OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 61

Chap. ⅬⅩⅠ.—An Act declaring the consent of Congress to an act of the state of Maryland, passed the twenty-eighth of December one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, for the appointment of a Health Officer.
Consent of Congress to certain act of Maryland.Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the consent of Congress be and is hereby granted and declared, to the ​operation of an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, passed the twenty-eighth of December, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, intituled “An act to appoint a health officer, for the port of Baltimore, in Baltimore county,” so far as to enable the state aforesaid to collect a duty of one cent. per ton, on all vessels coming into the district of Baltimore, from a foreign voyage, for the purposes in the said act intended.
Limitation of this act. 1796, ch. 23.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue in force to the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer.
Approved, June 9, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 62

Chap. ⅬⅩⅡ.—An Act to amend the act intituled “An act to enable the officers and soldiers of the Virginia line on Continental Establishment, to obtain titles to certain Lands lying northwest of the river Ohio, between the Little Miami and Sciota.
1790, ch. 40. Officers and soldiers of Virginia line, how to obtain certain lands.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all and every officer and soldier of the Virginia line on continental establishment, his or their heirs or assigns, entitled to bounty lands on the northwest side of the river Ohio, between the Sciota and Little Miami rivers, by the laws of the state of Virginia, and included in the terms of cession of the said state to the United States, shall, on producing the warrant, or a certified copy thereof, and a certificate under the seal of the office where the said warrants are legally kept, that the same or a part thereof remains unsatisfied, and on producing the survey,1812, ch. 68. To produce survey to Secretary of War. agreeably to the laws of Virginia, for the tract or tracts to which he or they may be entitled, as aforesaid, to the Secretary of the department of War, such officer and soldier, his or their heirs or assigns, shall be entitled to, and receive a patent for the same from the President of the United States,And receive patent from President of United States. any thing in any former law to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided, that no letters patent shall be issued for a greater quantity of land than shall appear to remain due on such warrant, and that before the seal of the United States shall be affixed to such letters patent the SecretaryTo be endorsed by Secretary of War. of the department of War shall have endorsed thereon that the grantee therein named or the person under whom he claims was originally entitled to such bounty lands, and every such letters patent shall be countersignedAnd countersigned by Secretary of State, &c. by the Secretary of State and a minute of the date thereof, and the name of the grantee shall be entered of record in his office in a book to be specially provided for that purpose.
Approved, June 9, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 7

Chap. Ⅶ.—An Act making further provision for the expenses attending the intercourse of the United States with foreign nations; and further to continue in force the act intituled “An act providing the means of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations.”
Act of July 1, 1790, ch. 22. Additional appropriations to support intercourse between United States and foreign nations. 1796, ch. 41.Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a sum of one million of dollars, in addition to the provision heretofore made, be appropriated to defray any expenses which may be incurred, in relation to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, to be paid out of any monies, which may be in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied, under the direction of the President of the United States, who, if necessary, is hereby authorized to borrow the whole or any part of the said sum of one million of dollars; an account of the expenditure whereof, as soon as may be, shall be laid before Congress.
Certain acts continued in force.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the act, intituled “An act providing the means of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations,” passed the first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, together with the second section of the act, intituled 1790, ch. 22. Act of Feb. 9, 1793, ch. 4.“An act to continue in force for a limited time, and to amend the act, intituled “An act providing the means of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations,” passed the ninth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, shall be continued in force, for the term of one year from the passing of this act, and from thence, until the end of the next session of Congress thereafter holden, and no longer.
Approved, March 20, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/1st Session/Resolution 1

[Obsolete.] President of United States to employ Revenue Cutters as dispatch boats.Ⅰ. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be authorized to employ, as dispatch boats, such of the revenue cutters of the United States, as the public exigencies may require.
Approved, March 20, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/Lists and Tables/Table 1

