OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ng Kam Fook v. Esperdy/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
375 U.S. 955
Ng Kam Fook v. Esperdy
Denied.
Section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 163, 212, 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)) provides in pertinent part:
'* * * deportation of such alien shall be directed to any country of which such alien is a subject national, or citizen if such country is willing to accept him into its territory.'
Respondent and both lower federal courts have determined that petitioners, who were both born on the mainland of China, who came to the United States as crewmen in 1953 and 1955, and who have never resided in Formosa, are 'subject nation[s] or citizen[s]' of the Republic of China, located on Formosa. Accordingly, when the Republic of China refused to accept petitioners, they were ordered deported, under other provisions of the Act, to Hong Kong and the Netherlands-regimes to which they have never been subject-either as citizens or as nationals, petitioners having been born on the mainland of China, as I have said.
The decision below is predicated in part upon nonrecognition of the Peking regime by the United States, and the fear that a contrary holding would require a preliminary inquiry concerning its willingness to accept petitioners 'which might impliedly suggest recognition and thus might embarrass the decisions of the Executive Department as to foreign policies.' 320 F.2d 86, 89. But that overlooks the fact that since 1955 we have been in regular contact with the Peking regime, first by Alexis Johnson, our former Ambassador to Czechoslovakia and now by John M. Cabot, our Ambassador to Poland; and, as the press has related, the matters discussed have reached far more delicate questions than this one, which, though minor, touches a basic human right.
The proper construction of the statute poses a substantial question, which should be considered by this Court.
I would grant certiorari.

## Notes

* ↑ See Department of State, Release Aug. 14, 1963, interview of U. Alexis Juhnson by Irving Chapman; Washington Post, Sept. 12, 1963, p. A-24; New York Times, Aug. 8, 1963, pp. 1-2.
* ↑ Chief Judge Lumbard stated in dissent, 320 F.2d 86, 90:
'For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Leong Leun Do v. Esperdy, 309 F.2d 467, 475, 477-479 (2 Cir. 1962), I would hold that for purposes of the present proceeding, 'the Chinese mainland is a country of which an alien may be a subject national or citizen.' Id. 309 F.2d at 478. It seems to me that some agencies of the United States government could, directly or through intermediaries, contact agents of the Communist government without implying recognition. If such a procedure is rejected by the executive branch, then, under the present statute, the alien should not be deported. This area of the law seems to be one which particularly requires legislative attention.'
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
# Natural History: Mammalia/Rodentia

Layout 2
ORDER VIII. RODENTIA.
(Gnawing Animals.)
The Order before us, which is very extensive in genera and species, consists of animals, all of which may be characterized as of small, and, for the most part, of diminutive size. They may be readily known by the incisor teeth, which, two in number in each jaw, project from the very extremity of the jaw, in a forward curve: they are strong, compressed, and armed only on the
SKULL OF PORCUPINE.
front side with enamel; which being more durable than the bony matter of the rest, always maintains a sharp chisel-like edge to the teeth. They have no roots, but are deeply inserted in their sockets; and springing from a pulpy germ, are ​continually growing. Thus provision is made to meet the loss by wearing down, which otherwise would very soon result from the use to which they are constantly applied: for the action of these teeth is not that of biting, as in the Apes, nor of tearing, as in the Cats, nor of cropping as in the Ruminants, but of gnawing, as the name Rodentia implies; a patient scraping, filing, or nibbling away the surface of the substances which they attack, often the bark or wood of trees, or the shells of nuts, of almost a stony hardness. The hinge-joint of the lower-jaw is of such a character as to allow of no other horizontal motion than forwards and backwards; and hence the flat crowns of the molar teeth have their enamel ridges set transversely; so that the motion of the jaw brings their surfaces into more effectual contact for the purpose of grinding. In general the teeth are of a frugivorous character; but some have the molars set with blunt tubercles, or sharp points, and these are less restricted in their diet; the latter manifesting, indeed, more or less appetite for animal food. The canine teeth are always wanting.
"The structural organization of the Rodents," observes Mr. Martin, "as evidenced by the characters of the skull, the bird-like condition of the brain, and by other points, is at a low par, and the ratio of their intelligence is in a parallel degree. We may tame them, but we cannot educate them. They are all timid and feeble, and trust for self-protection to flight or concealment. The prey of ferocious beasts, and birds, and reptiles, their fertility, by a wise provision, counterbalances their annual diminution. Spread over the earth, from ​the equator to the coldest latitudes, they tenant rocks and mountains, plains and woods, feeding on grain and vegetables, and often devastating the cultivated domains of man . . . . . . Most are nocturnal, or crepuscular in their habits; many dwell in burrows; some conceal themselves amidst herbage, some amongst the foliage of trees, and some build for themselves habitations, which have excited the interest and admiration of man."
We may consider the Rodentia as constituted of five Families, Sciuridæ, Muridæ, Castoridæ, Hystricidæ, and Leporidæ.
# Natural History: Mammalia/Placentalia

Layout 2
SUB-CLASS I. PLACENTALIA.
# Natural History: Mammalia/Pteropidæ

Layout 2
Family I. Pteropidæ.
(Fruit-eating Bats.)
This Family, though small in the number of its genera and species, contains the largest of all the Bats; some of them exceeding five feet in expanse of wing. They have cutting incisors in each jaw, and tuberculated molars, the crowns of which are longitudinally grooved. They are thus fitted for subsistence on fruits. The wings are somewhat rounded; the interfemoral membrane and the tail are always small, sometimes wanting. The thumb is large, the fore-finger short, sometimes nailed, possessing three phalanges, or joints, while the rest have but two. The head is long and pointed; the muzzle has no appendages, nor the ear a tragus.
The species, which are sometimes called Roussettes, are found in the islands of the Indian Ocean and the surrounding coasts, in Japan, Madagascar, and South and West Africa.
Genus Pteropus. (Briss.)
These Bats are often known by the name of Vampyre Bats, though the distinctive term Vampyrus is now applied to a genus of another Family. They are without any tail, and the interfemoral membrane is very scanty: the teeth are inc. 2—2/2—2; can. 1—1/1—1; mol. 5—5/5—5;$=$32. Upwards of twenty species of this genus are known, chiefly ​inhabiting the Indian Archipelago; their flesh is eaten, and is by some esteemed, and compared to that of Hare or Partridge in flavour.
The largest, as well as the most common in our collections and museums, is the species named the Black-bellied Roussette (Pteropus edulis, Geoff.), specimens of which have been seen which measured five feet and a half in spread of wing. The fur of this animal, which is crisp and coarse, is of a blackish hue, deeper on the under parts. In the Moluccas, or Spice Islands, it associates in flocks, which by night commit great depredations on the fruit, and by day are seen hanging in groups from the branches of the trees. Occasionally they emit a loud harsh cry, like that of a goose. The flesh has a musky odour, but is esteemed by the natives; who, to procure it, take great numbers with a bag at the end of a pole.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book XIV/Chapter 2

Chapter 2.—There is a Kind of Trinity in the Holding, Contemplating, and Loving of Faith Temporal, But One that Does Not Yet Attain to Being Properly an Image of God.
4. Wherefore since, as it is written, “While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord; for we walk by faith, not by sight;” undoubtedly, so long as the just man lives by faith, howsoever he lives according to the inner man, although he aims at truth and reaches on to things eternal by this same temporal faith, nevertheless in the holding, contemplating, and loving this temporal faith, we have not yet reached such a trinity as is to be called an image of God; lest that should seem to be constituted in things temporal which ought to be so in things eternal. For when the human mind sees its own faith, whereby it believes what it does not see, it does not see a thing eternal. For that will not always exist, which certainly will not then exist, when this pilgrimage, whereby we are absent from God, in such way that we must needs walk by faith, shall be ended, and that sight shall have succeeded it whereby we shall see face to face; just as now, because we believe although we do not see, we shall deserve to see, and shall rejoice at having been brought through faith to sight. For then it will be no longer faith, by which that is believed which is not seen; but sight, by which that is seen which is believed. And then, therefore, although we remember this past mortal life, and call to mind by recollection that we once believed what we did not see, yet that faith will be reckoned among things past and done with, not among things present and always continuing. And hence also that trinity which now consists in the remembering, contemplating, and loving this same faith while present and continuing, will then be found to be done with and past, and not still enduring. And hence it is to be gathered, that if that trinity is indeed an image of God, then this image itself would have to be reckoned, not among things that exist always, but among things transient.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 2 Cor. v. 6, 7
* ↑ Rom. i. 17
* ↑ 1 Cor. xiii. 12
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book XIV/Chapter 5

Chapter 5.—Whether the Mind of Infants Knows Itself.
What, then, is to be said of the mind of an infant, which is still so small, and buried in such profound ignorance of things, that the mind of a man which knows anything shrinks from the darkness of it? Is that too to be believed to know itself; but that, as being too intent upon those things which it has begun to perceive through the bodily senses, with the greater delight in proportion to their novelty, it is not able indeed to be ignorant of itself, but is also not able to think of itself? Moreover, how intently it is bent upon sensible things that are without it, may be conjectured from this one fact, that it is so greedy of sensible light, that if any one through carelessness, or ignorance of the possible consequences, place a light at nighttime where an infant is lying down, on that side to which the eyes of the child so lying down can be bent, but its neck cannot be turned, the gaze of that child will be so fixed in that direction, that we have known some to have come to squint by this means, in that the eyes retained that form which habit in some way impressed upon them while tender and soft. In the case, too, of the other bodily senses, the souls of infants, as far as their age permits, so narrow themselves as it were, and are bent upon them, that they either vehemently detest or vehemently desire that only which offends or allures through the flesh, but do not think of their own inward self, nor can be made to do so by admonition; because they do not yet know the signs that express admonition, whereof words are the chief, of which as of other things they are wholly ignorant. And that it is one thing not to know oneself, another not to think of oneself, we have shown already in the same book.
8. But let us pass by the infantine age, since we cannot question it as to what goes on within itself, while we have ourselves pretty well forgotten it. Let it suffice only for us hence to be certain, that when man has come to be able to think of the nature of his own mind, and to find out what is the truth, he will find it nowhere else but in himself. And he will find, not what he did not know, but that of which he did not think. For what do we know, if we do not know what is in our own mind; when we can know nothing at all of what we do know, unless by the mind?

## Footnotes

* ↑ [This occurred in the the case of Edward Irving. Oliphant’s Life of Irving.—W.G.T.S.]
* ↑ Bk. x. c. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book XIV/Chapter 18

Chapter 18.—Whether the Sentence of John is to Be Understood of Our Future Likeness with the Son of God in the Immortality Itself Also of the Body.
24. But the Apostle John says, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” Hence it appears, that the full likeness of God is to take place in that image of God at that time when it shall receive the full sight of God. And yet this may also possibly seem to be said by the Apostle John of the immortality of the body. For we shall be like to God in this too, but only to the Son, because He only in the Trinity took a body, in which He died and rose again, and which He carried with Him to heaven above. For this, too, is called an image of the Son of God, in which we shall have, as He has, an immortal body, being conformed in this respect not to the image of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, but only of the Son, because of Him alone is it read and received by a sound faith, that “the Word was made flesh.” And for this reason the apostle says, “Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.” “The first-born” certainly “from the dead,” according to the same apostle; by which death His flesh was sown in dishonor, and rose again in glory. According to this image of the Son, to which we are conformed in the body by immortality, we also do that of which the same apostle speaks, “As we have borne the image of the earthy, so shall we also bear the image of the heavenly;” to wit, that we who are mortal after Adam, may hold by a true faith, and a sure and certain hope, that we shall be immortal after Christ. For so can we now bear the same image, not yet in sight, but in faith; not yet in fact, but in hope. For the apostle, when he said this, was speaking of the resurrection of the body.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 John iii. 2
* ↑ John i. 14
* ↑ Rom. viii. 29
* ↑ Col. i. 18
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 43, 49
# Moby-Dick (1851) US edition/Chapter 111

CHAPTER CXI.
the pacific.
When gliding by the Bashee isles we emerged at last upon the great South Sea; were it not for other things, I could have greeted my dear Pacific with uncounted thanks, for now the long supplication of my youth was answered; that serene ocean rolled eastwards from me a thousand leagues of blue.
There is, one knows not what sweet mystery about this sea, whose gently awful stirrings seem to speak of some hidden soul beneath; like those fabled undulations of the Ephesian sod over the buried Evangelist St. John. And meet it is, that over these sea-pastures, wide-rolling watery prairies and Potters' Fields of all four continents, the waves should rise and fall, and ​ebb and flow unceasingly; for here, millions of mixed shades and shadows, drowned dreams, somnambulisms, reveries; all that we call lives and souls, lie dreaming, dreaming, still; tossing like slumberers in their beds; the ever-rolling waves but made so by their restlessness.
To any meditative Magian rover, this serene Pacific, once beheld, must ever after be the sea of his adoption. It rolls the midmost waters of the world, the Indian ocean and Atlantic being but its arms. The same waves wash the moles of the new-built Californian towns, but yesterday planted by the recentest race of men, and lave the faded but still gorgeous skirts of Asiatic lands, older than Abraham; while all between float milky-ways of coral isles, and low-lying, endless, unknown Archipelagoes, and impenetrable Japans. Thus this mysterious, divine Pacific zones the world’s whole bulk about; makes all coasts one bay to it; seems the tide-beating heart of earth. Lifted by those eternal swells, you needs must own the seductive god, bowing your head to Pan.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Catholic Church/Chapter 8

