OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Weird Tales/Volume 42/Issue 4/Luna Aeternalis

From Weird Tales, Volume 42, Issue 4. This poem was written in 1912.
Luna Aeternalis
By an alien dream despatched and driven In a land to strange stars given, Stars that summoned forth the moon, Singing a strange red eldritch rune, I heard the coming of the moon With tremulus rim that clomb and rang, Whose rondure on the horizon rang A gong distinct with silvern clang, Re-echoing distantly, until, Arisen soon, In silent silver stood the moon Above the horizon ringing still.
Half-waned and hollow was her brow, And caverned by the night; but now Her twilight turned the stars' loud rune To muted music in a swoon, Her low light lulled the stars to drowse. Flicker and fail, and vaguely rouse: I felt the silence come and go As the red stars muttered low...
Old with moonlight lay the night, And on the desert lay Ancient and unending light That assured not of the day; For the half-moon stood to stay Fixed at the heavens" height And eternal ere the day. Triumphant stood the moon In a false and cold and constant noon: Surely in conflict fell The true, lost sun of noon; The golden might of Uriel Met some white demon of the moon.
By an alien dream despatched and driven, I found a land to demons given, To silvern, silent demons given That flew and fluttered from out the moon, Weaving about her tomb-white face With mop and mow and mad grimace, And circling down from the semilune In a dim and Saturnalian dance, To pirouette and pause and prance, To withdraw and advance, All in a wan eternal dance.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) before 1964, and copyright was not renewed.
* For Class A renewal records (books only) published between 1923 and 1963, check the Stanford University Copyright Renewal Database.
* For other renewal records of publications between 1922–1950, see the University of Pennsylvania copyright records.
* For all records since 1978, search the U.S. Copyright Office records.
Works published in 1950 could have had their copyright renewed in 1977 or 1978, i.e. between January 1st of the 27th year after publication or registration and December 31st of the 28th year. As this work's copyright was not renewed, it entered the public domain on January 1st, 1979.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1961, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 62 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
It is imperative that contributors ascertain that there is no evidence of a copyright renewal before using this license. Failure to do so will result in the deletion of the work as a copyright violation.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Whipple v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 193
Whipple v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued: March 26, 27, 1963. --- Decided: May 13, 1963
See 374 U.S. 858, 83 S.Ct. 1863.
Charles Dillingham, Houston, Tex., for petitioners.
Solicitor Gen., Archibald Cox, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. 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
# Whirligigs

Layout 2
WHIRLIGIGS
O. Henry in Asheville. A hitherto unpublished snapshot
WHIRLIGIGS
BY
O. HENRY
Author of “The Four Million,” “The Voice of the City,” “The Trimmed Lamp,” “Strictly Business,” “Sixes and Sevens,” Etc.
PUBLISHED BY DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY FOR REVIEW OF REVIEWS CO.
COPYRIGHT, 1910, BY DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, INCLUDING THAT OF TRANSLATION INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGES, INCLUDING THE SCANDINAVIAN
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CONTENTS
WHIRLIGIGS
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Waterman Company v. Modern Pen Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 88
Waterman Company v. Modern Pen Company
Argued: November 10, 1914. --- Decided: November 30, 1914
Messrs. Walter B. Raymond, Oliver Mitchell, Victor C. Cormier, and Mortimer W. Byers for L. E. Waterman Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 89-91 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Alexander S. Bacon for the Modern Pen Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 91-93 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Holmes 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
# Waterman Steamship Corp. v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 252
Waterman Steamship Corp. v. United States
Argued: April 26 and 27, 1965. --- Decided: May 17, 1965
See 86 S.Ct. 17.
[Syllabus from pages 252-253 intentionally omitted]
John W. McConnell, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for petitioner.
Paul Bender, Asst. Sol. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Justice GOLDBERG 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
# Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 421
Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc.
Argued: Oct. 20, 1960. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1960
Mr. Thomas F. Mount, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. George E. Beechwood, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
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
# Waterloo Distilling Corporation v. United States Various Items of Personal Property

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 577
Waterloo Distilling Corporation v. United States Various Items of Personal Property
Argued: Jan. 27, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1931
Mr. Lewis Landes, of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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. Perryman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 235
United States v. Perryman
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
Mr. Robert S. Davis, 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. Petit/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
114 U.S. 429
United States v. Petit
The first question certified in this case is answered in the negative, and the second in the affirmative, on the authority of Ex parte Wilson, ante, 935, decided at the present term.

## 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. Pewee Coal Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Reed

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 114
United States v. Pewee Coal Company
Argued: Jan. 2, 3, 1951. --- Decided: April 30, 1951
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Burr Tracy Ansell, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice JACKSON joined.

