OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 43

This act was printed twice in the Statutes at Large. The duplicate is at United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 43.
Chap. XLIII.—An Act to extend the term of credit for teas imported in the ship Argonaut; and to permit the export of goods saved out of the wreck of the snow Freelove.
The collector of Pennsylvania to take bond, &c. for teas imported in the ship Argonaut, or receive deposit, &c.Be it enacted, &c., That the collector of the district of Pennsylvania be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to take bond, with sufficient surety, for the payment of the duties accruing on teas, imported into the said district in the ship Argonaut, Victor Chabert, commander, from China, payable on the fifteenth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, or to receive, on deposit, such of the said teas as may be tendered for that purpose, as security for the said duties.
The collector to permit the exportation of the teas under like regulations as other teas, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said collector be authorized to permit the said teas, or any part thereof, to be exported, under the like regulations as other teas are permitted to be exported, at any time before the fifteenth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five.
The collector to permit the exportation of sugars, &c. saved out of the snow Freelove, &c.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the collector aforesaid be authorized and directed to permit the exportation of any sugars, coffee, cocoa, or molasses, saved out of the snow Freelove, cast away on Cape Hatteras, as may be required by the owners thereof, under the like regulations and provisions as goods of a like kind are permitted to be exported, and to allow the drawbacks thereon, as if the same had been directly imported into the district of Pennsylvania.
Approved, June 4, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 39

Chap. XXXIX.—An Act to authorize the settlement of the account of Lewis Dubois for his services in the late army of the United States.
Lewis Dubois allowed emoluments of deranged colonel in the late army. Register to grant certificate.Be it enacted, &c., That the Comptroller of the Treasury be, and he hereby is required to adjust the accounts of Lewis Dubois, as a colonel deranged in the line of the late army of the United States, upon the principles of the act of the late Congress, of the third of October, one thousand seven hundred and eighty and to allow him the usual commutation of half pay, for life, of a colonel: And that the Register of the Treasury be, and he hereby is required to grant a certificate for the amount of the balance due to him.
Approved, June 4, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 53

This act was printed twice in the Statutes at Large. The duplicate is at United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 53.
Chap. LIII.—An Act for the remission of the duties on certain distilled spirits destroyed by fire.
Remission of certain duties to Jabez Rogers.Be it enacted, &c., That the duties payable to the United States on all such distilled spirits, as shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the supervisor of the district of Vermont, to have been destroyed by fire in the distilleries lately burnt at Middlebury in the State of Vermont, be and are hereby remitted.
Approved, June 7, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 26

Chap. XXVI.—An Act for the remission of the duties on eleven hogsheads of Coffee which have been destroyed by fire.
Remission of certain duties to Messrs. Elliott & Purviance.Be it therefore enacted, &c., That the duties paid or payable to the United States, on the same eleven hogsheads of coffee, be and the same are hereby remitted; and it shall be the duty of the collector of the port of Norfolk and Portsmouth, to refund the same duties if they have been received.
Approved, May 9, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 30

Chap. XXX.—An Act for the relief of Reuben Smith and Nathan Strong.
Collector of New York to remit certain duties.Be it enacted, &c., That it shall and may be lawful for the collector for the district of New York, to remit to Reuben Smith and Nathan Strong, owners of the ship James of New York, or to any other person interested therein, the duties and imposts of tonnage, which may be incurred, in consequence of the incompetent or invalid register of the said ship:On what condition. Provided, they shall obtain, within one hundred and twenty days, a new register for the said ship, in the manner prescribed by law.
Approved, May 19, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 38

Chap. XXXVIII.—An Act to compensate Arthur St. Clair.
Allowance to A. St. Clair in settlement of his accounts.Be it enacted, &c., That the accounting officers of the treasury, in the settlement of the accounts of Arthur St. Clair, allow him for his expenses while going from New York to Fort Pitt, and till his return to New York, between November, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and February, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, at the rate of five dollars per diem. That he be further allowed, at the rate of five dollars per day, from the tenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, to the third day of May, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, being the time he was employed in the business of Indian treaties, and till the delivery of the said treaties to the President of the United States. That he be allowed interest on the balance which shall be found due to him. That he be credited the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars advanced by him to Major Hamtramck, on public account, and that Major Hamtramck be chargeable therewith.
Approved, May 31, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 56

