OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Joint Readout of Meeting Between President Donald J. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Sourced from WhiteHouse.gov
Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on President Trump’s first official visit to Israel as President. The two leaders reaffirmed the special bond between the United States and Israel. President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed their joint plan to further improve relations by focusing on increased cooperation across a range of issues, including regional and cyber security, trade, technology, innovation, and research. President Trump underscored the United States’ ironclad commitment to Israel’s security, including to the maintenance of Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge. The two leaders also agreed on the need to counter Iran and its proxies, including by building strong military capabilities to protect Israel and the region from Iranian aggression. The two leaders commended the Riyadh summit’s condemnation of terrorism and extremism and pledged to work together to defeat terrorist organizations. President Trump observed that common interests between Israel and Arab states have made new partnerships possible. Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed his desire for better relations with Arab states. The two leaders agreed on the need to end the violence in Syria and move toward a political solution that will allow the Syrian people to return to secure environments and rebuild their lives.
President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed how to move forward with Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. President Trump reaffirmed his belief that peace is possible, not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but throughout large parts of the Middle East. President Trump welcomed the steps that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s security cabinet have taken to improve the Palestinian economy, noting that greater economic opportunity for Palestinians would enhance the prospects for peace.
This work is sourced from www.whitehouse.gov. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on that site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
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
# Joint Resolution Authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to Furnish Metal for a Bell

Resolution toward the casting of the Pocahontas Bell in 1907, the navy ended up donating a portion of the plating of the CSS Virginia. See 34 Stat. 1424
[No 21.] Joint Resolution Authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to Furnish Metal for a Bell
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and is hereby, authorized to deliver to the Pocahontas Bell Association, if the same can be done without detriment to the public service, such condemned historic metal as he may deem proper, not to exceed two thousand pounds in weight, to be used in casting a bell to be placed on the Virginia building at the Jamestown Exposition:
    Provided, That the Government shall be at no expense in connection with this gift.
    Approved, March 2, 1907.
# Joint Message on the Passing of 10 Years Since the Great East Japan Earthquake

Published 2021-03-11
Ten years ago, the Great East Japan Earthquake touched off a trio of disasters that claimed countless lives and caused immense suffering and damage for the people of Japan. On this solemn occasion, we remember all those who were lost, and we extend our deepest condolences to the families and communities who were devastated and who are still mourning such an immense tragedy.
When the catastrophic earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant accident hit, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and U.S. Forces immediately sprang into action, joining together to perform search-and-rescue operations and to provide supplies and transportation to those in need. Japan and the United States worked hand-in-hand to alleviate suffering and to respond to the accident at the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, with the aid of experts, goods, and equipment from many countries. After the catastrophe, U.S. and Japanese forces also worked in lockstep to restore operations at Sendai Airport, which also served as a hub to distribute over two million tons of relief supplies. And our peoples stepped up as well, with American and Japanese citizens working together at the grassroots level to contribute to Japan’s recovery and reconstruction. Five months after the disasters, then-Vice President Biden visited Natori and Sendai to see the relief efforts firsthand, as well as the incredible strength and resilience of the Japanese people. Then, as now, our joint efforts hold a special place in the hearts and memories of both our peoples—a testament to the special bond and the unshakable friendship that is the U.S.-Japanese alliance.
We must not forget that, even after ten years, many of those affected continue to struggle in the wake of the disaster. In support of these individuals and to honor who we lost, Japan and the United States will continue to move forward shoulder-to-shoulder as “tomodachi” (friends) to finish the reconstruction of the Tōhoku region and to realize a better future for us all.
SUGA Yoshihide Prime Minister of Japan
Joseph R. Biden Jr. President of the United States of America
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
# Indian Mathematics/Introduction

I.
1. The orientalists who exploited Indian history and literature about a century ago were not always perfect in their methods of investigation and consequently promulgated many errors. Gradually, however, sounder methods have obtained and we are now able to see the facts in more correct perspective. In particular the early chronology has been largely revised and the revision in some instances has important bearings on the history of mathematics and allied subjects. According to orthodox Hindu tradition the Sūrya Siddhānta, the most important Indian astronomical work, was composed over two million years ago! Bailly, towards the end of the eighteenth century, considered that Indian astronomy had been founded on accurate observations made thousands of years before the Christian era. Laplace, basing his arguments on figures given by Bailly considered that some 3,000 years B.C. the Indian astronomers had recorded actual observations of the planets correct to one second; Playfair eloquently supported Bailly's views; Sir William Jones argued that correct observations must have been made at least as early as 1181 B.C.; and so on; but with the researches of Colebrooke, Whitney, Weber, Thibaut, and others more correct views were introduced and it was proved that the records used by Bailly were quite modern and that the actual period of the composition of the original Sūrya Siddhānta was not earliar than A.D. 400.
It may, indeed, be generally stated that the tendency of the early orientalists was towards antedating and this tendency is exhibited in discussions connected with two notable works, the Śulvasūtras and the Bakhshālī arithmetic, the dates of which are not even yet definitely fixed.
​2. In the 16th century, A.D., Hindu tradition ascribes the invention of the nine figures with the device of places to make them suffice for all numbers 'to the beneficent Creator of the universe'; and this was accepted as evidence of the very great antiquity of the system! This is a particular illustration of an attitude that was quite general, for early Indian works claim either to be directly revealed or of divine origin. One consequence of this attitude is that we find absolutely no references to foreign origins or foreign influence. We have, however, a great deal of direct evidence that proves conclusively that foreign influence was very real indeed—Greek and Roman coins, coins with Greek and Indian inscriptions, Greek technical terms, etc., etc.; and the implication of considerable foreign influence occurs in certain classes of literature and also in the archæological remains of the north-west of India. One of the few references to foreigners is given by Vahrāha Mihira who acknowledged that the Greeks knew something of astrology; but although he gives accounts of the Romaka and the Pauliśa siddhāntas he never makes any direct acknowledgment of western influence.
# Internal Security Act, 1982/Versions

