OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Odes on Several Subjects (Akenside)/Ode 9

ODE IX. To Sleep.
THOU silent pow'r, whose balmy sway Charms every anxious thought away; In whose divine oblivion drown'd, Fatigue and toiling pain grow mild, Love is with sweet success beguil'd, And sad remorse forgets her secret wound; O whither hast thou flown, indulgent God? God of kind shadows and of healing dews, O'er whom dost thou extend thy magic rod? Around what peaceful couch thy opiate airs diffuse?
Lo, midnight from her starry reign Looks awful down on earth and main.
The tuneful birds like hush'd in sleep, With all that crop the verdant food, With all that skim the crystal flood, Or haunt the caverns of the rocky steep. No rushing winds disturb the tufted bow'rs; No wakeful sound the moonlight valley knows, Save where the brook its liquid murmur pours, And lulls the waving scene to more profound repose.
O let not me thus watch alone! O hear my solitary moan! Descend, propitious, on my eyes; Not from the couch that bears a crown, Not from the statesman's thorny down, Or where the miser and his treasure lies: Bring not the shapes that break the murd'rer's rest; Nor those the hireling soldier burns to see, Nor those that haunt the tyrant's gloomy breast: Far be their guilty nights, and far their dreams from me!
Nor yet those awful joys present, For chiefs and heroes only meant: The figur'd brass, the choral song, The rescued people's glad applause, The list'ning senate, and the laws Bent on the dictates ofTimolean's tongue, Are scenes too grand for fortune's private ways; And tho' they shine to youth's ingenious view, The sober gainful arts of modern days, To such romantic thoughts have bid a long adieu.
Blest be my fate! I need not pray That lovesick dreams be kept away: No female charms, or fancy born, Nor damask cheek, nor sparkling eye, With me the bands of sleep untie, Or steal by minutes half the sauntring morn.
Nor yet the courtier's hope, the giving smile, (A lighter phantom and a baser chain) Bids wealth and place the fever'd night beguile, To gall my waking hours with more vexacious pain.
But, Morpheus, on thy dewy wing Such fair auspicious visions bring, As sooth'd great Milton's injur'd age, When in prophetic dreams he saw The tribes unborn with pious awe Imbibe each virtue from his heav'nly page: Or such as Mead's benignant fancy knows, When health's kind treasures, by his art explor'd, Have sav'd the infant from an orphan's woes, Or to the trembling sire his age's hope restor'd.
# Odom v. New York Life Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 566
Odom v. New York Life Insurance Company
Mr. John R. L. Smith, of Macon, Ga., for petitioners.

## 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
# Odom v. New York Life Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 566
Odom v. New York Life Insurance Company
For opinion below, see 93 F.2d 641.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 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
# Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 21/Number 2

* David Thompson and Beginnings in Idaho. by T. C. Elliott
* Educational Plans and Efforts by Methodists in Oregon to 1860. by Read Bain
* History of Oregon Normal Schools. by John C. Almack
# On a Grey Thread/When Love Becomes a Stranger

When Love Becomes a Stranger
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/Youth (Title)

Youth
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/The Hole in My Curtain

The Hole in My Curtain
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/The Poet

The Poet
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/To a Young Dancing Girl

To a Young Dancing Girl
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/You Are Not She

You Are Not She
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/This is Not Love

This Is Not Love
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/The Grey Thread

The Grey Thread
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/World Cry

World Cry
Layout 2
# On a Grey Thread/Youth

Youth
Layout 2
# Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 7/Jason Lee memorial address by T. G. Hailey

