OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Isaac Asimov to Planet Stories, Jan 1951

| One—Two | 762 Broadway Somerville 44 Massachusetts |
Dear Jerry:
Concerning C. Stewart Metchette's speculations on the origin of "Kalgan" as the name of a planet:
I did not consciously borrow Doc Smith's name. When I wrote "The Mule" in 1945, I needed a name for a planet. It was wartime and there was a large map of the Far East on the wall. Kalgan was on the map. It is the name of a sizable city in the province of Chahar (Inner Mongolia), which is located about one hundred miles northwest of Peking. It sounded like a good name, so I used it.
Concerning Mitchell M. Badler's speculations on the presumed identity of Mr. Coppel and myself:
Sorry, but Mr. Coppel is not me. Except for one extremely short piece long, long ago, I have never used a pseudonym. And thank you, Mr. Badler, for your kind words about the Foundation stories.
Very truly yours, Isaac Asimov.
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 1992, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 31 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
# Isaac Hartshorn v. Horace H Day

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 28
Isaac Hartshorn v. Horace H Day
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island.
The defendant in error filed the record, and docketed the case on the 24th of November, 1855, and on the ensuing 1st of December the plaintiff in error filed his copy of the record, within the period allowed him by the 63d rule of court.
Mr. Gillett, for the defendant in error, moved the court for leave to withdraw the record filed by him in order to have the same forthwith printed at his own expense.
Upon which motion, Mr. Justice McLEAN 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
# Isaac Hartshorn v. Horace H Day/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 28
Isaac Hartshorn v. Horace H Day
In the above case, a motion was made by the defendant that he be permitted to withdraw the record filed and docketed by him, and have it printed at his own expense, without losing its place on the docket.
Rule 63, published in 16 How. requires that, when an appeal on writ of error shall be taken to this court thirty days before the commencement of the ensuing term, the record shall be filed within the first six days of the term; and if the plaintiff in error or appellant shall fail to comply with this rule, the defendant in error or appellee may have the cause docketed and dismissed, upon producing a certificate of the clerk of the court wherein the judgment or decree was rendered, stating the cause, and certifying that such writ of error or appeal has been duly sued out and allowed.
But the rule states, the defendant in error or appellee may, at his option, docket the case and file a copy of the record with the clerk of the court; and if the case is docketed and a copy of the record filed with the clerk of this court, by either party, within the periods of time above limited and prescribed by this rule, the case shall stand for argument at the term.
The above case was docketed in this court, by the defendant in error, before the expiration of the time allowed the plaintiff to file the record.
The plaintiff in error filed the record and had the cause docketed, before the expiration of the six days after the commencement of the term; he was therefore within the rule, and was guilty of no laches. Had he failed to do this, the defendant, on the certificate of the clerk, might have docketed and dismissed the cause, or he might have procured the record and docketed the case which, under the rule, would stand for argument at the present term. But the case cannot be dismissed or docketed by the defendant, unless the plaintiff in error or appellant shall be in default.
The above cause is, therefore, dismissed.
Mr. Gillett, of counsel for the defendant in error having moved the court on a prior day of the present term, for leave to withdraw this record in order to have the same printed forthwith, and it appearing to the court that this record was filed and docketed at the instance of the defendant in error, on the 24th day of November last, and it also appearing that the plaintiff in error had filed the record and docketed the case, on the 1st of December last, within the period allowed him by the 63d rule of court, it is considered by the court that this cause was filed and docketed prematurely by the defendant in error, and should be dismissed-whereupon it is now here ordered by this court that this cause be stricken from the docket and that the record thereof be delivered to the defendant in error.

