OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Vigil (80 U.S. 449)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 449
United States v. Vigil
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico; the case being thus:
On the 28th of December, 1845, one Vigil and certain other persons addressed a petition to the Most Excellent Departmental Assembly, through Armijo, governor of New Mexico, asking for a grant of a tract of land called the Jornada del Muerto, binding themselves, if the grant were made, to construct two wells for the relief and aid of travellers, and establish two factories for the use of the State, and to protect them from hostile invasion. The governor transmitted the petition to the Assembly, but declined to recommend that favorable action should be taken upon it, on account of the novel character of the application. Notwithstanding the refusal of the governor to recommend favorable action, the Assembly, on the 10th of January, 1846, granted the tract to the petitioners for the purpose of constructing wells and cultivating the lands, so far as their means would permit, without being entitled to an exclusive right to the pasture. The tract disposed of in this way, embraced an area of over two millions of acres. Soon after this, as is known, war broke out between the United States and Mexico; and the whole region where the land lay passed by conquest and treaty to the government of our own country. Hereupon Vigil and the other parties, asserting title under the grant, presented their claim to the surveyor general of New Mexico for confirmation. He, however, rejected it. The claimants then applied to Congress for relief, and a law was passed for their benefit, which authorized them to institute a suit in the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico against the United States; the law declaring further that the same principles should be applied to the determination of the controversy, which Congress had prescribed for the decision of similar land claims in California, derived under the authority of the Mexican government. Suit was accordingly brought in the court mentioned-the court below-and that court confirmed the claim. From the decree of confirmation the case was now here on appeal by the United States.
The case was ably and elaborately argued, and a wide range taken in the discussion of questions presented by the record, but collateral to the history already given, which it is not necessary to notice in view of the grounds hereinafter set forth, on which the decision of this court is rested.
Mr. J. A. Wills and Mr. B. H. Bristow, Solicitor-General, for the United States; Mr. J. S. Watts and T. Ewing, contra.
Mr. Justice DAVIS 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
# What Is To Be Done? (Lenin, 1935)/Correction

CORRECTION TO WHAT IS TO BE DONE
The Group of Initiators, to whom I referred in the pamphlet What Is To Be Done?, have asked me to make the following correction to my description of the part they played in the attempt to reconcile the Social-Democratic organisations abroad:
Of the three members of this group only one left the "League" at the end of 1900; the others left in 1901, only after they had become convinced that it was impossible to obtain the "League's" consent to a conference with the foreign organisations of Iskra and the Revolutionary Social-Democrat Organisation, which is what the Group of Initiators had proposed. First of all, the Managing Committee of the "League" rejected the proposal for a conference on the ground that the persons making up the Group of Initiators were not "competent" to act as mediators and for that reason it at that time expressed the desire to enter into direct contact with the Iskra organisation abroad. Soon after, however, the Managing Committee of the "League" informed the Group of Initiators that after the appearance of the first number of Iskra containing the report of the split in the "League," it had altered its decision and no longer desired to have communication with Iskra. After this, how can one explain the statement made by a member of the Managing Committee of the "League" that the "League's" rejection of a conference was called forth entirely by its dissatisfaction with the composition of the Group of Initiators? It is true that it is equally difficult to explain why the Managing Committee of the "League" agreed to a conference in June last; for the remarks contained in the first issue of Iskra still remained in force and Iskra's "hostility" to the "League" was still more strongly expressed in the first volume of Zarya and in No. 4 of Iskra, both of which appeared prior to the June conference.
Iskra, No. 18, April 1, 1902.
THE END
# Wackenhut Corporation v. Aponte/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 268
Wackenhut Corporation v. Aponte
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

## 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
# Wacousta
### Volume I

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X

### Volume II

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII

### Volume III

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
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
# United States v. Wheeler