A Table
Showing the
Comparative Chaptering
In This Edition, and in the Edition of Judge Story, Continued by Sharswood, and in the Edition of Bioren and Duane, Continued by the “Laws of the United States.”
Story’s edition of the laws ends here.
The edition entitled “Laws of the United States” is not carried down any later than the above point.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/Organic Laws of the United States

| 1. | The Declaration of Independence |
| 5. | The Articles of Confederation |
| 10. | The Constitution of the United States |
| 21. | Amendments to the Constitution |
# United States v. Harrison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 531
United States v. Harrison
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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. Harrison/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 531
United States v. Harrison
The appellees in this case claim title to the land in question under certain instruments of writing executed by the Baron Carondelet in favor of the Baron Bastrop in 1796 and 1797, which are fully set out in the case of U.S. v. City of Philadelphia, reported in 11 How. 609. It was decided in that case that these instruments of writing did not convey to the Baron Bastrop a title to the lands therein described. The decree in this case in favor of the appellees must therefore be reversed, and a mandate issued directing the district court to enter a decree in favor of the United States, and dismiss the petition.
This case not to be reported, the evidence and principles decided being the same in substance with the case referred to in 11 How.
The Attorney General, for the United States.

## 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. Harriss

United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), was a U.S. Supreme Court case applied directly to the Regulation of Lobbying Act. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 612
United States v. Harriss
Argued: Oct. 19, 1953. --- Decided: June 7, 1954
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Messrs. Burton K. Wheeler, Washington, D.C., Hugh Howell, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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. Maxwell Land Grant

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 365
United States v. Maxwell Land Grant
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for petition.
[Petition for Rehearing from pages 366-370 intentionally omitted]
MILLER, 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
# United States v. Maxwell Land-Grant Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
121 U.S. 325
United States v. Maxwell Land-Grant Company
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury and J. A. Bentley, for the united states.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 327-357 intentionally omitted]
Frank Springer and Chas. E. Gast, for Maxwell Land-Grant Co.
MILLER, 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
# United States v. McBratney

United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 621
United States v. McBratney
CERTIFICATE of division of opinion from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. Thomas G. Putnam, contra.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY 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
# War and Peace (Tolstoy)/Book 3

* 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
# United States v. National City Lines

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. National City Lines."
* 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. National City Lines (334 U.S. 573)
* United States v. National City Lines (337 U.S. 78)
# United States v. National City Lines (337 U.S. 78)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 78
United States v. National City Lines
Argued on Motion for Leave to File
Feb. 8, 1949.
Decided May 31, 1949.
Mr. Charles Weston, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. C. Frank Reavis, New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice VINSON 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. National Association of Real Estate Boards

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 485
United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards
Argued: March 31, 1950. --- Decided: May 8, 1950
Messrs. Peyton Ford and Victor H. Kramer, Assts. to the Attorney General, for the United States.
Mr. William E. Leahy, Washington, D.C., for appellees Washington Real Estate Board et al.
Mr. Roger J. Whiteford, Washington, D.C., for appellees National Association of Real Estate Boards and Herbert U. Nelson.
[Argument of Counsel from page 486 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards/Dissent Jackson

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Jackson
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 485
United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards
Argued: March 31, 1950. --- Decided: May 8, 1950
Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting.
If real estate brokerage is to be distinguished from the professions or from other labor that is permitted to organize, the Court does not impart any standards for so doing.
It is certain that those rendering many kinds of service are allowed to combine and fix uniform rates of pay and conditions of service. This is true of all laborers, who may do so within or without unions and whose unions frequently do include owners of establishments that employ others, such as automobile sales agencies. See, for example, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470, 70 S.Ct. 773. I suppose this immunity is not confined to those whose labor is manual and is not lost because the labor performed is professional. The brokerage which is swept under the antitrust laws by this decision is perhaps a border-line activity. However, the broker furnishes no goods and performs only personal services. Capital assets play no greater part in his service than in that of the lawyer, doctor or office worker. Services of the real estate broker, if not strictly fiduciary, are at least those of a trusted agent and, oftentimes, advisory as to values and procedures. I am not persuaded that fixing uniform fees for the broker's labor is more offensive to the antitrust laws than fixing uniform fees for the labor of a lawyer, a doctor, a carpenter, or a plumber. I would affirm the decision of the court below.

