OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Fourteen sonnets and poems/Compensation

My own dim life should teach me this,
 That life should live for evermore,
 Else earth is darkness at the core,
And dust and ashes all that is.
Tennyson.
Compensation
OF all I would, the little I can know
 Rejoiced I am, for of that I am sure.
 Life's secret found, there's also found the cure
For needless fear, lest Death his dart should throw 'Gainst score of youth, consort with wasting age,
 The same blot out as if it had not been;
 Save from myself there be to try again.
I nothing am, a vanished, fruitless page,
Yet this I know, beyond the power of speech,
 That human life to be partakes of God;
 And what would end me in a sparkless clod With equal force might his non-being teach.
 Thus stand I firm, contented, safe, secure;
 Knowing, whereby I live, the heavens endure.
# Fourteen sonnets and poems/Hope

Hope
WITHOUT haste, without rest,
Teach the prophets of to-day;
Bind this motto to thy breast, Grant not Nirvana, Lord, I pray.
No days are overfilled with woe, No nights but lights are on the way, And when my soul to Thee must go,
Withhold Nirvana, Lord, I pray.
To me divine the life that is More good than evil, gay than grave;
I could not think it to resign, And for Nirvana then to crave.
I only ask myself to keep In conscious life in that great day;
Engulf it not in essence deep, Or blank Nirvana, Lord, I pray.
# Fourteen sonnets and poems/Answered

O Palissy! Within thy breast Burned the hot fever of unrest;
Thine was the prophet's vision, thine The exultation, the divine
Insanity of noble minds,
That never falters nor abates,
But labors and endures and waits,
Till all that it foresees, it finds,
Or what it cannot find, creates!
Longfellow
Answered
SINCE I am here, the wherefore do I ask?  No single thought, or word, or act combined  Can I therein for once the answer find, Or comprehend at all life's mighty task.
If life to me be what there is of life,  Through all my numbered years must I reveal  Each day the force and depth of what I feel,
With conscience warmed to duties new and rife.
For what I ask alone must I contend,  Like him who riches sought in storied field,
 Which could not of itself its treasure yield,
Till stirred, by patient toil, from end to end.
 Thus shall the world, in full of her design,
 Bestow on me what really is divine.
# Fourteen sonnets and poems/Faust

He took the suffering human race, He read each wound and weakness clear; And struck his finger on the place, And said, "Thou ailest here, and here!" Matthew Arnold.
Faust
O MASTER of the highest type of mind,
True king and umpire in a worldly sense,
In thee, great Goethe, all there is we find Of man,—past, future, and the present tense.
Behind our Shakespeare in the gift of speech; Outstripped by Dante in the power of song;
While he who first did the heroic teach, For all of thee, his challenge may prolong.
But Man, for good or ill, his scope and goal,
Thou first of all to deepest thoughts gave birth; Thy head stands highest in the realm of soul,
No feet more firm than thine upon the earth. To write the Faust an age was used 'tis said;
Who, in less time, will say it can be read?
# Fourteen sonnets and poems/Death

Alas for him who never sees The stars shine through his cypress trees! ....... Who hath not learned in hours of faith, The truth to flesh and sense unknown,
That Life is ever lord of Death, And Love can never lose its own.
Whittier.
Death
LEAVES have their time to fall," a poet said,
"And flowers to wither at the north wind's breath,
And stars to set; but all— Thou hast all seasons for thine own, O Death!"
Yet not alone superior and above,
As if he reigned the sole and only king,—
He is not that; the sweeping tides of love From shore to shore do no such tidings bring.
Rather to each there comes in deeper sense,
The conscious presence of a king sublime,
Whose rule the years touch not, nor seasons sway,
But leaps the bounds of time;
Always with vigor, hope, and aspiration rife,
This king of kings forevermore is Life!
# Fourteen sonnets and poems/Emerson