United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), is an 8-to-1 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Constitution alone did not grant the federal government the power to prosecute kidnappers, and that only the states had the authority to punish a private citizen's unlawful violation of another's freedom of movement. The case was a landmark interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, and contained a classic legal statement of the right to travel which continues to undergird American jurisprudence. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
254 U.S. 281
United States v. Wheeler
Argued: April 28, 1920. --- Decided: Dec 13, 1920
The Attorney General and W. C. Herron of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 282-289 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, of New York City, E. E. Ellinwood and John Mason Ross, both of Bisbee, Ariz., and Clifton Mathews, of Globe, Ariz., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 289-292 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Western Union Telephone Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
160 U.S. 53
United States v. Western Union Telephone Company
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., Sol. Gen., for the United States.
Rush Taggart, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 261
United States v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company
Argued: Oct. 13-14, 1949. --- Decided: April 17, 1950
Mr. Roger P. Marquis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Milton J. Donovan, Springfield, Mass., 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
# United States v. Wheelock Bros.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 319
United States v. Wheelock Bros.
Argued: Jan. 3, 1951. --- Decided: May 7, 1951
Mr.
Max Siskind, New York City, for Wheelock Bros. Inc.
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
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. Wheelock Bros./Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 319
United States v. Wheelock Bros.
Argued: Jan. 3, 1951. --- Decided: May 7, 1951
Wheelock Bros., Inc., a private motor carrier, sued in the Court of Claims to recover just compensation for an alleged temporary taking of its properties and business by the United States pursuant to Executive Order No. 9462. 9 Fed.Reg. 10071, Aug. 11, 1944. The Court of Claims entered judgment awarding Wheelock Bros., Inc., just compensation in an amount less than that claimed. 1950, 115 Ct.Cl. 733, 88 F.Supp. 278. We granted certiorari on the petitions of both parties. 1950, 340 U.S. 808, 71 S.Ct. 55.
While the action was pending in the Court of Claims, Congress passed the Motor Carrier Claims Commission Act, providing that that Commission 'shall hear and determine, according to law, existing claims against the United States arising out of the taking by the United States of possession or control of any of the motor-carrier transportation systems described in Executive Order Numbered 9462 * * *.' Section 2. Within the time provided in the Act and before entry of judgment in the Court of Claims, Wheelock Bros., Inc., filed its claim with the Commission.
At the threshold, we are met with the question whether the Court of Claims had jurisdiction to enter judgment in this case. Congress, in § 6 of the Motor Carrier Claims Commission Act, expressly provided: 'The jurisdiction of the Commission over claims presented to it as provided in section 2 of this Act shall be exclusive; but nothing in this Act shall prevent any person who does not elect to present his claim to the Commission from pursuing any other remedy available to him.'
Wheelock Bros., Inc., by filing its claim with the Commission, did elect to present it to that tribunal. The Commission's jurisdiction over the claim being 'exclusive,' the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction to enter judgment in this case. For this reason, the judgment below is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Claims with instructions to dismiss the claim in that court.
It is so ordered.
Judgment vacated, case remanded with instructions.

## Notes

* ↑ 62 Stat. 1222 (1948), as amended, 62 Stat. 1289, 1290 (1948), 63 Stat. 80 (1949), 49 U.S.C.A. § 305 note.
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
# Warning to Travellers to Great Britain

* related portals: United KIngdom, Germany, War.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or of any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk. IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 22, 1915.
# Warning: These enemies are still lurking around

Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
​Warning: These enemies are still lurking around
U.S. NAVY YARD
U.S. ARMY CANTONMENT
TRANSIENTS
Gonorrhea
Syphilis
C. D. Batchelor
CREATED BY C.D. BATCHELOR OF THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS FOR THE AMERICAN SOCIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION, 1790 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N.Y.
# Warning Americans against Travel on Ships of Belligerent Nations during Italian-Ethiopian War, 1934