## 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. National City Lines (337 U.S. 78)/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 78
United States v. National City Lines
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
There are difficulties for me however the case is decided. But I have concluded that the fairer result is reached if the ambiguities and doubts, fully canvassed and disclosed in the Court's opinions in this case and in Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 69 S.Ct. 944, are resolved by reading § 1404(a) as making the doctrine of forum non conveniens applicable to any civil action as to which the venue provisions are codified in revised Title 28. That gives full effect to the words 'any civil action' in the field in which Congress was legislating. And it authorizes, as respects that group of cases, a transfer to another district in lieu of outright dismissal as had previously obtained. That construction saves § 1404(a), the venue provisions of the Clayton Act and our decision in United States v. National City Lines, Inc., 334 U.S. 573, 68 S.Ct. 1169, 92 L.Ed. 1584, from mutilation. I am reluctant to conclude that Congress took the more drastic course in a mere revision of the code. So to hold would make a basic change not only in the two statutes involved in these cases but in the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 4, 5, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 4, 5; the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688; the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 782, 46 U.S.C.A. § 782; Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 46 U.S.C. § 1128d, 46 U.S.C.A. § 1128d; the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a, 77v, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77a, 77v; the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a, 78aa, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 78a, 78aa; the Public Utility Holding Company Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 79, 79y, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 79, 79y; The Investment Company Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a, 80a-43, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 80a, 80a-43; and perhaps in other statutes too.

## 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. National City Lines (334 U.S. 573)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Jackson

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 573
United States v. National City Lines
Argued: April 28, 1948. --- Decided: June 7, 1948
Appeal From the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.
Mr. Charles H. Weston, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. C. Frank Reavis, of New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE 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 Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/1st Session/Resolution 6

No. 6. A Joint Resolution making it the duty of the Attorney General to examine into the titles of the lands or sites for the purpose of erecting thereon armories and other public works and buildings, and for other purposes.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Attorney Gen. to make the examination, and report to the President. That it shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States to examine into the titles of all the lands or sites which have been purchased by the United States, for the purpose of erecting thereon armories, arsenals, forts, fortifications, navy yards, custom-houses, light-houses, or other public buildings of any kind whatever, and report his opinion as to the validity of the title in each case, to the President of the United States.
Title-papers to be furnished to the Attorney General.2. Resolved, That it shall be the duty of all the officers of the United States having any of the title-papers to the property aforesaid in their possession, to furnish them forthwith to the Attorney General, to aid him in the investigation aforesaid.
Public money not to be expended on any site hereafter purchased, until, &c.3. Resolved, That no public money shall be expended upon any site or land hereafter to be purchased by the United States for the purposes aforesaid, until the written opinion of the Attorney General shall be had in favor of the validity of the title, and also the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the land or site may be shall be given to said purchaser.
District Attorneys to furnish assistance.4. Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the District Attorneys of the United States, upon the application of the Attorney General, to furnish any assistance or information in their power in relation to the titles of the public property aforesaid lying within their respective districts.
Secretaires of the Executive Departments to procure additional evidence.5. Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Secretaries of the Executive Departments, upon the application of the Attorney General, to procure any additional evidence of title which he may deem necessary, and which may not be in the possession of the officers of Government; the expense of procuring which to be paid out of the appropriations made for the contingencies of the Departments respectively.
To apply to the State Legislatures for jurisdiction over said lands, &c.6. Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Secretaries of the Executive Departments, respectively, under whose direction any lands for the purposes aforesaid may have been purchased, and over which the United States do not possess jurisdiction, to apply to the Legislatures of the States in which the lands are situated, for a cession of jurisdiction, and in case of refusal, to report the same to Congress at the commencement of the next session thereafter.
Approved, September 11, 1841.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 1

Chapter I.—An Act making appropriations, in part, for the civil department, for the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-two.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,For Congress. That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any unappropriated money in the Treasury, viz:
Pay and mileage.For pay and mileage of members of Congress and delegates, four hundred thousand dollars;
Officers and clerks.For pay of the officers and clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives, twenty-five thousand dollars;
Expenses of Senate.For stationery, fuel, printing, and all other incidental and contingent expenses of the Senate, twenty-five thousand dollars;
Expenses of H. of Reps. Proviso.For stationery, fuel, printing, and all other incidental and contingent expenses of the House of Representatives, one hundred thousand dollars: Provided, That no part of the sums appropriated for the contingent expenses of either House of Congress, shall be applied to any other than the ordinary expenditures of the Senate and House of Representatives, nor as extra allowance to any clerk, messenger, or other attendant of the said two Houses, or either of them.
Approved, December 22, 1841.