## 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
# Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Company

United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 734
Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Company
Argued: Jan. 23, 26, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1931
Mr. Wm. R. Watkins, of Fort Worth, Tex., for Isaacs.
Mr. John R. Duty, of Rogers, Ark., for Hobbs Tie & Timber Co.
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
# Japan: Its History, Arts, and Literature/Volume 2

Oriental Series
AMBASSADORS' EDITION
Limited to Seven hundred fifty numbered and registered copies of which this is No. 108
Playing blindman's-buff
JAPAN
ITS HISTORY, ARTS, AND LITERATURE
BY
CAPTAIN F. BRINKLEY
Volume II
J. B. MILLET COMPANY BOSTON AND TOKYO
Copyright, 1902 By J. B. MILLET CO.
ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL, LONDON, ENGLAND
THE•PLIMPTON•PRESS [W•D•O] NORWOOD•MASS•U•S•A
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
CHAPTER VI
ILLUSTRATIONS
Layout 2
# Japan: Its History, Arts, and Literature/Volume 1

Oriental Series
AMBASSADORS' EDITION
Limited to Seven hundred fifty numbered and registered copies of which this is No. 108
THE VILLAGE WATER WHEEL
JAPAN
ITS HISTORY, ARTS, AND LITERATURE
BY
CAPTAIN F. BRINKLEY
Volume I
J. B. MILLET COMPANY BOSTON AND TOKYO
Copyright, 1901 By J. B. MILLET CO.
ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL, LONDON, ENGLAND
THE•PLIMPTON•PRESS [W•D•O] NORWOOD•MASS•U•S•A
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
CHAPTER VI
CHAPTER VII
ILLUSTRATIONS
Layout 2
# Jerome Remick Company v. Stern

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 585
Jerome Remick Company v. Stern

## 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
# Jerome Remick Company v. Stern/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 585
Jerome Remick Company v. Stern
Mr. Moses H. Grossman for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Julius Henry Cohen for defendants in error.
Per Curiam: Writ of Error dismissed for want of final judgment. McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661, 35 L. ed. 893, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; Pfaelzer v. Bach Fur Co., 215 U.S. 584, 54 L. Ed. , 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 403, Nov. 8, 1909.

## 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
# Jerome v. McCarter (94 U.S. 734)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 734
Jerome v. McCarter
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Argued by Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter and Mr. George Norris for the appellants.
Mr. George F. Edmunds and Mr. Alfred Russell, contra.
Mr. JUSTICE STRONG 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
# Jerome v. McCarter

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Jerome v. McCarter."
* 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.
* Jerome v. McCarter (88 U.S. 17), ( 22 L.Ed. 515 ), ( 21 Wall. 17 )
* Jerome v. McCarter (94 U.S. 734), ( 24 L.Ed. 136 )
# Jerome v. McCarter (88 U.S. 17)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
88 U.S. 17
George Jerome v. Thomas N. McCarter
No. 655. Argued: December 11, 1874 --- Decided: December 21, 1874
ON motion of Mr. G. F. Edmunds, to increase the amount of a bond given on appeal and for additional security. The case was thus:
McCarter, the holder of a third mortgage, given by the Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railroad, and Iron Company, on about 400,000 acres of lands-pine lands, hard-wood lands, iron lands, copper lands, and farming lands-in Michigan, filed a bill in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to foreclose his mortgage. Subsequently to this the company was decreed bankrupt, and one Jerome and another having been appointed its assignees, they were brought in by supplemental bill. On the 15th of June, 1874, the complainant got a decree of foreclosure.
The decree directed the sale of the canal, corporate franchises, and two land grants, to pay $1,057,686, and also what might be due to one hundred and twenty bondholders whose debts were not included in the above amount.
The sale was to be made subject to prior liens of $1,500,000 and upwards (apparently about $2,000,000), so that with the decree of $1,057,686, the property, if sold, would, in order to pay all charges against it, have to produce $3,057,686, or at least $2,500,000. The prior incumbrances were carrying interest at the rate of 10 per cent. a year.
An appeal was soon afterwards applied for to Swayne, J., to operate as a supersedeas. A body of affidavits was produced on the side of the defendant, from men of business, men of science, and men of wealth, to show an immense value in the mortgaged property, that its value far exceeded the amount of the decree and all prior liens, taking these at their principal sums and adding all the interest that had already accrued or would accrue during the litigation, and moreover that the property, from the anticipation of finding new mines on it, was rising in value. A body of affidavits, nearly or quite as large and from a similar class of persons, was produced to show the contrary; the highest value given to the lands by any of these being $2,500,000. After hearing and considering these affidavits, an appeal was allowed by Swayne, J., to operate as a supersedeas, and the security fixed at $10,000, with two persons, named Wells and Crosby, as sureties. An appeal bond was given accordingly.

