OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# New poems and variant readings/Fear not, dear friend, but freely live your days

FEAR NOT, DEAR FRIEND, BUT FREELY LIVE YOUR DAYS
Fear not, dear friend, but freely live your days Though lesser lives should suffer. Such am I, A lesser life, that what is his of sky Gladly would give for you, and what of praise. Step, without trouble, down the sunlit ways. We that have touched your raiment, are made whole From all the selfish cankers of man's soul, ​And we would see you happy, dear, or die. Therefore be brave, and therefore, dear, be free; Try all things resolutely, till the best, Out of all lesser betters, you shall find; And we, who have learned greatness from you, we, Your lovers, with a still, contented mind, See you well anchored in some port of rest.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.—Of the Question Why God Suffered the Jews to Be Reduced to Subjection.
20. Hence also they cannot meet us fairly with this question: Why, then, did the God of the Hebrews, whom you declare to be the supreme and true God, not only not subdue the Romans under their power, but even fail to secure those Hebrews themselves against subjugation by the Romans? For there were open sins of theirs that went before them, and on account of which the prophets so long time ago predicted that this very thing would overtake them; and above all, the reason lay in the fact, that in their impious fury they put Christ to death, in the commission of which sin they were made blind [to the guilt of their crime] through the deserts of other hidden transgressions. That His sufferings also would be for the benefit of the Gentiles, was foretold by the same prophetic testimony. Nor, in another point of view, did the fact appear clearer, that the kingdom of that nation, and its temple, and its priesthood, and its sacrificial system, and that mystical unction which is called χρῖσμα in Greek, from which the name of Christ takes its evident application, and on account of which that nation was accustomed to speak of its kings as anointed ones, were ordained with the express object of prefiguring Christ, than has the kindred fact become apparent, that after the resurrection of the Christ who was put to death began to be preached unto the believing Gentiles, all those things came to their end, all unrecognised as the circumstance was, whether by the Romans, through whose victory, or by the Jews, through whose subjugation, it was brought about that they did thus reach their conclusion.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Chrism.
* ↑ Christos.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I/Chapter 17

Chapter XVII.—In Opposition to the Romans Who Rejected the God of Israel Alone.
25. However, here is a matter which should meet with more careful consideration at their hands,—namely, what they take the God of Israel to be, and why they have not admitted Him to the honours of worship among them, in the way that they have done with the gods of other nations that have been made subject to the imperial power of Rome? This question demands an answer all the more, when we see that they are of the mind that all the gods ought to be worshipped by the man of wisdom. Why, then, has He been excluded from the number of these others? If He is very mighty, why is He the only deity that is not worshipped by them? If He has little or no might, why are the images of other gods broken in pieces by all the nations, while He is now almost the only God that is worshipped among these peoples? From the grasp of this question these men shall never be able to extricate themselves, who worship both the greater and the lesser deities, whom they hold to be gods, and at the same time refuse to worship this God, who has proved Himself stronger than all those to whom they do service. If He is [a God] of great virtue, why has He been deemed worthy only of rejection? And if He is [a God] of little or no power, why has He been able to accomplish so much, although rejected? If He is good, why is He the only one separated from the other good deities? And if He is evil, why is He, who stands thus alone, not subjugated by so many good deities? If He is truthful, why are His precepts scorned? And if He is a liar, why are His predictions fulfilled?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Or, power—virtutis.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I

the harmony of the gospels.
Book I.
The treatise opens with a short statement on the subject of the authority of the evangelists, their number, their order, and the different plans of their narratives. Augustin then prepares for the discussion of the questions relating to their harmony, by joining issue in this book with those who raise a difficulty in the circumstance that Christ has left no writing of His own, or who falsely allege that certain books were composed by Him on the arts of magic. He also meets the objections of those who, in opposition to the evangelical teaching, assert that the disciples of Christ at once ascribed more to their Master than He really was, when they affirmed that He was God, and inculcated what they had not been instructed in by Him, when they interdicted the worship of the gods. Against these antagonists he vindicates the teaching of the apostles, by appealing to the utterances of the prophets, and by showing that the God of Israel was to be the sole object of worship, who also, although He was the only Deity to whom acceptance was denied in former times by the Romans, and that for the very reason that He prohibited them from worshipping other gods along with Himself, has now in the end made the empire of Rome subject to His name, and among all nations has broken their idols in pieces through the preaching of the gospel, as He had promised by His prophets that the event should be.