## 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. Petty Motor Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 372
United States v. Petty Motor Company
Argued: Dec. 6, 1945. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1946
See 327 U.S. 818, 66 S.Ct. 813.
Mr.Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Shirley P. Jones, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for respondent.
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. Petit

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
114 U.S. 429
United States v. Petit
WAITE, C. 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. Petrillo

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 1
United States v. Petrillo
Argued: May 5, 6, 1947. --- Decided: June 23, 1947
[Syllabus from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted]
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Messrs. Douglas W. McGregor, Asst. to the Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Messrs. Henry Kaiser and Joseph A. Padway, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6–7:
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6 (15 January 1897): 214–219.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6 (1 February 1897): 253–260.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6 (15 February 1897): 289–295.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6 (1 March 1897): 326–331.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6 (15 March 1897): 361–367.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6 (1 April 1897): 395–401.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6 (15 April 1897): 428–434.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 6 (1 May 1897): 478–485.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 7 (15 May 1897): 16–25.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 7 (1 June 1897): 57–62.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 7 (15 June 1897): 90–97.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 7 (1 July 1897): 125–131.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 7 (15 July 1897): 162–168.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The Chap-Book 7 (1 August 1897): 198–209.
    — American magazine edition
* "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 16–17:
** "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 16 (February 1897): 113–128.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 16 (March 1897): 241–263.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 16 (April 1897): 352–372.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 16 (May 1897): 469–490.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 16 (June 1897): 581–602.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 17 (July 1897): 1–20.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 17 (August 1897): 216–240.
** "What Maisie Knew" in The New Review 17 (September 1897): 334–356.
    — English magazine edition; revised and abridged.
* What Maisie Knew (London: William Heinemann, 1897)
    — First English book edition. First impression September 1897, second impression October 1897, third impression December 1897
* What Maisie Knew (Chicago & New York: Herbert S. Stone & Co., 1897)
    — First American book edition, published October 1897
* "What Maisie Knew" in The Novels and Tales of Henry James 11: 1–363.
    — The "New York Edition"; revised for publication by James; this is the last revised version published in James' lifetime.
* "What Maisie Knew" in What Maisie Knew, In the Cage, The Pupil (London: Macmillan & Co., 1922): 1–323.
    — Volume 16 of The Novels and Stories of Henry James, the first posthumous collection of James' works; uses the "New York Edition" text.
# Who's Who in the Far East/Addenda/VANRENEN, Walter Campbell

Layout 2
​ VANRENEN, Walter Campbell (BATU GAJAH), Assistant Warden of Mines; b. Aug. 16, 1872. Acting Inspector of Mines, Kuala Lumpur, Selangor,1899 assistant Auditor, 1900; assistant Warden of Mines, Batu Gajah, Kinta, 1906. Address Batu Gajah, Perak, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/Addenda/VAUGHAN, Lieut. - Commander Robert E.

Layout 2
​ VAUGHAN, Lieut. - Commander Robert E. (HONGKONG), R. N. in command of H.M. river gunboat" Robin." Lieutenant, Oct. 1, 1895; appointed to command, Dec. 22, 1903. Club Hongkong. Address: H.M.S. "Robin," Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/Addenda/VELGE, C. E.

Layout 2
​ VELGE, C. E. (SINGAPORE), Supreme Court Registrar. Called to the Bar, Middle Temple, Michaelmas, 1887; Registrar, Supreme Court, Singapore, May, 1875; Registrar, Supreme Court, Straits Settlements, March, 1896. Club: Singapore. Address: Singapore, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/Addenda/VANE, Henry G. B.

Layout 2
​ VANE, Henry G. B. (KUALA LUMPUR), Auditor. Assistant Auditor, Perak, Dec., 1884; acting assistant Auditor-Genl., Straits Settlement?, April 1887; Auditor, Sungei Ujong and Negri Sembilan, May, 1888; Treasurer, Police Magistrate, etc., Sungei Ujong, Oct., 1890; Auditor, Selangor, Dec., 1892; State Auditor, Perak, April, 1895; Chief Auditor, Federated Malay States, 1906. Address: Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/Addenda/VENNING, William Esaile

Layout 2
​ VENNING, William Esaile ( KUALA LUMPUR), assistant Accountant, Federated Malay States Railways; b. March 19, 1852. Accountant, Selangor Government Railway, Selangor, 1893-1890; acting accountant and Auditor, 1901; assistant Accountant, Federate! Malay States Railways, since 1902. Address: Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Federated Malay States. 377
# Who's Who in the Far East/Addenda/VIRGTTI, Lieut.-Col. Ignace P. S.