ADDRESS
By Judge T. G. Hailey.
In the absence of His Excellency, Governor Chamberlain, who has been called to Eastern Oregon on official business, the pleasure and honor is mine to represent him and our great mother State of Oregon on this memorable occasion. Other lips more eloquent than mine, and other minds better stored with the historic events of the great Northwest, have this day retold to you the splendid story of the life of Jason Lee, the great missionary, founder of schools, of churches, and of States. When we lay to rest in the land where labored the moldering tenement that once possessed his mighty soul, we mark an epoch in the history of the Emerald State of Oregon and her daughters, the splendid and progressive States of Washington and Idaho. Such an event should lift us up to higher ​planes and inspire to nobler thoughts and better deeds.
The young women and young men here present tonight from Chemawa represent the latest and best results of the early work of Jason Lee among their forefathers, who once held dominion over this Northwest land. Your forefathers, clad in scanty garb of skins of wild beasts, listened to his lessons of love and labor preached under the boughs of the primeval forest; while you, my Indian friends, now clothed in all comforts, harken to the same lessons of love and labor from his successors, taught to you under the sheltering domes of modern churches and schools. I doubt not that from his everlasting home beyond the skies that great missionary looks down with satisfaction and blessings upon you and all those who have carried forward the noble work for you and your people which he began so many years ago. I here and now invoke in behalf of this remaining fragment of the original owners of the Oregon Country the sympathy and aid of all who have the love of humanity in their hearts. When our ancestors and predecessors in this fair land were few and theirs were many, the red man was for many years the white man's friend, and now that they are few and we are many, let us remember only the deeds of kindness of their race and aid them to fulfill the purpose for which they are created.
At this time when we do honor to a great pioneer in particular, and by so doing do honor to all pioneers in general, a few lines from the pioneer poet, Joaquin Miller, addressed to the New Oregon, seems to be appropriate:
Young men, strong men, there is work to be done; Faith to be cherished, battles to fight; Victories won were never well won Save fearlessly won for God and the right.
Have faith, such faith as your fathers knew, All else must follow if you have but faith, Be true to their faith, and you must be true.
​Let me say in closing to all dwelling within the old Oregon Country that whene'er you tread within the limits where now rests the body of Jason Lee, remember that by his deeds he honored the Oregon Country, and by his sacred remains he now hallows it.
# Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 7/Reviews (Number 2)

REVIEWS.
Morton Matthew McCarver was born near the town of Lexington, Kentucky, on January 14, 1807, and died at Tacoma, Washington, April 17, 1871. The annals of the West do not contain the story of a more representative, resolute, and energetic migratory pioneer. McCarver struck out into the world when but fourteen as a hand on a flatboat making a trip to New Orleans, and was soon in Texas. From thence onward his movements serve to register the progress of the forefront of the wave of American settlement penetrating the wilderness of the Far West. He was among the leaders in the first great movement occupying in succession Iowa, Oregon, California, the Frazer River country, Idaho, and the Sound country. He made something of a specialty of locating the sites of future towns and cities. He began with staking out the site of Burlington, Iowa, in June, 1833; he was associated with Peter H. Burnett in founding the town of Linnton on the banks