A warning to American travelers to avoid getting caught up in European conflicts by voyaging on targeted vessels of foreign flag.
Whereas Section 6 of the Joint Resolution of Congress, approved August 31, 1935 (Public Resolution No. 67, 74th Congress), provides that—
"Whenever, during any war in which the United States is neutral, the President shall find that the maintenance of peace between the United States and foreign Nations, or the protection of the lives of citizens of the United States, or the protection of the commercial interests of the United States and its citizens, or the security of the United States requires that the American citizens should refrain from traveling as passengers on the vessels of any belligerent Nation, he shall so proclaim, and thereafter no citizen of the United States shall travel on any vessel of any belligerent Nation except at his own risk, unless in accordance with such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe: Provided, however, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to a citizen traveling on the vessel of a belligerent whose voyage was begun in advance of the date of the President's proclamation, and who had no opportunity to discontinue his voyage after that date: And provided further, That they shall not apply under ninety days after the date of the President's proclamation to a citizen returning from a foreign country to the United States or to any of its possessions. When, in the President's judgment, the conditions which have caused him to issue his proclamation have ceased to exist, he shall revoke his proclamation and the provisions of this section shall thereupon cease to apply."
AND WHEREAS war now unhappily exists between Ethiopia and the Kingdom of Italy; and
WHEREAS I find that the protection of the lives of citizens of the United States requires that American citizens should refrain from traveling as passengers on the vessels of either of the belligerent Nations;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the said Joint Resolution of Congress, do hereby admonish all citizens of the United States to abstain from traveling on any vessel of either of the belligerent nations contrary to the provisions of the said Joint Resolution; and
I do hereby give notice that any citizen of the United States who may travel on such a vessel, contrary to the provisions of the said Joint Resolution, will do so at his own risk.
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
# War and Love/Doubt

Boston: The Four Seas Company, pages 61–62
DOUBT
I
Can we, by any strength of ours, Thrust back this hostile world That tears us from ourselves, As a child from the womb, A weak lover from light breasts?
Is there any hope? Can we believe That not in wild perversity, In blinding cruelty, Has flesh torn flesh, Has soul been torn from soul?
Must we despair? Throw back upon the gods this taunt That even their loveliest is at best Some ineffectual lie?
II
Sand in the gale whirls up, Pricks and stifles our flesh, Blinds and deafens our sense So that we cannot hear The crumbling downfall of the waves Nor see the limpid sunset any more.
But could we thrust from us This threat, this misery, ​Borrow the mountain's strength As now its loneliness, Hurl back this menace on itself, Crush bronze with bronze— Why, it would be as if some tall slim god, Unburdened of his age-long apathy, Took in his hand the thin horn of the moon And set it to his lips And blew sharp wild shrill notes Such as our hearts, our lonely hearts, Have yearned for in the dumb bleak silences.
III
Ah! Weak as wax against their bronze are we, Ah! Faint as reed-pipes by the water's roar, And driven as land-birds by the vast sea wind.
# War and Love/Dawn

Boston: The Four Seas Company, page 19
DAWN
The grim dawn lightens thin bleak clouds; In the hill-clefts beyond the flooded meadows Lies death-pale, death-still mist.
We trudge along wearily, Heavy with lack of sleep, Spiritless, yet with pretence of gaiety.
The sun brings crimson to the colourless sky; Light shines from brass and steel— We trudge on wearily—
O God, end this bleak anguish Soon, soon, with vivid crimson death, End it in mist-pale sleep!
# Vailima Letters/Chapter XX

SATURDAY, 2ND JULY 1892.
THE character of my handwriting is explained, alas! by scrivener's cramp. This also explains how long I have let the paper lie plain.
1 P. M.
I was busy copying David Balfour with my left hand - a most laborious task - Fanny was down at the native house superintending the floor, Lloyd down in Apia, and Belle in her own house cleaning, when I heard the latter calling on my name. I ran out on the verandah; and there on the lawn beheld my crazy boy with an axe in his hand and dressed out in green ferns, dancing. I ran downstairs and found all my house boys on the back verandah, watching him through the dining-room. I asked what it meant? - 'Dance belong his place,' they said. - 'I think this no time to dance,' said I.
'Has he done his work?' - 'No,' they told me, 'away bush all morning.' But there they all stayed on the back verandah. I went on alone through the dining-room, and bade him stop. He did so, shouldered the axe, and began to walk away; but I called him back, walked up to him, and took the axe out of his unresisting hands. The boy is in all things so good, that I can scarce say I was afraid; only I felt it had to be stopped ere he could work himself up by dancing to some craziness. Our house boys protested they were not afraid; all I know is they were all watching him round the back door and did not follow me till I had the axe. As for the out boys, who were working with Fanny in the native house, they thought it a very bad business, and made no secret of their fears.
WEDNESDAY, 6TH.
I have no account to give of my stewardship these days, and there's a day more to account for than mere arithmetic would tell you. For we have had two Monday Fourths, to bring us at last on the right side of the meridian, having hitherto been an exception in the world and kept our private date.
Business has filled my hours sans intermission.
TUESDAY, 12TH
I am doing no work and my mind is in abeyance. Fanny and Belle are sewing-machining in the next room; I have been pulling down their hair, and Fanny has been kicking me, and now I am driven out. Austin I have been chasing about the verandah; now he has gone to his lessons, and I make believe to write to you in despair. But there is nothing in my mind; I swim in mere vacancy, my head is like a rotten nut; I shall soon have to begin to work again or I shall carry away some part of the machinery. I have got your insufficient letter, for which I scorn to thank you. I have had no review by Gosse, none by Birrell; another time if I have a letter in the TIMES, you might send me the text as well; also please send me a cricket bat and a cake, and when I come home for the holidays, I should like to have a pony.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
JACOB TONSON.
P.S. I am quite well; I hope you are quite well. The world is too much with us, and my mother bids me bind my hair and lace my bodice blue.
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 4/Necessity of a Common Centre