Chap. LVI.—An Act to make provision for the widow and orphan children of Robert Forsyth.
Allowance to the widow and orphans of Robert Forsyth.Be it enacted, &c., That the sum of two thousand dollars be allowed to the widow of Robert Forsyth, late marshal of the district of Georgia, for the use of herself and the children of the said Robert Forsyth, to be paid in equal proportions, out of any moneys in the treasury of the United States not heretofore appropriated.
Approved, June 7, 1794.
# United States v. Widow and Heirs of West

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 315
United States v. Widow and Heirs of West
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Stanton, upon a brief filed by the Attorney General, for the United States, and by Mr. Benham for the appellees.
The principal question was, whether the alteration in the grant vitiated it altogether. Upon this point, the Attorney General said:
I have already said that I think there was a grant issued by Jimeno in 1840, which at the time it issued was honest and genuine. If no claim had been made for more than the league and a half comprehended within the boundaries of that grant. The case would have been a clear one in favor of the claimants. But I insist that a provisional or equitable grant, which may be converted into a legal title upon the contingency of an approval by the Departmental Assembly, and the performance of other conditions, must be regarded as wholly abandoned when the conditions were not complied with, and another and a different claim set up under a forged title.
To this argument, Mr. Benham replied:
The claimants derive title by succession. The grant of the 2d of November is admitted to be genuine. It must be confirmed, to the extent of one league and a half. Its alteration did not divest the rights which vested under it. It is immaterial who made the alteration; although, as a matter of fact, it was not made by the claimants, or with their knowledge or consent.
There is another grant in the archives, which vested the land (the league and a half) in West.
Lewis v. Payn, 8 Cowen, pages 75, 76.
Jackson v. Gould, 7 Wendell, p. 364.
Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass., top pages 293, 297, 298.
Doe v. Hirst, 3 Starkie's Rep., p. 60.
Hennick v. Malin, 22 Wendell, p. 391.
3 Preston's Abstracts, 103.
2 H. Blackstone, 263.
Buller's N. P., 267.
The position of Mr. Attorney General, that the alteration of the grant is an abandonment of title, which will prevent confirmation by this court, is not tenable. It cannot be held there was any abandonment when the claimants continued, as they have always done, to occupy the land.
All the conditions imposed by the Jimeno grant were complied with.
Mr. Justice WAYNE 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. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 86
United States v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Company
Argued: Jan. 16, 1964. --- Decided: Feb 17, 1964
Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
James S. Taylor, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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. Wickersham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
201 U.S. 390
United States v. Wickersham
Argued: February 28, 1906. --- Decided: April 2, 1906
Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Mr. Felix Brannigan for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 390-391 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. William R. Andrews and S. D. Luckett for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 391-392 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Day 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. Widow and Heirs of West/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 315
United States v. Widow and Heirs of West
All of the documents upon which the defendants rely for a confirmation of their right to the land in dispute, are to be found on file in the archives among the expedientes of the first class. Concerning the genuineness of those which show that a grant for a league and a half was originally made to Marcus West, there can be no denial. They were admitted by the Attorney General to be genuine; but he resists the confirmation of that title, upon the ground that fraudulent attempts were subsequently made to enlarge the quantity intended to be granted, by erasures and interlineations.
West first petitioned for the land, without stating the quantity. In a few days afterwards, General Vallejo certified that the land asked for was vacant, and that it was not within twenty leagues of the boundary to California, nor within ten leagues of the sea shore. On the 30th of October, 1840, a report was made to the Governor, that the petitioner had the qualifications for receiving a grant, and that the land might be granted.
Jimeno was then acting as Governor ad interim. He declared West to be entitled to the land, to the extent of a league and a half, describing particularly its boundaries; and he made an entry of his executive action in the case, in what is termed Jimeno's Index.
We do not regard that catalogue of grants as authoritative proof of grants enumerated in it, or as a conclusive exclusion of grants not so registered, by Jimeno, which may be alleged to have been made whilst California was a part of the Mexican Republic, though they may bear date within the time to which that index relates. But in this case, it may be referred to as an auxiliary memorandum made by Jimeno himself of his action upon the petition of West.
West died before the claim was acted upon by the United States commissioners.
We have only to observe, that the fraudulent attempts to enlarge the grant were made after California had been ceded to the United States; and though the proof of it is undeniable, and was an attempt to defraud the United States, that cannot take away from the wife and children of West their claim to the grant, which was made to him before California had been transferred by treaty.
We affirm the decree of the court below, confirming the grant to West for a league and a half.