of the Willamette in 1843, hoping to make it the emporium of the Oregon country; in the fall of 1848 he suggested the city of Sacramento and managed its platting; and with the vision of a prophet in 1868 he began operations in the founding of a city on Commencement Bay—the future Tacoma. But McCarver was much more than an exploiter of resources as a preëmptor of sites of future centers of population. He was a commonwealth builder as well. In 1838 he was commissary general of the Iowa militia; in 1844—5 he was a member of the Legislative Committee of the Provisional Government of Oregon and was elected its speaker; in 1849 he was sitting as a member of the California Constitutional Convention at Monterey, and during the Rogue River and Yakima Indian wars was again commissary general for the Oregon troops.
The story of this very strenuous life is told with fine directness and explicitness by his son-in-law. The volume also contains a sketch of the life of his second wife, Julia A. McCarver, and an address on "The Early History of Tacoma."
Commercial advertising is sandwiched in between some prime historical material, but the editor should have the credit for stimulating the production of these valuable sketches and for getting them into their fine dress.
# Phelps v. Patterson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
​COMPTON, J.
This was an action of assumpsit for professional services, commenced by Patterson against Phelps & Jones, on the 23d of February, 1867.
The defendants pleaded non-assumpsit and the statute of limitations; to which pleas issues were regularly made up and submitted to a jury, who found for the plaintiff; and thereupon the defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they appealed.
The evidence discloses the following facts. The suit in which the professional services were rendered was brought by Patterson, as attorney for Phelps & Jones, in May, 1861. In the month of July or August, next following, the suit was compromised and settled by the parties, without any participation by Patterson in the settlement. Soon thereafter an agent of Phelps & Jones—they being non-residents—applied to Patterson and instructed him to dismiss the suit, which he did not do until October, 1865. Why the suit was not dismissed at an earlier day is not shown, nor does it appear that any provision was made for payment of the attorney's fee, or the cost.
​It is insisted for the appellants that Patterson's claim—which was an open account—was barred by the limitation act of three years; because, as is contended, the statute commenced running at the time of the compromise and settlement, in 1861. The court thinks differently. The right of an attorney to sue for services does not accrue until the termination of the suit in which he was employed, unless the relation of client and attorney is sooner ended; Nichols v. Wilson, 11 M. & W. Excheq. Rep., 106; Fenno v. English, 22 Ark., 170; and in this case, we are clearly of opinion that the suit did not terminate until it was dismissed. The statute, therefore, did not commence running until October, 1865; and consequently the claim was not barred. As before remarked, the evidence does not show why Patterson did not dismiss the suit at an earlier period; but, if he was even guilty of negligence in this respect, it is not easy to perceive how it could affect the question here presented.
It follows that the court did not err in refusing to give the instructions moved by the appellants; nor is there any error in those given by the court, of which the appellants can complain.
Judgment affirmed.
# Phelps v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 341
Phelps v. United States
Argued: March 3, 1927. --- Decided: May 16, 1927
Mr. H. S. Deming, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. H. J. Galloway, Asst Atty. Gen., for the United States.
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
# Phelps v. Patterson