Necessity of a Common Centre
74. The decision to partition India was a violent blow to the political, economic and geographical integrity of India. The unity of what remained as India after the partition was most essential not only for the political strength, full economic development and cultural expression of the Indian people but also for facing the aftermath of the partition. The following quotation from Coupland shows very clearly how vital a necessity this unity was to the very existence of the Dominion of India:—
75. The first task to which the newly created States Department had to address itself, therefore, was the conserving of the heart out India. This required a common Centre for the whole country including the Indian States, able to function effectively in the Provinces and States alike in matters requiring all-India action.
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 3/His Majesty's Government's Statement of 3rd June, 1947

His Majesty's Government's Statement of 3rd June, 1947
69. His Majesty's Government's Statement of 3rd June, 1947, which superseded the Cabinet Mission's Plan of 16th May, 1946, contained the following reference to the States:—
70. This Statement was accepted by both the Congress and the Muslim League, and formed the basis of the method of the transfer of power to the successor Governments.
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 3/Simla Conference of 1945

Simla Conference of 1945
59. In spite of the deepening crisis of the war, no further serious effort was made to resolve the political deadlock in India until the Simla Conference of 1945. In view of its limited objective, the States were not invited to this Conference. It turned out to be no more than a repeat performance of the Cripps drama; the usual series of conferences, an occasional flicker of hope, the final veto of communal intransigence and a trail of bitterness and frustration.
# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 4/Lapse of Paramountcy

Lapse of Paramountcy
71. Till the lapse of Paramountcy, the Crown as represented by and operating through the Political authorities provided the nexus between the Indian States and the Central and Provincial Governments. The pivot of this arrangement was the Viceroy, who as Crown Representative, represented to the Indian States the suzerainty of the British Crown while at the same time he was, in relation to British India, the head of the Government as Governor-General. The Indian Independence Act, 1947, released the States from all their obligations to the Crown. It was evident that if in consequence the Indian States became separate independent entities there would be a serious vacuum not only with regard to the political relationship between the Central Government and the States, but also in respect of the co-ordination of all-India policies in the economic and other fields. All that the Dominion Government inherited from the Paramount Power was the proviso to Section 7 of the Indian Independence Act, which provided for the continuance, until denounced by either of the parties, of agreements between the Indian States and the Central and Provincial Governments in regard to specified matters, such as Customs, Posts and Telegraphs, etc., (Appendix IV).
APPENDIX IV
Indian Independence Act
7. Consequences of the setting up of the new Dominions.
(1) As from the appointed day (August 15th, 1947). *****
***** Provided that, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this sub-section, effect shall, as nearly as may be, continue to be given to the provisions of any such agreement as is therein referred to which relate to customs, transit and communications, posts and telegraphs, or other like matters, until the provisions in question are denounced by the Ruler of the Indian State or person having authority in the tribal areas on the one hand, or by the Dominion or Province or other part thereof concerned on the other hand, or are superseded by subsequent agreements.