## Contents

* 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
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.—In Opposition to Those Who Foolishly Imagine that Christ Converted the People to Himself by Magical Arts.
17. Moreover, let those who madly fancy that it was by the use of magical arts that He was able to do the great things which He did, and that it was by the practice of such rites that He made His name a sacred thing to the peoples who were to be converted to Him, give their attention to this question,—namely, whether by the exercise of magical arts, and before He was born on this earth, He could also have filled with the Holy Spirit those mighty prophets who aforetime declared those very things concerning Him as things destined to come to pass, which we can now read in their accomplishment in the gospel, and which we can see in their present realization in the world. For surely, even if it was by magical arts that He secured worship for Himself, and that, too, after His death, it is not the case that He was a magician before He was born. Nay, for the office of prophesying on the subject of His coming, one nation had been most specially deputed; and the entire administration of that commonwealth was ordained to be a prophecy of this King who was to come, and who was to found a heavenly state drawn out of all nations.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Civitatem.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.—Of the Fact that the Pagans, When Constrained to Laud Christ, Have Launched Their Insults Against His Disciples.
23. But what shall be said to this, if those vain eulogizers of Christ, and those crooked slanderers of the Christian religion, lack the daring to blaspheme Christ, for this particular reason that some of their philosophers, as Porphyry of Sicily has given us to understand in his books, consulted their gods as to their response on the subject of [the claims of] Christ, and were constrained by their own oracles to laud Christ? Nor should that seem incredible. For we also read in the Gospel that the demons confessed Him; and in our prophets it is written in this wise: “For the gods of the nations are demons.” Thus it happens, then, that in order to avoid attempting aught in opposition to the responses of their own deities, they turn their blasphemies aside from Christ, and pour them forth against His disciples. It seems to me, however, that these gods of the Gentiles, whom the philosophers of the pagans may have consulted, if they were asked to give their judgment on the disciples of Christ, as well as on Christ Himself, would be constrained to praise them in like manner.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The philosopher of the Neo-Platonic school, better known as one of the earliest and most learned antagonists of Christianity. Though a native either of Tyre or Batanea, he is called here, as also again in the Retractations, ii. 31, a Sicilian, because, according to Jerome and Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 19), it was in Sicily that he wrote his treatise in fifteen books against the Christian religion.—Tr.
* ↑ Luke iv. 41.
* ↑ Ps. xcvi. 5. [Comp 1 Cor. x. 20, where “demons” is the more correct rendering (so Revised Version margin and American revisers’ text).—R.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.—Of the Fact That, on the Subject of the Destruction of Idols, the Apostles Taught Nothing Different from What Was Taught by Christ or by the Prophets.
24. Nevertheless these persons argue still to the effect that this demolition of temples, and this condemnation of sacrifices, and this shattering of all images, are brought about, not in virtue of the doctrine of Christ Himself, but only by the hand of His apostles, who, as they contend, taught something different from what He taught. They think by this device, while honouring and lauding Christ, to tear the Christian faith in pieces. For it is at least true, that it is by the disciples of Christ that at once the works and the words of Christ have been made known, on which this Christian religion is established, with which a very few people of this character are still in antagonism, who do not now indeed openly assail it, but yet continue even in these days to utter their mutterings against it. But if they refuse to believe that Christ taught in the way indicated, let them read the prophets, who not only enjoined the complete destruction of the superstitions of idols, but also predicted that this subversion would come to pass in Christian times. And if these spoke falsely, why is their word fulfilled with so mighty a demonstration? But if they spoke truly, why is resistance offered to such divine power?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Or, to such power in interpreting the divine mind—tantæ divinitati resistatur.
# New Mexico v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
172 U.S. 171
New Mexico v. 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
# New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Company