Various versions of the Internal Security Act, 1982, exist:
* as enacted on 9 June 1982 and as came into force on 2 July 1982.
* as amended on 26 June 1986 by the Internal Security Amendment Act, 1986.
* as amended on 3 February 1990 by Proclamation No. R. 21 of 1990.
* as amended on 31 July 1991 by the Internal Security and Intimidation Amendment Act, 1991.
* as amended on 11 March 1992 by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1992.
* as amended on 31 July 1992 by the Criminal Law Second Amendment Act, 1992.
* as amended on 28 January 1994 by the Abolition of Restrictions on Free Political Activity Act, 1993.
* as amended on 29 April 1994 by section 7 of the Abolition of Restrictions on Free Political Activity Act, 1993.
* as amended on 15 November 1996 by the Regulation of Gatherings Act, 1993 and the Safety Matters Rationalisation Act, 1996.
The act was repealed on 20 May 2005 by the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, 2004.
# International Association Machinists v. Gonzales

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
356 U.S. 617
International Association Machinists v. Gonzales
Argued: Dec. 12, 1957. --- Decided: May 26, 1958
See 357 U.S. 944, 78 S.Ct. 1379.
Messrs. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D.C., and Eugene K. Kennedy, Redwood, Cal., for petitioners.
Mr. Lloyd E. McMurray, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents.
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
# Kellogg v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
74 U.S. 361
Kellogg v. United States
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
By an act of March 3d, 1853, Congress authorized the commencement of an aqueduct to supply Washington with water. Captain Meigs was appointed to superintend the work.
In January, 1854, Captain Meigs, on behalf of the United States, entered into a contract with Degges & Smith, by which they agreed to furnish for the work a certain number of bricks, for which the United States agreed to pay at a specified rate per thousand. To secure performance, Degges & Smith gave bond, with Mechlin & Alexander as sureties.
The contract between Captain Meigs and Degges & Smith contained a provision that neither the contract, nor any part of it, should be 'sub-let or assigned.'
In March, 1855, Congress having appropriated a certain sum for continuing the work, Captain Meigs gave notice to Degges & Smith, and also to their sureties, Mechlin & Alexander, that there would be required for the work of that season, a portion of the bricks. To this notice Degges & Smith made no response, but abandoned their undertaking, and failed to comply with their contract.
Degges & Smith having thus made default, Mechlin & Alexander, in order to save themselves from prosecution on their bond, entered into an arrangement with Captain Meigs, by which they assumed the contract which had been made with Degges & Smith.
Mechlin & Alexander, accordingly, made preparations for the manufacture of the bricks necessary to fulfil their contract; but before completing their arrangements, they, in March, 1856, entered into a contract with one Kellogg, by which he undertook to furnish all the bricks required, and to receive payment therefor from the United States at the contract price, and to pay over to Mechlin & Alexander, 5 per cent. of the amount so received; and Mechlin & Alexander by deed constituted him their lawful attorney to furnish the bricks, and to receive payment therefor.
Kellogg continued to furnish bricks, as the agent of Mechlin & Alexander, during the summer of 1856, until what remained of the appropriations for the building of the aqueduct was exhausted, when he received notice from Captain Meigs not to make or deliver any more.
On the 3d of March, Congress passed a joint resolution, containing a proposition to 'all parties respectively interested on account of their contract for manufacturing bricks for the Washington aqueduct,' that, if they would cancel it, the United States would settle with them, 'on the principles of justice and equity, all damages, losses, and liabilities incurred by said parties respectively on account of their contract.'

## 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
# Kelly v. Hedden

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 196
Kelly v. Hedden
A. J. Willard, H. E. Tremain, and M. W. Tyler, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for defendant in error.
FIELD, J.