## 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
# Ladd v. Ladd

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
49 U.S. 10
Ladd v. Ladd

## 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
# Laddie Boy

War is in the air Blare bugles blare Drums beat the loud roll call
Hark! down the street Tramp, tramp your feet Up go the windows all
North and South, East and West, Forth they come the country's best, Never mind that parting tear Let there be one parting cheer
Goodbye and luck be with you Laddie boy, Laddie boy What ever your name may be There's a look in your eye As you go marching by Tells me you will dare and do and die
And when you hear those shells begin to sing There'll be someone somewhere who cares will murmur this pray'r, May you win your share of glory, And come back to tell the story Goodbye and good luck Laddie boy
Somewhere in France There waits the chance One fighting chance that's all
May you return to hearts that yearn Or like a soldier fall
As in Grand-daddy's day, Tho' today no blue nor gray, Clad in Khaki fine and fit Marching on to do your bit
Goodbye and luck be with you Laddie boy, Laddie boy What ever your name may be There's a look in your eye As you go marching by Tells me you will dare and do and die
And when you hear those shells begin to sing There'll be someone somewhere who cares will murmur this pray'r, May you win your share of glory, And come back to tell the story Goodbye and good luck Laddie boy
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1945, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 78 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.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ladies

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Ladies."
* 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.
* Ladies, a story by Anton Chekhov
* "Ladies," a short story by Inez Haynes Gillmore
* The Ladies
** "The Ladies", a poem by Rudyard Kipling
** "The Ladies, a speech by Mark Twain
# Lad of Athens, faithful be
### Version 1

Lad of Athens, faithful be To Thyself, And Mystery— All the rest is Perjury—

### Version 2

Lad of Athens faithful be to thyself and mystery— All the rest is perjury—
# Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Company

United States Supreme Court
218 U.S. 357
Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Company
Argued: October 19, 1910. --- Decided: November 28, 1910
Mr. Henry B. Closson for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 358 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John H. Frantz, Howard Cornick, and Martin H. Vogel for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 359-361 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Harlan 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
# Knott v. St. Louis & Southwestern Railway Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
230 U.S. 509
Knott v. St. Louis & Southwestern Railway Company
These suits, with ten others, were brought to restrain the enforcement of the freight rate and passenger fare acts of the state of Missouri, passed in the years 1905 and 1907, as violative of the Federal Constitution. See Knott v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. decided this day. [[[230 U.S. 474]], 57 L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 975.]
Upon hearing below, a stipulation was made in each of these eight suits, and orders were entered thereon, that it should abide 'by the orders, judgment, and decree that may be made and entered' in one of the other suits named, as follows:
The suit of the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company was to abide that of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain, & Southern Railway Company; the suits of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, the St. Louis Iron Mountain, & Southern Railway Company; and the Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway Company, that of the St. Louis, & San Francisco Railroad Company; the suits of the Wabash Railroad Company and the Chicago & Alton Railway Company, that of the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad Company; and the suits of the Quincy, Omaha, & Kansas City Railroad Company and the St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Company, that of the Chicago Great Western Railway Company.
The decrees below were entered in accordance with these stipulations. No questions for our consideration are presented by the appeals and cross appeals in these cases. The remedy of the parties is to apply to the court below in accordance with the stipulations to have decrees entered in the respective suits similar to those which we have directed to be entered in the cases to which the stipulations refer. The appeals and cross appeals are therefore dismissed.
It is so ordered.