Shrewd mystic! who upon the back
Of his Poor Richard's almanack, Writing the Sufi's song, the Gentoe's dream, Links Menu's age of thought to Fulton's age of steam!
Whittier.
'Emerson
THE sun looked old, the earth seem'd in its wane;  The race itself showed symptoms of decay;
 A moral staleness fill'd each coming day
With aspirations largely counted vain.
The fields of thought, tho' rich with golden grain,  Ungathered stood, for lack of worthy hand
 To harvest well, and feed a hungry land,
And build the world anew and fresh again.
Men's hearts were harden'd in their greed for pelf;  The church was sunk in narrow ruts to grope;
All eyes were blinded in the love of self;  And Christ was buried 'neath a pointless trope.
When came our king, as Truth and Beauty's guide, And woke mankind to hopes and visions wide.
# Fourteen sonnets and poems/A Reminiscence

A Reminiscence
WE wandered by the quiet stream
That down the valley glides;
Our hearts were light, our souls agleam,
With what in life abides.
The day was bright, an autumn day, October,—long ago,—
Yet when I think, it seems, somehow,
'Tis but a year or so.
The ready thought of that sweet scene, Comes o'er me like a charm;
The first that's in my memory green,
The last that Time can harm.
No lovelier spot could wish demand, No fairer sight could be;
Here Nature's wealth, with bounteous hand, Was lavished full and free.
Her artless speech, and merry laugh,
Her eye so mild and clear,
Is fresher in my mind, by half,
Than scenes the latest near.
No hart that scales the mountain rife,
Nor bird that swims the sky,
Was more aglow with buoyant life,
Than was my love and I.
We wished the day might never end,
The brook ne'er find the sea;
The valley hold its beauteous trend
A path for her and me.
# Graham v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Graham 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.
* Graham v. United States (71 U.S. 259)
* Graham v. United States (231 U.S. 474)
See also United States v. Graham.
# Graham v. Norton/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 427
Graham v. Norton
We are of opinion that neither the District nor the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in this case. This court has held that the writ may be used for the purpose of enforcing a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court, where its use by the State court for that purpose is sanctioned by State laws, but in such cases it is used as a process for the enforcement of judgments and not as an original proceeding.
In the thirteenth section of the Judiciary Act this court is clothed with power to issue 'writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the processes and usages of law to any courts appointed or persons holding office under the authority of the United States.' This express authority to issue writs of mandamus to National courts and officers has always been held to exclude authority to issue these writs to State courts and officers. The only exception is that just adverted to, where they have been issued as process to enforce judgments.
The fourteenth section clothes all the courts of the United States with power to issue certain specific writs, and all other writs which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions. Of course Circuit Courts may issue writs of mandamus when necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction, but they have no authority to issue it as an original writ in any case. The absence of the power in the Circuit Courts to issue writs of mandamus, except as ancillary to a jurisdiction already acquired, is so well explained in Bath County v. Amy, that it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further.
JUDGMENT REVERSED, and the case remanded with directions to
DISMISS THE SUIT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
I concur in the judgment of the court, on the ground that the case was not on its merits a proper one for a mandamus. I think it unnecessary to pass upon the question whether the bankrupt court may or may not in any case issue a mandamus to an officer of a State.

## Notes

* ↑ Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 186.
* ↑ 1 Stat. at Large, 81.
* ↑ Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 189.
* ↑ 13 Wallace, 247.
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
# Graham v. Norton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 427
Graham v. Norton
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana; the case being this:
The 13th section of the Judiciary Act enacts that—
'The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the processes and usages of law to any courts appointed or persons holding office under the authority of the United States.'
The 14th section, referring to certain courts of the United States, including the Circuit and District Courts, enacts that they
'Shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and ALL OTHER writs not specially provided for by statute which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law.'
With these statutory enactments in force, one Norton, the assignee in bankruptcy of certain bankrupts, presented, in May, 1871, his petition to the District Court of the United States, setting forth that before the persons now represented by him had been declared bankrupts, they had each paid to the State of Louisiana certain amounts respectively, 'as taxes imposed by it under an act of the legislature; that the legislature had then recently, by a more recent act, declared the illegality of the said taxes, and enacted that they should be refunded to the parties who paid them, or to their proper representatives, and that the auditor of public accounts of the State should issue to the said parties, or to their proper representatives, certificates of the amount paid by them; that by operation of law, and the assignments of all the assets, rights, and interests, to the petitioner of the said bankrupts, he, the said Norton, was entitled to the several amounts illegally collected by the State and to receive from the auditor the certificates; which, however, the auditor refused to issue to him; he accordingly prayed for a mandamus ordering the auditor of public accounts, one Graham, to deliver to him, as assignee in bankruptcy of the persons mentioned, certificates for the amount of taxes illegally collected,' &c.
The District Court granted the mandamus and the Circuit Court affirmed its action; whether rightly was now the question here on appeal by the auditor.
Mr. P. Phillips (a brief of Mr. T. Hunton being filed on the same side), for the appellant; Mr. T. J. Durant, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 1 Stat. at Large, 81.
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
# Graham v. Richardson