Chapter 8.—God is the Chief Good, Whom We are to Seek After with Supreme Affection.
13. Let us see how the Lord Himself in the gospel has taught us to live; how, too, Paul the apostle,—for the Manichæans dare not reject these Scriptures. Let us hear, O Christ, what chief end Thou dost prescribe to us; and that is evidently the chief end after which we are told to strive with supreme affection. "Thou shalt love," He says, "the Lord thy God." Tell me also, I pray Thee, what must be the measure of love; for I fear lest the desire enkindled in my heart should either exceed or come short in fervor. "With all thy heart," He says. Nor is that enough. "With all thy soul." Nor is it enough yet. "With all thy mind." What do you wish more? I might, perhaps, wish more if I could see the possibility of more. What does Paul say on this? "We know," he says, "that all things issue in good to them that love God." Let him, too, say what is the measure of love. "Who then," he says, "shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?" We have heard, then, what and how much we must love; this we must strive after, and to this we must refer all our plans. The perfection of all our good things and our perfect good is God. We must neither come short of this nor go beyond it: the one is dangerous, the other impossible.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xxii. 37.
* ↑ Rom. viii. 28, 35.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Manichaeans/Chapter 1

Chapter 1.—The Supreme Good is that Which is Possessed of Supreme Existence.
1. Every one, I suppose, will allow that the question of things good and evil belongs to moral science, in which such terms are in common use. It is therefore to be wished that men would bring to these inquiries such a clear intellectual perfection as might enable them to see the chief good, than which nothing is better or higher, next in order to which comes a rational soul in a state of purity and perfection.  If this were clearly understood, it would also become evident that the chief good is that which is properly described as having supreme and original existence. For that exists in the highest sense of the word which continues always the same, which is throughout like itself, which cannot in any part be corrupted or changed, which is not subject to time, which admits of no variation in its present as compared with its former condition. This is existence in its true sense.  For in this signification of the word existence there is implied a nature which is self-contained, and which continues immutably. Such things can be said only of God, to whom there is nothing contrary in the strict sense of the word. For the contrary of existence is non-existence. There is therefore no nature contrary to God. But since the minds with which we approach the study of these subjects have their vision damaged and dulled by silly notions, and by perversity of will, let us try as we can to gain some little knowledge of this great matter by degrees and with caution, making our inquiries not like men able to see, but like men groping the dark.

## Footnotes

* ↑ This statement has a complete parallel in Clement of Alexandria, and along with what follows, is Neo-Platonic.—A.H.N.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Catholic Church/Title Page

St. AUGUSTIN:
on the
morals of the catholic church.
[de moribus ecclesiæ catholicæ].
A.D. 388.
translated by the
rev. richard stothert, m.a.,
bombay
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Manichaeans/Chapter 10

Chapter 10.—Three Moral Symbols Devised by the Manichæans for No Good.
19. Now that I have shown, as I think, how much darkness and error is in your opinions about good and evil things in general, let us examine now those three symbols which you extol so highly, and boast of as excellent observances. What then are those three symbols? That of the mouth, that of the hands, and that of the breast. What does this mean? That man, we are told, should be pure and innocent in mouth, in hands, and in breast. But what if he sins with eyes, ears, or nose? What if he hurts some one with his heels, or perhaps kills him? How can he be reckoned criminal when he has not sinned with mouth, hands, or breast? But, it is replied, by the mouth we are to understand all the organs of sense in the head; by the hands, all bodily actions; by the breast, all lustful tendencies. To what, then, do you assign blasphemies? To the mouth or to the hand? For blasphemy is an action of the tongue. And if all actions are to be classed under one head, why should you join together the actions of the hands and the feet, and not those of the tongue. Do you wish to separate the action of the tongue, as being for the purpose of expressing something, from actions which are not for this purpose, so that the symbol of the hands should mean abstinence from all evil actions which are not for the purpose of expressing something? But then, what if some one sins by expressing something with his hands, as is done in writing or in some significant gesture? This cannot be assigned to the tongue and the mouth, for it is done by the hands. When you have three symbols of the mouth, the hands, and the breast, it is quite inadmissible to charge against the mouth sins found in the hands. And if you assign action in general to the hands, there is no reason for including under this the action of the feet and not that of the tongue. Do you see how the desire of novelty, with its attendant error, lands you in great difficulties?  For you find it impossible to include purification of all sins in these three symbols, which you set forth as a kind of new classification.