OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 91

Chap. XCI.—An Act for the apportionment of representatives among the several states, according to the fifth census.
Maine, 8 New Hamp. 5 Mass. 12 R. Island 2 Conn. 6 Vermont, 5 New York, 40 New Jersey, 6 Penn’a. 28 Delaware, 1 Maryland, 8 Virginia, 21 N. Carolina, 13 S. Carolina, 9 Georgia, 9 Kentucky, 13 Tennessee, 13 Ohio, 19 Indiana, 7 Mississippi, 2 Illinois, 3 Louisiana, 3 Missouri, 2 Alabama, 5Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, the House of Representatives shall be composed of members, elected agreeably to a ratio of one representative for every forty-seven thousand and seven hundred persons in each state, computed according to the rule prescribed by the constitution of the United States, that is to say, within the state of Maine, eight; within the state of New Hampshire, five; within the state of Massachusetts, twelve; within the state of Rhode Island, two; within the state of Connecticut, six; within the state of Vermont, five; within the state of New York, forty; within the state of New Jersey, six; within the state of Pennsylvania, twenty-eight; within the state of Delaware, one; within the state of Maryland, eight; within the state of Virginia, twenty-one; within the state of North Carolina, thirteen; within the state of South Carolina, nine; within the state of Georgia, nine; within the state of Kentucky, thirteen; within the state of Tennessee, thirteen; within the state of Ohio, nineteen; within the state of Indiana, seven; within the state of Mississippi, two; within the state of Illinois, three; within the state of Louisiana, three; within the state of Missouri, two; and within the state of Alabama, five.
Approved, May 22, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 9

Chap. IX.—An Act supplementary to an act to grant pre-emption rights to settlers on public lands.
Act of May 29, 1830, ch. 208. Purchasers under the act may assign their certificates of purchase, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act, all persons who have purchased under an act, entitled “An act to grant pre-emption rights to settlers on public lands,” approved the twenty-ninth of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty, may assign and transfer their certificates of purchase, or final receipts, and patents may issue in the name of such assignee, any thing in the act aforesaid to the contrary notwithstanding.
Approved, January 23, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Resolution 2

II. Resolution concerning the recording of patents for useful inventions.
Patents to be recorded.Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of State, out of the proceeds arising from the fees on patents for useful inventions, discoveries, and improvements, procure the necessary books, stationery, and other accommodations for recording the patents issued and unrecorded, as well as those hereafter to be issued, and that he employ, and pay at a rate not exceeding twelve and a half cents for every hundred words, so many clerks as may be requisite, with convenient despatch, to record the same.
Approved, March 7, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 79

Chap. LXXIX.—An Act for giving effect to a commercial arrangement between the United States and the Republic of Colombia.
Colombian vessels coming direct, &c. to pay same duties, &c. as American vessels.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That vessels of the Republic of Colombia, and their cargoes, whether of foreign or domestic produce or manufacture, which shall come direct from the ports of that nation to the United States, shall pay no greater duties on importation, anchorage, tonnage, or any other kind, than are now, or hereafter may be, levied on the vessels of the United States.
President to remove restriction, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the restriction of coming direct form a port in Colombia, contained in the preceding section, shall be taken off, as soon as the President shall receive satisfactory evidence, that a like restriction is taken off, from vessels of the United States in the ports of the Republic of Colombia, and shall make known the same by his proclamation declaring the fact.
President authorized to suspend operation of this act.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if the President of the United States shall at any time receive satisfactory information that the privileges allowed or which may be allowed to American vessels and their cargoes in the ports of Colombia, corresponding with those extended, or to be extended by this act, to Colombian vessels and their cargoes in the ports of the United States, have been revoked or annulled, he is hereby ​authorized, by proclamation, to suspend the operation of either or both of the provisions of this act, as the case may be, and to withhold any or all of the privileges allowed, or to be allowed, to Colombian vessels or their cargoes.
Approved, May 19, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Resolution 1

I. Resolution empowering the Secretary of the Navy to settle certain contracts, and to relinquish certain forfeitures.
Contracts to be settled.Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Navy be empowered to relinquish and pay all forfeitures on contracts made by the board of navy commissioners, when said forfeitures have arisen by the extension of the contracts, or where the contracts have been completed by the approbation of the board of navy commissioners, without any injury to the public service;Outstanding contracts to be fulfilled. and the Secretary of the Navy is empowered to fulfil all outstanding contracts where the time for their performance has been extended, or where the completion of said contracts has been prevented by unavoidable accident, and the public service has sustained no injury.
Approved, February 10, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 93