United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 365
Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare of Arizona v. Richardson et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
No. 609. Argued: March 22, 1971 --- Decided: June 14, 1971
State statutes, like the Arizona and Pennsylvania statutes here involved, that deny welfare benefits to resident aliens or to aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years are not violative of the Equal Protection Clause and encroach upon the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens; and there is no authorization for Arizona's 15-year durational residency requirement in § 1402 (b) of the Social Security Act. Pp. 370-383.
313 F. Supp. 34 and 321 F. Supp. 250, affirmed.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK, DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. HARLAN, J., filed a statement joining in the judgment and in Parts III and IV of the Court's opinion, post, p. 383.
Michael S. Flam, Assistant Attorney General of Arizona, argued the cause for appellant in No. 609. With him on the briefs were Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General, and James B. Feeley, Andrew W. Bettwy, Roger M. Horne, and Peter Sownie, Assistant Attorneys General. Joseph P. Work, Assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania, argued the cause for appellants in No. 727. With him on the brief were Fred Speaker, Attorney General, Barry A. Roth, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and Edward Friedman.
Anthony B. Ching argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees in No. 609. Jonathan M. Stein argued the cause for appellees in No. 727, pro hac vice. With him on the brief were Harvey N. Schmidt and Jonathan Weiss.
Mr. Weiss filed a brief for the Legal Services for the Elderly Poor Project of the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 609. Robert A. Sedler and Melvin L. Wulf filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance in both cases. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance in No. 727 were filed by Edith Lowenstein for Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Catholic Conference, Inc., et al., and by Jack Wasserman and Esther M. Kaufman for the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers.

## Notes

* ↑ Together with No. 727, Sailer et al. v. Leger et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
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
# Graham v. Goodcell Oak Worsted Mills

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 409
Graham v. Goodcell Oak Worsted Mills
Argued: Dec. 8-11, 1930. --- Decided: Jan 26, 1931
No. 36:
[Syllabus from pages 409-412 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John E. Hughes, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
No. 104: Mr. Theodore B. Benson and William Meyerhoff, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General, and Mr. Chas. B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
No. 105:
Messrs. Theodore B. Benson and Guil Barber, both of Washington, D. C., Chester F. Williams, of Milford, Mass., William Meyerhoff and Percy A. Matthews, both of Washington, D. C., Frederick G. Fischer, of New York City, and Frank J. Albus, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General, and Messrs. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Chas. B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R. I., George H. Foster and Erwin N. Griswold, both of Washington, D. C., and Bradley B. Gilman, of Worcester, Mass., for the United States.
No. 323:
Mr. W. A. Sutherland, of Fresno, Cal., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Chas. B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
No. 337:
Mr. Harry Friedman, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Chas. B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
No. 463:
Messrs. Elkan Turk and Herman Goldman, both of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
No. 529:
Messrs. Ewing Everett, of New York City, and Robert N. Miller and J. Robert Sherrod, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General, and Messrs. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R. I., and Norman D. Keller, John MacC. Hudson, and Erwin N. Griswold, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
No. 565:
Messrs. Donald V. Hunter and Robert N. Miller, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
No. 519:
Mr. Robert E. Goodwin, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Chief 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
# Hadley v. Massachusetts