## 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
# Kelly v. Griffin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 6
Kelly v. Griffin
Argued: April 6 and 7, 1916. --- Decided: April 17, 1916
Messrs. John S. Miller, Edward Osgood Brown, and Pierce Butler for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 7-9 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Almon W. Bulkley, Henry B. F. Macfarland, and Clair E. More for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 9-11 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Holmes 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
# Kelly v. Calhoun

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 710
Kelly v. Calhoun
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court
Mr. S. P. Walker for the appellants.
Mr. Josiah Patterson, contra.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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
# Kelley v. Oregon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 589
Kelley v. Oregon
Argued: and Submitted March 9, 1927. --- Decided: April 11, 1927
Mr. Will R. King, of Portland, Or., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. John H. Carson, of Salem, Or., for the State of Oregon.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Kelley v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Warren
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 963
Kelley v. United States
Edward Bennett Williams, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Marshall Tamor Golding, for the United States.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

## 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
# Kelley v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Warren
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 963
Kelley v. United States
Denied.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, dissenting.

## 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
# Is There a Santa Claus (Virginia O'Hanlon)

* related portals: Christmas.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
A letter written in 1897 by an eight-year-old girl, Virginia O'Hanlon, to The Sun, replied by Francis Pharcellus Church's editorial Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Dear Editor:  I am eight years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa
Claus. Papa says "if
you see it in the Sun it's so." Please tell
me the truth: is there a Santa Claus?  Virginia O'Hanlon.  115 W. 95th St.
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 1971, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 52 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
# Is There a Santa Claus

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Is There a Santa Claus."
* 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.
* Is There a Santa Claus? (1897), editorial by Francis Pharcellus Church
* "Is There a Santa Claus" (1897), letter by Virginia O'Hanlon
# Is There a Santa Claus?

* Is There a Santa Claus?, the original as published in the New York Sun
* "Is there a Santa Claus?" in Our American Holidays - Christmas
# Kenilworth

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Kenilworth."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* Kenilworth (1821), a novel by Walter Scott.
* "Kenilworth" (1900), a poem by Florence Earle Coates.
# Keney v. New York/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 440
Keney v. New York
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the County Court of Monroe County, New York, is reversed. Redrup v. State of New York, 386 U.S. 767, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515.
Mr. Justice HARLAN adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498, and A Book Named 'John Cleland's' Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.

## 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
# Kendig v. Dean

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
97 U.S. 423
Kendig v. Dean
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The cause was argued by Mr. Philip Phillips for the appellant, and by Mr. H. T. Ellett for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# Kener v. La Grange Mills

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 215
Kener v. La Grange Mills
Argued: and submitted November 13, 1913. --- Decided: December 1, 1913
Messrs. Daniel W. Rountree, Clifford L. Anderson, and W. H. Terrell for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 215-217 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Louis Marshall for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes 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
# Kener v. La Grange Mills/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 215
Kener v. La Grange Mills
Argued: and submitted November 13, 1913. --- Decided: December 1, 1913
This is a suit to recover an interest in land sold on execution against Godfred Kener, and held by the defendant in error under that sale. The plaintiff is the representative of one of Kener's heirs. The facts are these. A judgment was recovered upon a bill of exchange against Godfred Kener in 1858, and execution issued in 1873; in 1878 he was adjudged a bankrupt, and returned the holders of the judgment among his creditors, but they did not prove their claim. In the same year this land was set aside in due form to Kener as his homestead exempted by the state Constitution of 1868 and the bankruptcy act then in force. Rev. Stat. § 5045. In June, 1879, he died, and in December, 1879, the execution was levied and this land was sold. The sale was valid unless the bankruptcy act interfered. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant, and the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 135 Ga. 730, 70 S. E. 245.
The bankruptcy act of 1867 [14 Stat. at L. 517, chap. 176], as amended by the act of March 3, 1873, chap. 235, 17 Stat. at L. 577, Rev. Stat. § 5045, preserved, within a limit, exemptions under state laws, and provided that such exemptions should be valid against debts contracted before those laws, and against liens by judgment of any state court. The plaintiff bases his claim upon this act. But in Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610, 21 L. ed. 212, argued and decided (March 31, 1873) just after the amendment of March 3, it was held that the Georgia Constitution could not exempt property from existing liens, and that Congress could not give that Constitution greater effect. See also Re Deckert, 2 Hughes, 183, Fed. Cas. No. 3,728; Re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 560, 36 L. ed. 572, 576, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865. In Re Shipman, 2 Hughes, 227, Fed. Cas. No. 12,791, it seems to have been supposed that the act of 1873, wrongly called of 1874, was passed to meet Gunn v. Barry, in the teeth of the declaration that such an attempt would be invalid. But that was a mistake.
Of course, if the Constitution of 1868, and statutes based upon it, should be construed as not attempting to disturb thenexisting liens, the act of Congress hardly would be read as purporting to give a greater scope to the state laws. The Georgia decisions since Gunn v. Barry agree that in cases like the present the lien remained. Bush v. Lester, 55 Ga. 579. Whether the result be reached by construction of the state laws, by construction of the former bankruptcy act, or on constitutional grounds, it comes to the same thing, and the judgment below was right.
Judgment affirmed.

## 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