of Florida. From the superior court, the case was removed by a writ of error, to the court of appeals for the territory of Florida; and on the 21st of January 1831, the order of the superior court was affirmed by the court of appeals. From this judgment, the United States appealed to this court.
THE COURT ordered the appeal to be dismissed; the proceeding by mandamus being at common law, and therefore, the cases should have been brought up by writs of error.

## 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
# Ward v. Chamberlain

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
62 U.S. 572
Ward v. Chamberlain
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio.
It was in fact a cross-appeal in the preceding case, although there was no cross-libel filed. Being a branch of same case, it was argued by the same counsel.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD 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
# Ward v. Gregory

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
32 U.S. 633
Ward v. Gregory

## 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
# Webb v. Den

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 576
Webb v. Den
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the middle district of Tennessee.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Gillet, for the plaintiffs in error; no counsel appearing for the defendant.
Mr. Justice GRIER 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
# Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 512
Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Argued: Dec. 3, 1956. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1957
Mr. Robert J. Rafferty, Chicago, Ill., for the petitioner.
Mr. Herbert J. Deany, Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Webb v. Sharp Marshal

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 14
Webb v. Sharp Marshal
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; the case being this:
By the act of Congress, passed February 22d, 1867, the right of distress for rent in the District of Columbia was abolished, and instead thereof, it was enacted, 'that the landlord shall have a tacit lien upon such of the tenant's personal chattels upon the premises as are subject to execution for debt, to commence with the tenancy and continue for three months after the rent is due, and until the termination of any action for such rent brought within said three months.' And under the act this lien may be enforced:
(1.) By attachment, to be issued upon affidavit that the rent is due and unpaid; or, if not due, that the defendant is about to remove or sell all, or some, of said chattels; or,
(2.) By judgment against the tenant and execution, to be levied on said chattels, or any of them, in whosesoever hands they may be found; or,
(3.) By action against any purchaser of any of said chattels, with notice of the lien.
This act of Congress being in force, one Polkinhorn, owner of a house in Washington City, leased it to Snow et al. for a printing-office, and they afterwards bought and placed a printing-press therein. Subsequently, on the 11th of December, 1867, they borrowed money, and executed to one Webb a deed of trust to secure the repayment of the loan, the press, however, still remaining on the premises leased. The loan, though it became due, was never paid. And the tenants falling behind in payment of their rent also, Polkinhorn, their landlord, attached the printing-press; the rent for which the attachment was made having accrued in 1869, within three months prior to the issuing of the attachment. Judgment being perfected on the attachment a writ of fieri facias was issued to the marshal of the District, who levied on the press, then still remaining upon the premises. Hereupon Webb, the trustee, under the deed of trust, issued a replevin against the marshal in the court below. That court adjudged that the plaintiff should take nothing by his suit, and that the marshal have a return of the printing-press. From this judgment Webb brought the case here.
Mr. S. S. Hencle, for the plaintiff in error:
The deed of trust conveyed the printing-press completely out of Snow et al., and vested it completely in Webb, as trustee. It was no longer 'the tenant's personal chattels on the premises, subject to execution for debt.' Yet it is only on such chattels that the lien is given by the statute.
Mr. W. F. Mattingly, contra.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 14 Stat. at Large, 404, § 12.
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
# Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Company/Concurrence Burton

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Burton
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 512
Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Argued: Dec. 3, 1956. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1957
Mr. Justice BURTON concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice REED would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
For dissenting opinions of Mr Justice FRANKFURTER, and Mr. Justice HARLAN, see 352 U.S. 518, 77 S.Ct. 459.

## 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
# Webb v. O'Brien

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 313
Webb v. O'Brien
Argued: April 23, 24, 1923. --- Decided: Nov 19, 1923
Mr. U.S. Webb, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.
[Syllabus from pages 3131-315 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 315-317 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# United States v. Silk Harrison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
331 U.S. 704
United States v. Silk Harrison
Argued: March 10, 11, 1947. --- Decided: June 16, 1947
Mr. Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Ralph F. Glenn, of Topeka, Kan., for respondent Silk.
Wilbur E. Benoy, of Columbus, Ohio, for respondent Greyvan Lines.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# United States v. Simon (397 U.S. 594)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 594
United States v. Simon (397 U.S. 594)
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg, for the United States.
Jack McManus, for appellee.
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
# United States v. Simon (53 U.S. 433)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 433
United States v. Simon
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The case arose under the acts of 1824 and 1844, and was decided by the District Court in favor of the petitioner. The circumstances are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Crittenden, (Attorney-General,) for the United States. No counsel appeared for the appellee.
Mr. Justice GRIER 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
# United States v. Simon Normile

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 344
United States v. Simon Normile
Argued: December 3, 1915. --- Decided: December 13, 1915
Assistant Attorney General Thompson and Mr. Philip M. Ashford for the United States.
Messrs. Benjamin Carter and Frank Carter Pope for Simon Normile et al.
[Argument of Counsel from page 345 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