New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, safeguarding a right to boycott and in the struggle by African Americans against discriminatory hiring practices. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 552
New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Company
Argued: March 2, 3, 1938. --- Decided: March 28, 1938
Messrs. Belford V. Lawson, Jr., and Thurman L. Dodson, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. A. Coulter Wells, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 553 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# New Observations on Inoculation/An Account of a Series of Experiments

AN
ACCOUNT
OF A
SERIES of EXPERIMENTS,
Instituted with a View of ascertaining the
MOST SUCCESSFUL METHOD
OF
INOCULATING the SMALL-POX.
By WILLIAM WATSON, M.D.
Fellow of the Royal Society, one of the Trustees of the British Museum, and Member of the Royal College of Physicians.
Η᾽ Πεῖζα ἀ σφαλεςἡ
DUBLIN:
Printed by John Exshaw, in Dame-street.
ooooooooooo
MDCCLXVIII.
# New Mexico v. Texas (276 U.S. 557)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 557
New Mexico v. Texas
Mr. J. Harry Covington, of Washington, D. C., submitted the petition for rehearing on behalf of the complainant.
Mr. W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., of Texas (Messrs. John C. Wall and Walace Hawkins, Asst. Attys. Gen., and W. W. Turney, of El Paso, Tex., on the briefs), for defendant.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice SANFORD.

## 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
# New Mexico v. Texas (276 U.S. 557)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 557
New Mexico v. Texas
A petition for rehearing has been presented by the state of New Mexico, which we think must be denied. But it points to an error in our opinion announced December 5, 1927, which, while not affecting the ultimate decision, requires correction. The petition invites special attention to some evidence which shows that the statements made in the opinion to the effect that the state of Texas and the United States had prior to 1912 recognized and acquiesced in the line of the Rio Grande river as it was located in 1850, as the boundary between the territory of New Mexico and Texas, without reference to subsequent changes by accretion, are not accurate, and, with the observations based on them, should be recalled. The order will be that the fifth paragraph of that portion of the opinion under the heading 'Accretions' and the first part of the next paragraph down to and including the words 'in its own Constitution,' be stricken from the opinion, and the following substituted:
New Mexico, when admitted as a state in 1912, explicitly declared in its Constitution that its boundary ran 'along said thirty-second parallel to the Rio Grande * * * as it existed on the ninth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty; thence, following the main channel of said river, as it existed on the ninth day of September one thousand eight hundred and fifty, to the parallel of thirty-one degrees, forty-seven minutes north latitude.' This was confirmed by the United States by admitting New Mexico as a state with the line thus described as its boundary; and Texas has also affirmed the same by its pleadings in this cause.
Opinion modified; rehearing 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
# New Observations on Inoculation

NEW
OBSERVATIONS
ON
INOCULATION.
By Dr. GATTI,
Consulting Physician to his most Christian Majesty, and Professor of Medicine in the University of Pisa.
Translated from the French,
By M. MATY, M.D. Sec. R.S.
SUBLATO JURE NOCENDI.
DUBLIN
Printed by John Exshaw, in Dame-Street.
oooooooooooo
MDCCLVIII.
page
To
Dr. Gatti,
Dear Sir,
Your last offspring, which came to me in rich French dress, is now sent back in a plain English frock. You, who have read the Tale of a Tub, though a follower of Lord Peter, will not be offended, if, in taking off some of the trimmings, I should here and there have made rents in the cloth. If but few, you'll overlook them, since they were the effects of honest zeal in,
Dear Sir,
Your faithful friend
and servant,
British Museum, Dec. 7. 1767.
M. Maty.
page Contents The paper is prefixed by “A Preliminary Discourse, Containing a Short Account of the present State of Inoculation in France” by Matthew Maty.
Preliminary discourse
Table of CONTENTS.
Another account is appended to Dr Gatty’s paper, entitled “An Account of a Series of Experiments,” by William Watson, M. D.
Title Introduction Account Appendix
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# New Mexico v. Texas (275 U.S. 279)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
New Mexico v. Texas, 275 U.S. 279, 48 S. Ct. 437 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined the boundary between Texas and New Mexico in the vicinity of El Paso, Texas. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 279
State of New Mexico v. State of Texas
Argued: January 4 and 5, 1927. ---
Announced Dec. 5, 1927, and Modified on Denial of Rehearing April 9, 1928.
[Syllabus from pages 279-281 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frank W. Clancy, of Santa Fe , N. M., Thornton Hardie, of El Paso, Tex., W. R. Reber, of Columbus, N. M., and T. B. Catron, of Santa Fe , N. M., for the State of New Mexico.
Messrs. Dan Moody, of Austin, Tex., W. W. Turney, of El Paso, Tex., C. M. Cureton, of Austin, Tex., and C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., for the State of Texas.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Newspaper Drivers Handlers Local Union v. Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 374
Newspaper Drivers Handlers Local Union v. Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association
The petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is granted, the judgments are vacated and the case is remanded to that court with instructions that the case be remanded to the National Labor Relations Board for further consideration in light of American Ship Building Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 380 U.S. 300, 85 S.Ct. 955, 13 L.Ed.2d 855.

## 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
# Newsweek Declines Pentagon Request to Examine Reporting

* related portals: Guantanamo.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Wikified from http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/Letters.html on July 26th, 2007
October 20, 2006
Dear Mr. Bartholet:
Your Oct. 11 reply to Dorrance Smith was forwarded to me. As you know, we had written to your editor in New York regarding the Department’s concerns about Newsweek’s Oct. 2 article on Afghanistan.
In your reply, you stated that “the thrust of Defense Department [sic] position is that you disagree with our analysis of the situation in Afghanistan.” That is not our position. Our position is that your article asserted as facts things that were either arguably or demonstrably untrue. (Our response to those assertions is attached—again.)
It concerns us that you now label your disputed article as an “analysis of the situation in Afghanistan”—which implies subjectivity—even though your readers were led to believe that your article was an objective news story. As you are aware, responsible newspapers that seek to insert their reporter’s opinions into articles clearly label those stories as an “analysis” so as not to mislead readers. We therefore ask that you not only correct the misstatements of facts in your article, but also request that you offer your readers a clarification that the article was not intended as an objective news story.
You write that you cannot afford us “space in the news hole of the magazine to lay out the government position in detail,” and instead suggest writing a letter to the editor “concisely stating your point of view.”
This is a troubling response. First, a “concise” letter to the editor, of say, 200 words, cannot adequately address an [sic] 2200-word article containing a series of false assertions. Second, the issue is not Newsweek’s position versus the “government position.” The issue is that your readers were given a one-sided, opinion-laced article on Afghanistan based on falsehoods—which is something that journalists and editors are usually concerned about. Your dismissive reply is disappointing, to say the least.
I hope you will reconsider our request for a fair opportunity to correct the record for your readers.
Sincerely, Matt Latimer
Office of Public Affairs
CC: Jon Meacham
# Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York."
* 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.
* Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York (259 U.S. 101)
* Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York (265 U.S. 78)
# Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York (259 U.S. 101)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
259 U.S. 101
Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York
SAME
v.
NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO.
No. 751.
SAME
v.
CENTRAL UNION GAS CO.
No. 752.
SAME
v.
NORTHERN UNION GAS CO.
No. 753.
SAME
v.
NEW YORK MUT. GASLIGHT CO.
No. 832.
SAME
v.
STANDARD GASLIGHT CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
No. 833.
SAME
v.
NEW AMSTERDAM GAS CO.
No. 844.
SAME
v. EAST RIVER GAS CO. OF LONG ISLAND CITY.
No. 845.
Argued April 28, 1922.
Decided May 15, 1922.
Mr. Harry Herzoff, of New York City, for appellants in Nos. 750 and 751.
Mr. Wm. Schuyler Jackson, of New York City, for appellants in Nos. 752 and 753.
Mr. Judson Hyatt, of New York City, for appellants in Nos. 832, 833, 844, and 845.
Messrs. John A. Garver, of New York City, and Wm. A. Ransome, for appellee.
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
# Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York (265 U.S. 78)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 78
Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York (265 U.S. 78)
Argued: May 12, 1924. ---
[Argument of Counsel from pages 78-80 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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