Chap. XCIII.—An Act to authorize the removal of the land office from Mount Salus, in the state of Mississippi, and to remove the land office from Franklin to Fayette, in the state of Missouri.
Land offices to be removed.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the land office at Mount Salus, in the Choctaw district, in the state of Mississippi, shall be removed to, and located at, such place in the said land district as the President of the United States may direct, if in his opinion any removal be necessary; and that the land office at Franklin, in the county of Howard, state of Missouri, shall be removed to, and located in, the town of Fayette in said county; and it shall be the duty of the registers, and the receivers of public money for said land offices, within sixty days from and after the passage of this act, to remove the books, records, and whatever else belongs to said offices, to their respective places of location as herein provided for.
Approved, May 22, 1832.
# United States v. Wildcat

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 111
United States v. Wildcat
Argued: April 11, 12, and 13, 1917. --- Decided: May 21, 1917
[Syllabus from 112 intentionally omitted]
Assistant Attorney General Kearful, Solicitor General Davis, and Mr. S. W. Williams for the United States.
Messrs. Joseph C. Stone, John J. Shea, Charles B. Stuart, A. C. Cruce, George S. Ramsey, Malcolm E. Rosser, Edgar A. de Meules, Villard Martin, John Devereux, J. E. Wyand, K. B. Turner, J. B. Furry, E. C. Motter, P. J. Carey, W. C. Franklin, Burdette Blue, Thomas F. Shea, William A. Collier, Hazen Green, E. J. Van Court, Charles A. Moon, Francis Stewart, M. E. Turner, for Bessie Wildcat et al.
Messrs. A. A. Davidson, Preston C. West, and James A. Veasey for Bissett et al.
Messrs. R. C. Allen, James C. Davis, Grant Foreman, James D. Simms, as amici curiae.
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. Wilbur

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 414
United States v. Wilbur
Argued: April 15, 16, 1931. --- Decided: May 18, 1931
Messrs. Lewis Edwin Hoffman and Chester I. Long, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner McLennan.
Mr. Homer R. Hendricks, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner Simpson.
Mr. James Conlon, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner Barton.
Messrs. James G. Leovy, of Los Angeles, Cal., and John W. Fisher, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner Pyron.
Mr. J. A. Greenwood, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for State of Wyoming.
Mr. Clarence L. Ireland, of Denver, Colo., for State of Colorado, as amici curiae by special leave of court.
The Attorney General and Mr. Seth W. Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from page 415 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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. Kahriger

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Jackson

## Dissenting Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Black
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 22
United States v. Kahriger
Argued: Dec. 16, 17, 1952. --- Decided: March 9, 1953
See 345 U.S. 931, 73 S.Ct. 778.
Mr. Robert L. Stern, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Jacob Kossman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 6 S.Ct. 1109, 30 L.Ed. 228 (1886), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional Act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of crimes between Native Americans, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian Reservation. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
118 U.S. 375
United States v. Kagama
Argued: May 10, 1886. ---
Atty. Gen. Garland and Sol. Gen. Goode, for the United states.
Jos. D. Redding, for defendants.
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. Kaiser
## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas

## Dissenting Opinion

    Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 299
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Allen KAISER.
Argued: March 23, 1960. --- Decided: June 13, 1960
Mr. Wayne G. Barnett, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice BLACK, and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS join.

## 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. Kaiser/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
* Dissenting Opinion Whittaker
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 299
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Allen KAISER.
Argued: March 23, 1960. --- Decided: June 13, 1960
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
While I join the opinion of my Brother BRENNAN, my view of the merits is so divergent from the rest that a word of explanation is needed. Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34, 41, 58 S.Ct. 61, 65, 82 L.Ed. 32, in holding payments by stockholders to employees were, on the facts there present, gifts, said:
'There is entirely lacking the constraining force of any moral or legal duty as well as the incentive of anticipated benefit of any kind beyond the satisfaction which flows from the performance of a generous act.'
Had a motion for a directed verdict been made by respondent at the close of the evidence, I think with all deference that it should have been granted, since my idea of a 'gift' within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code is a much broader concept than that of my Brethren. As the opinion of the Court points out, this striker (who became a union member without solicitation several months after he began receiving benefits) had no legal or moral duty to picket or to do any other act in furtherance of the strike. There is no evidence that the union made these payments to keep this striker in line. It is said that these strike payments serve the union's cause in promoting the strike. Yet the whole setting of the case indicates to me these payments were welfare, plain and simple. Unions, like employers, may have charitable impulses and incentives. Here only the needy got the relief. Yet since (so far as the present record shows) respondent acquiesced in the submission to the jury, the United States received more favored consideration than it could claim as of right.
Mr. Justice WHITTAKER, with whom Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART join, dissenting.