Layout 2
​ VIRGTTI, Lieut.-Col. Ignace P. S. (HANOI), Commandant lo 9e Regiment d'Infauterie Colonial. Decoration: Officier de la Legion d'Honneur. Address: Hanoi, Tonkin, Indo-China.
# United States v. Tanner

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
147 U.S. 661
United States v. Tanner
Action by John R. Tanner, United States marshal, against the United States, to recover mileage fees. From a judgment for plaintiff, the United States appeals. Reversed.
Statement by Mr. Justice BROWN:
This was a petition to recover for services, as marshal of the United States for the southern district of Illinois, in executing certain warrants of commitment of prisoners to the penitentiary at Chester, Ill. The claims were for travel fees in the service of the warrants, and were disallowed by the comptroller upon the ground that a claim for mileage had already been allowed for, as 'transportation' for the deputies who executed the writs. The fifth finding of fact was that 'prior to or about the 1st of October, 1885, it had been the usual practice of United States marshals to charge mileage in their accounts for going to serve writs of commitment within their respective districts, six cents a mile, in additions to ten cents a mile, each, for transportation of themselves or deputies, prisoners, and guards; and such charge, when made, had been allowed by the accounting officers of the treasury until the date named, when the practice was changed, and such mileage was thereafter not allowed.'
Upon this state of facts the court found, as a conclusion of law, that petitioner was entitled to recover the sum of $128.16. 25 Ct. Cl. 68. The United States appealed.
Sol. Gen. Aldrich, for the United States.
Geo. A. King, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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. Symonds

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 46
United States v. Symonds
Atty. Gen. Garland and F. P. Dewees, for the United States.
John Paul Jones and Robert R. Lines, for appellee.
HARLAN, 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. Ta-wan-ga-ca

In United States v. Ta-Wan-Ga-Ca, Hempst. 304, 28 F. Cas. 18 (D. Ark. 1836) (No. 16,435), the U.S. District Court for the District of Arkansas (Benjamin Johnson, J.) dismissed an indictment for murder against Ta-Wan-Ga-Ca, of the Osage Nation, for want of jurisdiction.
United States District Court for the District of Arkansas
Hempst. 304
THE UNITED STATES v. TA-WAN-GA-CA, OR TOWN-MAKER, AN OSAGE INDIAN
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Congress specifically defined the boundaries of the State of Arkansas, and by giving the district court thereof such powers only as were conferred on the district court of Kentucky by the judicial act of 1789, necessarily ex­cluded jurisdiction beyond the boundaries of the State of Arkansas; and, therefore, a crime committed in the Indian country west of Arkansas, is not triable in the district court.
* A person indicted for murder in the late superior court, and not tried, can­ not be committed nor tried in the district court on that charge, the latter not being the successor of the former, and the business of the superior court not having been continued over to the district court by act of congress.
* The courts of the United States are of limited, though not inferior jurisdic­tion, and cannot exercise any jurisdiction which is not expressly or by necessary implication conferred by law.
​November, 1836.—Indictment for murder, in the District Court, before Hon. Benjamin Johnson, district judge.
Chester Ashley, district attorney pro tem., for United States.
William Cummins and Samuel S. Hall, for the prisoner.
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. Swift & Company (318 U.S. 442)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 442
United States v. Swift & Company (318 U.S. 442)
Argued: Feb. 11, 12, 1943. --- Decided: March 15, 1943
Mr. Charles H. Weston, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Kenneth W. Robinson, of Denver, Colo. for appellees.
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
# White House Press Secretary on Sandra Fluke (2012 March 2)

2 March 2012. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney answers question about Sandra Fluke. Source: www.whitehouse.gov.
White House Press Secretary on Sandra Fluke
James "Jay" Carney
The White House James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
Friday, March 2, 2012
MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything beyond the fact that they're meeting to talk to you about today.
Jake, yes.
Q President Obama called the Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke, within the hour. Why did he call her and what did he tell her?
MR. CARNEY: It was actually more recent than that; it was probably about 20 minutes ago.
Q That's within the hour.
MR. CARNEY: Sorry, you're right, it was within the hour. I just know that that is what I was -- I was in the Oval when he did, and that's one of the things that delayed the briefing.
The President called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke -- I think is actually how you pronounce it -- because he wanted to offer his support to her. He wanted to express his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate, personal attacks, and to thank her for exercising her rights as a citizen to speak out on an issue of public policy. And it was a very good conversation.
Q Is that all you can tell us about the conversation?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I mean, I think so. It wasn't -- it was several minutes. They had a very good conversation. I think he, like a lot of people, feels that the kinds of personal attacks that she's -- that have been directed her way are inappropriate. The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough. It is worse when it's directed at private citizen who was simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy.
Q Is it appropriate for Democratic organizations to try to raise money off of this attack on her?
MR. CARNEY: I think that I'll leave that to whatever organizations might agree with her or sympathize with her. The fact of the matter is the President was expressing his support for her, and his disappointment in the kind of attacks that have been leveled at her to her, and his appreciation for her willingness to stand tall and express her opinion.
____________________
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