## 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
# Knott v. St. Louis, Kansas City, & Colorado Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
230 U.S. 512
Knott v. St. Louis, Kansas City, & Colorado Railroad Company
Argued: April 1, 2, and 3, 1912. ---
Mr. Elliott W. Major, Attorney General of Missouri, and Messrs. Sanford B. Ladd and Frederick W. Lehmann for Knott et al.
Messrs. Frank Hagerman, Gardiner Lathrop, M. A. Low, W. F. Evans, and M. L. Bell for the railroad company.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Justice Hughes:

## 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
# Know-Nothing Platform 1856

* related portals: United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Source document in the Duke University Special Collections Library
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/americavotes/know-nothing.html
Full document quoted by Sen. William Seward in debate over the Homestead Bill of 1850, himself being quoted in Republican Landmarks: The Views and Opinions of American Statesmen on Foreign Immigration by John P. Sanderson. (J.B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelpha: 1856) (Link)
It is unclear whether this document was formally passed as the official platform of the American Party in 1856 or is merely a common statement of principles shared widely among the party's membership.

## The Know-Nothing Platform 1856

(1) Repeal of all Naturalization Laws. (2) None but Americans for office. (3) A pure American Common School system. (4) War to the hilt, on political Romanism. (5) Opposition to the formation of Military Companies, composed of Foreigners.
(6) The advocacy of a sound, healthy and safe Nationality. (7) Hostility to all Papal influences, when brought to bear against the Republic. (8) American Constitutions & American sentiments. (9) More stringent & effective Emigration Laws.
(10) The amplest protection to Protestant Interests. (11) The doctrines of the revered Washington. (12) The sending back of all foreign paupers. (13) Formation of societies to protect American interests.
(14) Eternal enmity to all those who attempt to carry out the principles of a foreign Church or State. (15) Our Country, our whole Country, and nothing but our Country.
(16) Finally,-American Laws, and American legislation; and death to all foreign influences, whether in high places or low!
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Knott v. St. Louis, Kansas City, & Colorado Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
230 U.S. 512
Knott v. St. Louis, Kansas City, & Colorado Railroad Company
Argued: April 1, 2, and 3, 1912. ---
This suit was one of the eighteen suits described in Knott v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. decided this day. [[[230 U.S. 474]], 57 L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 975.] Upon the hearing below, as it appeared that the property of the St. Louis, Kansas City, & Colorado Railroad Company had been acquired by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, it was ordered by consent of the parties, that the suits of the two companies should be consolidated, and that the 'findings, statements, and figures as to both companies' should be put 'in consolidated form as those of the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company.'
Separate decrees were entered in the two cases, and separate appeals and cross appeals have been taken.
The same disposition must be made of both. See Knott v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. The decree below is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill without prejudice.
It is so ordered.

## 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
# Knott v. St. Louis & Southwestern Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
230 U.S. 509
Knott v. St. Louis & Southwestern Railway Company
356, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363,
364, 369, 370, 371, 372
Argued April 1, 2, and 3, 1912.
Decided June 16, 1913.
Mr. Elliott W. Major, Attorney General of Missouri, and Mr. Sanford B. Ladd for Knott et al.
Messrs. Frank Hagerman, Gardiner Lathrop, S. H. West, Martin L. Clardy, O. M. Spencer, J. G. Trimble, Wells H. Blodgett, James L. Minnis, R. A. Brown, Burton Hanson, H. H. Field, Silas H. Strawn, and Edward L. Scarritt for the railroad companies.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Justice Hughes:

## 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
# Knotts v. Stearns

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 638
Knotts v. Stearns
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. John Johns, Jr., for the appellants, and by Mr. John A. Meredith for the appellees.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD 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
# Kings (Kilmer)

* "Kings" in Main Street and other poems (1917)
* "Kings" in A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919 (1917)