## 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. Wigger

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 276
United States v. Wigger
Argued: October 23, 1914. --- Decided: November 30, 1914
Assistant Attorney General Warren for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Quimby/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
71 U.S. 408
United States v. Quimby
The case falls within the construction of the treaty in the case of the United States v. Hathaway.
The article, we think, is chargeable with a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem, under the twenty-fourth section of the act of March 2d, 1861, which imposes this duty 'on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part,' not otherwise provided for.
The court answer the question, in the certificate of division of opinion,
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

## 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. Quiver

United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 602
United States v. Quiver
Argued: February 28, 1916. --- Decided: June 12, 1916
Assistant Attorney General Warren for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. George A. Jeffers and Albert G. Granger for defendant in error.
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
# United States v. R. F. Ball Construction Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 587
United States v. R. F. Ball Construction Company
Argued: Jan. 27, 1958. --- Decided: March 3, 1958
See 356 U.S. 934, 78 S.Ct. 770.
Mr. Alexander F. Prescott, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Josh H. Groce, San Antonio, Tex., for respondents.
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. Quimby

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
71 U.S. 408
United States v. Quimby
This suit was brought to recover the duties on 'split timbers' imported from Canada into the United States, and claimed to be exempt under the Reciprocity Treaty, as in the case just disposed of. The treaty exempts from duty 'timber and lumber of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured, in whole or in part.'
The articles consisted of six hundred and sixteen cords of split white-ash timber, chiefly designed to be used in the manufacture of long shovel handles.
The main question was whether the said timber was liable to duty, or whether it was made free of duty by the Reciprocity Treaty.
Same counsel as in the United States v. Hathaway, just preceding.
Mr. Justice NELSON 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. Knight

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Knight."
* 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.
* United States v. Knight (39 U.S. 301)
* United States v. Knight (336 U.S. 505)
# United States v. Klingenberg

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
153 U.S. 93
United States v. Klingenberg
Sol. Gen. Maxwell, for the United States.
W. Wickham Smith, for appellee.
Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Knight's Administrator

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Knight's Administrator."
* 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.
* United States v. Knight's Administrator (66 U.S. 227), ( 17 L.Ed. 76 ), ( 1 Black. 227 )
* United States v. Knight's Administrator (66 U.S. 488), ( 17 L.Ed. 80 ), ( 1 Black. 488 )
# United States v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598)/Concurrence Thomas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Thomas
* Dissenting Opinions Souter Breyer
Justice Thomas, concurring.
The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a "substantial effects" test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress' powers and with this Court's early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.
# United States v. Morrison (29 U.S. 124)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
29 U.S. 124
United States v. Morrison

## 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. Morrison (96 U.S. 232)

United States Supreme Court
96 U.S. 232
United States v. Morrison
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
Morrison, the appellee, a lieutenant in the tenth regiment of cavalry, was appointed regimental quartermaster, and his appointment approved June 30, 1875. On the same day, Hunt, a second lieutenant in the regiment, was promoted to be first lieutenant in the place of Morrison, 'appointed regimental quartermaster.' On the 22d October, 1875, Morrison, 'in addition to his other duties,' was 'assigned to duty as assistant-commissary of post;' and, by virtue of that appointment, served as acting assistant-commissary from Nov. 1, 1875, to and including, Feb. 28, 1877. He has been paid in full as quartermaster, but nothing in addition as acting assistant-commissary. This action is brought to recover at the rate of $100 a year for the extra service. The court below gave judgment in his favor for $133.33, whereupon the United States appealed here.
Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith for the appellant.
Mr. Halbert E. Paine and Mr. Benjamin F. Grafton, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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. Wright (229 U.S. 226)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
229 U.S. 226
United States v. Wright (229 U.S. 226)
Argued: April 11, 1913. --- Decided: May 26, 1913
Assistant Attorney General Denison for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James C. Denton for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Company Wrightwood Dairy Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 110
United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Company Wrightwood Dairy Company
Argued: Jan. 14, 1942. --- Decided: Feb 2, 1942
Mr. Alvin E. Stein, of Chicago, Ill., for Wrightwood Dairy Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 111-112 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Mr. John S. L. Yost, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 113-114 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse