OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Les Misérables/Volume 5/Book Fifth

Chapters:
* Chapter 1: In Which the Tree with the Zinc Plaster Appears Again
* Chapter 2: Marius, Emerging from Civil War, Makes Ready for Domestic War
* Chapter 3: Marius Attacked
* Chapter 4: Mademoiselle Gillenormand Ends by No Longer Thinking It a Bad Thing That M. Fauchelevent Should Have Entered With Something Under His Arm
* Chapter 5: Deposit Your Money in a Forest Rather than with a Notary
* Chapter 6: The Two Old Men Do Everything, Each One After His Own Fashion, to Render Cosette Happy
* Chapter 7: The Effects of Dreams Mingled with Happiness
* Chapter 8: Two Men Impossible to Find
# Letters from an old railway official/Postscript

POSTSCRIPT.
BY FRANK H. SPEARMAN.
When a young army officer, a West Pointer, resigns his commission to become a railroad man the unusual happens and observers naturally follow the result with interest. Major Charles Hine was more than a lieutenant of the Sixth United States Infantry when he threw up his commission to become a freight brakeman on the Big Four. He was even then, at twenty-eight, a graduate of the Cincinnati Law School, a member of the bar and a practical civil engineer. When the country needed her army men in 1898, Lieutenant Hine, then on the staff of a Big Four superintendent in Cleveland, secured leave of absence, volunteered and was commissioned a major of the First District of Columbia Infantry. After Santiago, Major Hine promptly resumed his work as a railroadman. He has served as brakeman, switchman, yardmaster, conductor, chief clerk to the superintendent, trainmaster, assistant ​superintendent and general superintendent. He is, by nature, a student; no task is too onerous to dismay him if there is in it or behind it something he can learn. Thus he has not only stored away information, but he has learned how to impart it, and his fund of shrewd observation and good common sense he has drawn on in writing a railroad book entitled “Letters From an Old Railway Official to His Son, a Division Superintendent.”
The letters cover a breadth of ground in railway operation that is really astonishing to any one who does not know the man behind them. This is not all; loaded as they are with nuggets of hard, practical sense in railroad practice, they have a form and finish that make them doubly attractive. They are short, compact, of an easy and agreeable style and both lively and humorous as well as instructive.
Major Hine has long since won his literary spurs as a contributor to the Army and Navy Journal, The Railway Age and The Century Magazine. His present book is bright, quick and gossipy, and it would interest a man that did not know the difference between a puzzle switch and a gravity yard, but its especial ​appeal is to the young railroad man of to-day who understands that whether in the operating department, the accounting department or the motive power, he must, to get ahead, know all that he can, and the letters cover as many railroad subjects as they bear numbers. They will take their place at once in railroad libraries and in railroad literature. Major Hine—recently doing special railroad work on the staff of the general manager of the Rock Island system and at present on the staff of the second vice-president of the Burlington, specially charged with the subject of company supplies—may write longer and more pretentious books than this; but hardly one of more real value to the ambitious young railroad man.
# Levine v. United States (383 U.S. 265)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 265
George LEVINE v. UNITED STATES.
Ten persons were found guilty by a jury on each count of a 10-count indictment. The count predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1964 ed.) charged all defendants with conspiring to violate § 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) (1964 ed.), and the Mail Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1964 ed.); each of the remaining nine counts charged all defendants with substantive offenses of violating these latter statutes. The Court of Appeals affirmed all the conspiracy convictions; and, with some exception for petitioner Roberts and two other defendants, that court also affirmed the convictions for the substantive offenses. 342 F.2d 147. Four defendants petitioned for writs of certiorari, and a fifth defendant subsequently moved to be added as a co-petitioner in one of the petitions already filed (No. 234). We grant that motion; and we grant the petitions for writs of certiorari limited to the issue whether petitioners were improperly convicted of substantive offenses committed by members of the conspiracy before petitioners had joined the conspiracy or after they had withdrawn from it. In all other respects the petitions are denied.
In response to specific questions addressed by this Court, the Solicitor General has made a two-pronged concession: First, he concedes that an individual cannot be held criminally liable for substantive offenses committed by members of the conspiracy before that individual had joined or after he had withdrawn from the conspiracy; and second, he concedes that in this case some of the convictions for the substantive offenses must be reversed because they are inconsistent with this principle. On the basis of this concession, and upon consideration of the entire record, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it affirms petitioners' convictions for the substantive offenses. We remand the case to that court with instructions to reverse the convictions the Solicitor General concedes must be reversed, and to determine, in light of the concession, the evidence, the instructions to the jury, and the applicable principles of law, whether in addition to the relief conceded by the Solicitor General petitioners are entitled to further relief regarding the convictions for the substantive offenses.
Vacated and remanded.

## Notes

* ↑ Specifically, the Solicitor General concedes that petitioner Levine's convictions on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and petitioner Grene's convictions on Counts 1 and 7 must be reversed.
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
# Levindale Lead Zinc Mining Company v. Coleman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 432
Levindale Lead Zinc Mining Company v. Coleman
Argued: April 25, 1916. --- Decided: June 5, 1916
Mr. H. P. White for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Preston A. Shinn for defendant in error.
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
# Levine v. United States (362 U.S. 610)

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 610
Levine v. United States
Argued: March 22, 1960. --- Decided: May 23, 1960
See 363 U.S. 858, 80 S.Ct. 1605.
Mr. Myron L. Shapiro, New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Philip R. Monahan, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Levine v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Levine v. United States."
* 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.
* Levine v. United States (362 U.S. 610)
* Levine v. United States (383 U.S. 265)
# Levine v. United States (383 U.S. 265)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 265
George LEVINE v. UNITED STATES.
Robert B. ROBERTS
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 125.
Robert GRENE
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 230.
Norman GRADSKY
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 234. Supreme Court of the United States
February 28, 1966
Nicholas J. Capuano, for petitioner Levine.
Thomas F. Call, for petitioner Roberts.
Joseph W. Wyatt, for petitioner Grene.
Sidney M. Dubbin and E. David Rosen, for petitioner Gradsky.
Solicitor General Marshall, former Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Daniel H. Benson, for the United States.
On Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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
# Latta v. Granger

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
167 U.S. 81
Latta v. Granger
U. M. Rose and G. B. Bose, for appellants.
John McClure, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER 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
# Latin for beginners (1911)/Part III/Lesson LXXVIII

Layout 2
LESSON LXXVIII
REVIEW OF THE ABLATIVE
453. The relations of the ablative are, in general, expressed in English by the prepositions with (or by), from (or by), and in (or at). The constructions growing out of these meanings are
454.
EXERCISES
I.
* Gallī locīs superiōribus occupātīs itinere exercitum prohibēre cōnantur.
* Omnēs oppidānī ex oppidō ēgressī salūtem fugā petere incēpērunt.
* Caesar docet sē mīlitum vītam suā salūte habēre multō cāriōrem.
* Cum celerius omnium opīniōne pervēnisset, hostēs ad eum obsidēs mīsērunt
* Vīcus in valle positus montibus altissimīs undique continētur.
* Plūrimum inter Gallōs haec gēns et virtūte et hominum numerō valēbat.
* Secundā vigiliā nūllō certō ōrdine neque imperiō ē castrīs ēgressī sunt.
* Duābus legiōnibus Genāvae relictīs, ​proximō diē cum reliquīs domum profectus est.
* Erant itinera duo quibus itineribus Helvētiī domō exīre possent.
* Rēx erat summā audāciā et magnā apud populum potentiā.
* Gallī timōre servitūtis commōtī bellum parābant.
* Caesar monet lēgātōs ut contineant militēs, nē studiō pugnandī aut spē praedae longius prōgrediantur.
* Bellum ācerrimum ā Caesare in Gallōs gestum est.
II.
* The lieutenant after having seized the mountain restrained his (men) from battle.
* All the Gauls differ from each other in laws.
* This tribe is much braver than the rest.
* This road isten miles shorter than that.
* In summer Cæsar carried on war in Gaul, in winter he returned to Italy.
* At midnight the general set out from the camp with three legions.
* I fear that you cannot protect yourself from these enemies.
* After this battle was finished peace was made by all the Gauls.
* ↑ longius, too far. (Cf. § 305.)
* ↑ Latin, by ten thousands of paces.
* ↑ dēfendere.
* ↑ Ablative absolute.
References
# Latta Terry Construction Company v. British Steamship Raithmoor

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 166
Latta Terry Construction Company v. British Steamship Raithmoor, William Evans, Master and Claimant
No. 24. Argued: January 26, 1916. --- Decided: May 1, 1916.
Messrs. H. Alan Dawson, Edward J. Mingey, and J. Rodman Paul for appellant.
    [Argument of Counsel from pages 167-169 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Henry R. Edmunds for appellee.
    [Argument of Counsel from Pages 170-172 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
# Letters of Aurungzebe/Letter to Afazal Khán

Letter by Muhammad Azam Shah, known as A'azam Shah
The copy of a mandate issued by Prince A'azam to Afazal Khan.
LETTER CLXXXL
Saiyad Kamal Khan died. You should write to the agent (asking him) to inform the emperor of this. The condition of the followers of the (late) officer is clear to His Majesty (i.e., Aurungzebe). Inayat Allah Khan is acquainted with the good services of every officer. His Enlightened Majesty will appoint him whom he considers fit to this post. There is no Cashmiri in this province whom I can appoint and with whom Inayat Allah Khan is pleased. The balance due to this Afghan (i.e., the late Saiyad) will remain of course on paper and will not be received. The province will produce a less revenue and the people will be ruined. I have heard the awe of Inayat Allah Khan to such an extent that I won't accept even a lac of rupees in place of one rupee. Change! change! change! (i.e., there is a constant change in everything). The (government) affairs require the conditions of the fear of God and the fear of being punished by the king. A minister should not entrust such affairs to his relatives and friends. Mir Taza must be in Launi. I have not appointed those, as government servants, who have faith in the Mir's action, and who possess 'jaghirs' for oppressing the people and exacting money from them.
* ↑ This last letter was not written by Aurungzebe; but was written or rather issued by prince A'azam to Afazal Khun.
* ↑ Son of Dilir Khan. He was honoured with the title of Khan in 1677. His original name was Kamal-ud-Din. He was wounded at the siege of Bijapur. 1686.
* ↑ Cf. Let. CLXIX and CXVI.
* ↑ A town and district near Delhi, situated in the Doab, between the Jaiuna and the Halin.
# Letters of Aurungzebe/Letter to Hamid-ūd-Din Khán Bahádūr

Letter by Auranzeb
Letter addressed to Hamid-ud-Din Khan Bahadur.
LETTER CLXVIIL
Hamid should know that a few days ago prince A'azam uttered these words before me: "There are my three bitter enemies — Hamid-ud-Din Khan, Amir Khan', and Muna'am Khan". I replied, "Amir Khan is a good-natured man; he is the enemy of none. It is proper that Hamid is also not an enemy. The nature of Muna'am Khan is unknown to this oppressive and ignorant man (i.e., Aurungzebe himself)". Did you ever consider why you are indifferent to your own condition and to death which is nearer to man than the strip of his shoe and the pulse of his neck (i.e., death comes unexpectedly )? Woe! woe! Alas! alas! (Couplet) "Sometimes I am left behind my hand, heart, and foot (i.e., sometimes I become helpless). O life ! you are passing away soon; I fear that I will be left behind you (i.e., I will die soon)". If you think it right I will recommend you to prince A'azam. If you quarrel with each other I will reconcile you both; so that you may not be dishonest in serving this mortal creature (i.e., Aurungzebe). Whatever you think write it to me or inform me of it.
* ↑ He took part in the various sieges of Sattara (1699), Parnaleh (1700), Khelna (1703), and Torna (1704). Once Aurungzebe ordered him to separate Hadu, an evil companion of Kam Bakhsha, from the prince. The Khan was wounded by the prince, but in the end he succeeded in imprisoning Hadu and thus separating .him from the prince. 1697. Cf. Let. CXXVI. Aurungzebe entrusted him with his last will for dividing his kingdom amongst his sons. 1707. In this will Aurungzebe said, "Let Hamid-ud-Din Khan, who is faithful and trusty, convey my corpse to the place of Shah Zen-ud-Uin and erect a tomb over it in the same manner as is done for dervises". Cf. Let. CXXXII.
* ↑ Cf. Let. XVII.
* ↑ Cf. Let. VII.
# Letters of A Countryman/A Countryman, V.

A COUNTRYMAN, V.
THE NEW HAVEN GAZETTE.
(Number 44)
Tuesday, December 20, 1787.
To the People of Connecticut.
You do not hate to read Newspaper Essays on the new constitution, more than I hate to write them. Then tue will be short - - - which I have often found the best expression in a dull sermon, except the last.
Whether the mode of election pointed out in the proposed constitution is well calculated to support the principles which were designed to be established in the different branches of the legislature, may perhaps be justly doubted: — and may perhaps in some future day be discussed.
The design undoubtedly was, that the house of representatives should be popular assembly, — that the senate should, in its nature, be somewhat more permanent, and that the two houses should be completely independent of each other. These principles are right.—for the present we will suppose they will be supported — there then remains to be considered no considerable difference between the constitutional government which is proposed, and your present government, except that the time for which you choose our present rulers is only for six and twelve months, and the time for which you are to choose your continental rulers is for two, four and six years.
The convention were mistaken if they supposed they should lessen the evils of tumultuous elections by making elections less frequent. But are your liberties endangered by this measure? ​228 A COUNTRYMAN. Philosophy may mislead you. Ask experience. Are not the liberties of the people of England as safe as yours? — They are not as free as yours, because much of their government is in the hands of hereditary majesty and nobility. But is not that part of the government which is under the control of the commons ex- ceedingly well guarded? But still the house of commons is only a third branch — the only branch who are appointed by the people — and they are chosen but once in seven years. Is there then any danger to be apprehended from the length of time that your rul- ers are to serve? when none are to serve more than six years one whole house but two years, and your President but four. The great power and influence of an hereditary monarch of Britain has spread many alarms, from an apprehension that the commons would sacrifice the liberties of the people to the money or influence of the crown : but the influence of a powerful here- ditary monarch, with the national Treasury — Army — and fleet at his command — and the whole executive government and one-third of the legislative in his hands constantly operating on a house of commons, whose duration is never less than seven years, unless this same monarch should end it, (which he can do in an hour,) has never yet been sufficient to obtain one vote of the house of commons which has taken from the people the liberty of the press, - - - trial by jury, - - - the rights of conscience, or of pri- vate property. Can you then apprehend danger of oppression and tyranny from the too great duration of the power oi your rulers ?
# Letters of Aurungzebe/Letter to A'akel Khán, Fort-keeper and Governor of the Capital of Sháh Jehán Abád

Letter by Auranzeb to a commander who sought to retire from his service
Letter addressed to A'akel Khan,
Fort-keeper and Governor
of the Capital of Shah Jehan Abad.
1662. LETTER CLXVII.
I read the petition of that old servant (i.e., the Khan). You have expressed the desire of retiring from the service and of tendering resignation of your post. When I have protected you under my service, which is the object of divine glory and favour, do you think that you will get a better post anywhere else than here? In case of you insist, your petition will be certainly accepted and your request (for resignation) will be complied with; and a sum of one thousand rupees per month, amounting to twelve thousand per year, will be assigned to you.
* ↑ A'akel Khan-i-Khafi, author of 'Vakeat-i-Alamgiri'. In 1659 he was governor of Shah Jehan Abad. In 1662 he resigned his governorship. The author of 'Ma'asiri Alamgiri' says that thereafter he was granted Rs. 1000 per year and not per month. In 1663 he was made superintendent of the 'Ghosal Khaneh'. Afterwards he was sent to Lahore. In 1679 he joined the service of Prince Muazzam. In 1680 he was made second 'bakhashi.' He died in 1696. He was a good-natured man. Cf. Let. CXLVIII.
* ↑ The new city erected by Shah Jehan near the old Delhi where he removed his court from Agra on account of excessive heat. Thus it was the new capital of Shah Jehan and Aurungzebe.
# Letters of Aurungzebe

Ruka’at-i-Alamgiri
or
Letters of Aurungzebe
[WITH HISTORICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES]
Translated from the original Persian into English
by JAMSHID H. BILIMORIA, B.A.
(Registered under Act XXV of 1867.)
LUZAC & Co., 46, Great Russell Street, LONDON;
BOMBAY: CHERAG PRINTING PRESS.
1908.
All Rights Reserved BY THE TRANSLATOR, JAMSHID H. BILIMORIA, B.A.
Contents.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Letters of A Countryman/A Countryman, III.

A COUNTRYMAN, III.
THE NEW HAVEN GAZETTE.
(Number 41)
Thursday, November 29, 1787.
To the People of Connecticut.
The same thing once more — I am a plain man, of few words; for this reason perhaps it is, that when I have said a thing I love to repeat it. Last week I endeavored to evince, that the only surety you could have for your liberties must be in the nature of your government; that you could derive no security from bills of rights, or stipulations, on the subject of a standing army, the liberty of the press, trial by jury, or on any other subject. Did you ever hear of an absolute monarchy, where those rights which are proposed by the pigmy politicians of this day, to be secured by stipulation, were ever preserved? Would it not be mere trifling to make any such stipulations, in any absolute monarchy?
On the other hand, if your interest and that of your rulers are the same, your liberties are abundantly secure. Perhaps the most secure when their power is most complete. Perhaps a provision that they should never raise troops in time of peace, might at some period embarrass the public concerns and endanger the liberties of the people. It is possible that in the infinite variety of events, it might become improper strictly to adhere to any one provision that has ever been proposed to be stipulated. At all events, the people have always been perfectly safe without any stipulation of the kind, when the rulers were interested to make them safe; and never otherwise.
No people can be more secure against any oppression in their ​rulers than you are at present; and no rulers can have more supreme and unlimited authority than your general assembly have.
When you consult on the subject of adopting the new constitution, you do not enquire whether the powers therein contained can be safely lodged in any hands whatever. For not only those very powers, but all other powers, are already in the general assembly. - - - - The enquiry is, whether Congress is by this new constitution so formed that a part of the power now in the general assembly would be as well lodged in Congress. Or, as was before said, it depends on how far the members are under your control; and how far their interest and yours are the same; to which careful attention must be given.