Associate Justice Freeman W. Compton wrote the opinion of the court in Phelps v. Patterson, 25 Ark. 185 (1867).
Supreme Court of Arkansas
25 Ark. 185
PHELPS & JONES v. PATTERSON
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.
Hon. L. L. MACK, Circuit Judge.
STILWELL & WASSELL, for appellants.
WATKINS & ROSE, contra.
[Opinion of the Court by Justice FREEMAN W. COMPTON.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Phelps v. Siegfried/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
142 U.S. 602
Phelps v. Siegfried
Action by J. C. Siegfried and others against T. G. Phelps, collector of the port of San Francisco, for the value of tea imported by plaintiffs. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and judgment rendered for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
The complaint alleged that the tea was entitled to free entry; that plaintiffs had performed everything required by law, but that defendant, without warrant of law, refused to allow entry thereof, or to deliver it to plaintiffs, unless they should furnish an invoice thereof, authenticated by the proper consul or should give bonds for the delivery of such an invoice.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error.
John S. Mosby, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 603 intentionally omitted]
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
The judgment is reversed, and cause remanded, with a direction to sustain the demurrer and to dismiss the action, upon the authority of U.S. v. Mosby, 133 U.S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. rep. 327.

## 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
# Phelps v. Oaks

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
117 U.S. 236
Phelps v. Oaks
Argued: March 15, 1886. ---
The plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs below, brought their action in the circuit court of De Kalb county, Missouri, at the April term, 1883, against George R. Oaks for the recovery of the possession of certain lands in that county unlawfully withheld by him, as they alleged, and for damages therefor, and for rents and profits. The defendant, a citizen of Missouri, having been served with process, the plaintiffs, who were citizens of Pennsylvania, filed their petition for the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the Western division of the Western district of Missouri, on the ground that the controversy in said suit was between citizens of different states, the matter and amount in dispute being in excess of the sum or value of $500. The prayer of the petition was granted, the accompanying bond being approved, and the cause was removed. Afterwards, on June 16, 1884, the defendant Oaks filed his answer, in which he denied all the allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint, except as expressly admitted, and in addition set up that at the time of the commencement of the action he was in the possession of the premises as the tenant, from year to year, of one Maria Zeidler, wife of John Zeidler, who was the owner thereof, and to whom he had paid the rents due on account thereof, and asked that the said Maria and John Zeidler be made parties defendant to the suit, according to the form of the statute of Missouri in such cases provided. Thereupon the Zeidlers also appeared and asked to be let in as defendants, and for leave to plead, and it was so ordered by the court, with leave to file a motion to remand the cause to the state court in 30 days. Such a motion was accordingly made on the ground that Maria Zeidler and John Zeidler, her husband, were both citizens of Pennsylvania; that the defendant Oaks made no claim or demand to the premises in controversy otherwise than as the tenant of Maria Zeidler; and that, consequently, the said suit did not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States. Pending this motion the plaintiffs moved the court to rescind the order making Maria and John Zeidler parties. This motion to rescind was denied, and the motion of the defendants to remand the cause was granted. To reverse these rulings is the object of this writ of error.
S. B. Ladd, for plaintiffs in error.
Chas. W. Hornor, for defendants in error.
MATTHEWS, 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
# Phelps v. Siegfried

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
142 U.S. 602
Phelps v. Siegfried

## 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
# Peak v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 43
Peak v. United States
Argued: Feb. 28, 1957. --- Decided: March 25, 1957
Mr. John S. Wrinkle, Chattanooga, Tenn., for the petitioner.
Mr. George S. Leonard, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Osbourne v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 579
Osbourne v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company
The motions to affirm are granted and judgment is affirmed without prejudice to the presentation of an appropriate motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for a modification of the injunction.

## 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
# Oscar Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 551
Oscar Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Company
Argued: April 26, 1916. --- Decided: June 12, 1916
Messrs. William F. Tucker and Hulette F. Aby for appellants.
Messrs. George S. Ramsey, Edgar A. de Meules, Malcolm E. Rosser, Sol. H. Kauffman, and Edward H. Chandler for appellees.
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
# Osborne v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
86 U.S. 577
Osborne v. United States
The Circuit Court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plea of the plaintiff in error. The object of the eighth section of the act of Congress was to protect the government, not the sureties upon the bond. By that section the assessor was not permitted to approve a distiller's bond unless the distillery property was unincumbered as against the United States. If he did he made himself liable to the government for his default, but he violated no duty he owed the sureties. He was under no obligation to protect the signers of the bond. If the sureties insisted upon a release of the incumbrances as a condition to their becoming bound, they should have taken care to see that the bond was not approved until all the requirements of the statute in favor of the government had been complied with. The assessor was in no respect called upon to act for them. If they failed to secure all the indemnity they might have had it was their fault, and not that of the United States. As to them certainly this section of the act is directory to the assessor and not mendatory.
But it is directory also as to the United States. The assessor is a ministerial officer. He is directed not to approve a distiller's bond until the distillery property is made free from incumbrances as against the claims of the government. He ought to insist upon this. If he fails to perform this duty the government will lose a part of the security it was entitled to have, but this will not prevent it from availing itself of so much as it has obtained.
It is not averred in the plea that the bond was delivered to the assessor as an escrow, to be approved and made binding upon the obligors only when the incumbrances were released. It is not even averred that the assessor, when he approved the bond, had actual knowledge of the existence of the alleged incumbrances. But the theory of the plea is that the act of Congress made the United States a guarantor to the surety that the distillery property was free from incumbrances at the time of the approval of the bond. In our opinion such is not the law.
JUDGMENT 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
# Osbourne v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 579
Osbourne v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company
See 390 U.S. 975, 88 S.Ct. 1024.
John L. Laubach, Jr., for appellants Osbourne and others.
Arthur L. Winn, Jr., Samuel H. Moerman, J. Raymond Clark and James M. Henderson, for appellees Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. and others.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn, for appellees United States and others.
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
# Oscanyan v. Arms Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 261
Oscanyan v. Arms Company
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Theodore W. Dwight and Mr. Richard O'Gorman for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Edmund Randolph Robinson, contra.
Mr. JUSTICE FIELD 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