## 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. Kales

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
314 U.S. 186
United States v. Kales
Argued: Nov. 14, 1941. --- Decided: Dec 8, 1941
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 187 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Hal H. Smith, of Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 188 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
# United States v. Smith (95 U.S. 536)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 536
United States v. Smith
CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
This is an information under the act of June 7, 1872, 17 Stat. 262, against the defendant Smith, for that he, not being a shipping commissioner, did ship and engage one John Riley as a seaman, to go on board a certain American vessel called the 'Proteus,' and make a voyage from Boston, in Massachusetts, to Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, said Smith not then and there being the owner, consignee, or master of said vessel.
The defendant demurred; and the judges were opposed in opinion on the following question: Whether said act applies to the shipping of seamen upon vessels engaged only in and for voyages coastwise between Atlantic ports of the United States, as was the vessel described in the information.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
No opposing counsel.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 210
United States v. Snyder
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for the United States.
B. F. Jonas, for appellees.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS 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. Smith (75 U.S. 587)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
75 U.S. 587
United States v. Smith
The act of July 1st, 1862, has been inserted in the bond ex majori cautela; for it is admitted that the act of June 30th, 1864, entitled 'An act to provide internal revenue, to support the government, to pay the interest on the public debt, and for other purposes,' is the only act applicable to this case. The act of 1862 was repealed by it.
As might be expected in an act embracing the almost innumerable subjects of taxation contained in this one, and covering more than seventy pages of the statute-book, provisions may probably be found in one part of it difficult to be reconciled with some contained in other parts. Yet, when carefully examined, we find no difficulty in answering the question proposed.
The seventy-first section of the act is the one which prescribes the conditions under which licenses shall be given.
The seventy-third section subjects all persons who neglect it, to fine and imprisonment.
The seventy-fourth section fixes the limit to the license, beyond which time the parties to the bond are not bound to answer for any breach of the condition.
The provisions of the fifty-third and ninety-fourth sections of the act, which subject distillers of coal oil to the provisions of the act applicable to the distillers of spirits, 'so far as the same may, in the judgment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, be deemed necessary,' have no application to the point. The commissioner has exercised no judgment, and prescribed no regulations on the subject, so far as appears. The bond has no reference to such conditions as are required in distillery bonds, and cannot be affected by them. "Tis not so written in the bond.'
ORDERED that it be certified to the judges of the Circuit Court, in answer to the question submitted, that the defendants are
NOT LIABLE.

## 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. Smull

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 405
United States v. Smull
Argued: January 7, 1915. --- Decided: February 23, 1915
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel and Mr. S. W. Williams for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 406 intentionally omitted]
No appearance for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 407 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Hughes 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
# Wetzel v. Ohio

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 62
Wetzel v. Ohio
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
# Wetzell v. Bussard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
24 U.S. 309
Wetzell v. Bussard
Feb. 7th.
This cause was argued by Mr. Swann for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Jones and Mr. Key for the defendant. Feb. 11th.
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the

## Notes

* ↑ He cited Swan v. Sowell, 2 Barnw. and Ald. Rep. 759. Leaper v. Tatton, 16 East's. Rep. 420. Salk. 29. Slubry v. Champlin, 4 Johns. Rep. 461.
* ↑ They cited Clementson v. Williams, 8 Cranch, 72. Bush v. Barnard, 8 Johns. Rep. 407.
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
# Wetzel v. Ohio/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 62
Wetzel v. Ohio
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio affirming a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense entered in the Court of Common Pleas, Wyandot County, Ohio.
The motion to substitute Margie Wetzel, Administratrix of the Estate of Edward J. Wetzel, who died April 26, 1962, as appellant in place of Edward J. Wetzel is granted. The motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal for want of a substantial federal question is granted.

## 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
# Wetzlar on the Lahn

Serial article published in Once a Week.
* Part 1
* Part 2
# United States ex rel Chott v. Ewing

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
237 U.S. 197
United States ex rel Chott v. Ewing
Argued: March 10 and 11, 1915. --- Decided: April 12, 1915
Mr. Joshua R. H. Potts for plaintiff in error.
Assistant Attorney General Warren and Messrs. R. F. Whitehead and W. S. Ruckman for defendants in error.
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