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 464
Hadley v. Massachusetts
Appeal from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Louis M. Nordlinger, for appellant.
Elliot L. Richardson, Atty. Gen. of Massachusetts, and Willie J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
June 12, 1967.
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
# Hadnott v. Amos (393 U.S. 904)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 904
Hadnott v. Amos
Charles Morgan, Jr., Orzell Billingsley, Robert P. Schwenn and Melvin L. Wulf, on the motion.
The order entered October 14, 1968, restoring temporary relief is continued pending action upon the jurisdictional statement which has been filed. The motion to advance and expedite is denied.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The State of Alabama has excluded from its ballot in the forthcoming general election all but two of the candidates for local, state, and national office nominated by the National Democratic Party of Alabama, a newly organized political group. Members of the Party, together with the Party itself, contend before us that the state statutes invoked in justification of Alabama's action violate rights guaranteed both by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, and the Constitution of the United States. It is clear to me that both the statutory and constitutional issues appellants have raised require plenary consideration of difficult and important questions that cannot be properly resolved in the time remaining before the ballots are cast, no matter how expeditiously the appeal is heard. Consequently, I concur in the Court's denial of the motion to advance plenary hearing on the merits of the case.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice WHITE dissent from the continuance of the order restoring temporary relief.
Mr. Justice BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.

## Notes

* ↑ The three-judge District Court which initially heard this case issued a temporary injunction requiring Alabama to include on the ballot the names of all candidates of the National Democratic Party, and Alabama proceeded to comply. Upon consideration of the case on the merits, the District Court, 291 F.Supp. 309, with Chief Judge Frank M. Johnson dissenting, held against the plaintiffs and dissolved its temporary injunction. This occurred on October 11, 1968. A motion to reinstate the lower court's temporary relief was made to us on the following day and an appeal was filed on Monday, October 14, along with a motion to accelerate our consideration of the cause. On the same day, we set the two motions before us for argument on Friday, October 18, reinstating the District Court's injunction for the interim period.
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
# Hadnott v. Amos

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hadnott v. Amos."
* 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.
* Hadnott v. Amos (393 U.S. 904)
* Hadnott v. Amos (394 U.S. 358)
# Hadnott v. Amos (394 U.S. 358)/Dissent White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion White
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 358
Hadnott v. Amos
Argued: Jan. 21, 1969. --- Decided: March 25, 1969
Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART joins, dissenting in part.
As I understand the arguments in this case, appellees suggest that whatever reasons state officials may have given for excluding appellants from the ballot, the exclusion and the judgment below are sustainable on independent grounds, at least as to the Greene County NDPA candidates. The Corrupt Practices Act, it is said, required the filing of committee designations not only when appellants became Democratic Party candidates and entered the primary but when, after losing the primary, they announced their candidacy under the banner of another party. If the Alabama courts so construed the statute, I would not think the Court would reverse this case unless it held the Corrupt Practices Act unconstitutional. Of course, the Alabama courts have not passed on this question to date. But the issue is not frivolous and I would not construe the statute here in the first instance, which the Court in effect does, but would remand the matter to the three-judge court for its interpretation of Alabama law. On the other issues in the case, I agree with 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
# Hadley v. Massachusetts/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 464
Hadley v. Massachusetts
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for further consideration in light of Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930.
Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN, and Mr. Justice STEWART dissent and would affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice CLARK's dissenting opinion in Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S., at 546, 87 S.Ct., at 1741.

## 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
# Hadnott v. Amos (394 U.S. 358)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 358
Hadnott v. Amos
Argued: Jan. 21, 1969. --- Decided: March 25, 1969
[Syllabus from 359 intentionally omitted]
Charles Morgan, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
L. Drew Redden, Birmingham, Ala., for appellees.
Perry Hubbard, Tuscaloosa, Ala., for appellee, Judge James Dennis Herndon.
Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Good Sports

A short story collection
CONTENTS
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 1974, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 49 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