OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Fisher (109 U.S. 143)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
109 U.S. 143
United States v. Fisher
Asst. Atty. Gen. Simons and J. S. Blair, for appellant.
T. H. N. McPherson and J. Thos. Turner, for appellee.
WOODS, 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
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 31

Chap. XXXI.—An Act to provide for holding a Treaty or Treaties to establish Peace with certain Indian tribes.
$20,000 arising from imports and tonnage, appropriated. 1789, ch. 10.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in addition to the balance unexpended, of the sum of twenty thousand dollars, appropriated by the act, intituled “An act providing for the expenses which may attend negotiations or treaties with the Indian tribes, and the appointment of commissioners for managing the same,” a farther sum, not exceeding twenty thousand dollars, arising from the duties on imports and tonnage, shall be, and the same is hereby appropriated for defraying the expenses of negotiating, and holding a treaty or treaties, and for promoting a friendly intercourse, and preserving peace with the Indian tribes.
Approved, July 22, 1790.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 36

Chap. XXXVI.—An Act to continue in force for a limited time, an act intituled “An act for the temporary establishment of the Post-Office.”
Former act declared in force till the next session, March 4, 1791. 1791, ch. 23. 1789, ch. 16.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the act passed the last session of Congress, intituled “An act for the temporary establishment of the post-office,” be, and the same hereby is continued in force until the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer.
Approved, August 4, 1790.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 32

Chap. XXXII.—An Act to amend the act for the establishment and support of Lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Expense of lighthouses, &c. to be defrayed until 1st July, 1791, although not ceded, and States allowed till that day to make cessions. That all expenses which shall accrue from and after the fifteenth day of August next, for the necessary support, maintenance and repairs of all lighthouses, beacons, buoys and public piers, within the United States, shall continue to be defrayed by the United States, until the first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, notwithstanding such lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, with the lands and tenements thereunto belonging, and the jurisdictions of the same, shall not in the mean time be ceded to or vested in the United States, by the state or states respectively, in which the same may be, and that the said time be further allowed to the states respectively to make such cessions.
Approved, July 22, 1790.
# Veterans of Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. Subversive Activities Control Board/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 513
Veterans of Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Argued: Dec. 9, 1964. --- Decided: April 26, 1965
Petitioner was ordered by the Subversive Activities Control Board to register as a Communist-front organization under § 7 of the Subversive Acitvities Control Act of 1950, as amended, 64 Stat. 993, 50 U.S.C. § 786 (1958 ed.), and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. 117 U.S.App.D.C. 404, 331 F.2d 64. We granted certiorari, 377 U.S. 989, 84 S.Ct. 1916, 12 L.Ed.2d 1043. In this case, the order to register was based almost exclusively on events before 1950, and very largely on events before 1940. The hearings themselves were concluded in November 1954, more than 10 years ago. On so stale a record we do not think it is either necessary or appropriate that we decide the serious constitutional questions raised by the order. See American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 380 U.S. 503, 85 S.Ct. 1148. The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Judgment vacated and cause remanded.
Mr. Justice WHITE took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice HARLAN concur, 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
# Veto Message for H.R. 1122

This is H. Doc. No. 105-158 and was printed in the Congressional Record at 1997 H8891.
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1122, which would prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of abortion. I am returning H.R. 1122 for exactly the same reasons I returned an earlier substantially identical version of this bill, H.R. 1833, last year. My veto message of April 10, 1996, fully explains my reasons for returning that bill and applies to H.R. 1122 as well. H.R. 1122 is a bill that is consistent neither with the Constitution nor sound public policy.
As I stated on many occasions, I support the decision in Roe v. Wade protecting a woman's right to choose. Consistent with that decision, I have long opposed late-term abortions, and I continue to do so except in those instances necessary to save the life of a woman or prevent serious harm to her health. Unfortunately, H.R. 1122 does not contain an exception to the measure's ban that will adequately protect the lives and health of the small group of women in tragic circumstances who need an abortion performed at a late stage of pregnancy to avert death or serious injury.
I have asked the Congress repeatedly, for almost 2 years, to send me legislation that includes a limited exception for the small number of compelling cases where use of this procedure is necessary to avoid serious health consequences. When Governor of Arkansas, I signed a bill into law that barred third-trimester abortions, with an appropriate exception for life or health. I would do so again, but only if the bill contains an exception for the rare cases where a woman faces death or serious injury. I believe that Congress should work in a bipartisan manner to fashion such legislation.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON.
THE WHITE HOUSE, October 10, 1997.
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
# Veto Message for H.R. 1495

This is H. Doc. No. 110-71, and was printed in the Congressional Record at 2007 H12458.
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1495, the "Water Resources Development Act of 2007."
This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns to the Nation and each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) main missions. However, this authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the Congress does not have a track record of keeping. The House of Representatives took a $15 billion bill into negotiations with a $14 billion bill from the Senate and instead of splitting the difference, emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete.
This bill does not set priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit that are also a Federal responsibility. My Administration has repeatedly urged the Congress to authorize only those projects and programs that provide a high return on investment and are within the three main missions of the Corps' civil works program: facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. This bill does not achieve that goal. This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's critical water resources needs—including hurricane protection for greater New Orleans, flood damage reduction for Sacramento, and restoration of the Everglades—while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought.
I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment. For the reasons outlined above, I must veto H.R. 1495.
GEORGE W. BUSH.
THE WHITE HOUSE, November 2, 2007.
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
# Veterans of Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. Subversive Activities Control Board

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 513
Veterans of Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Argued: Dec. 9, 1964. --- Decided: April 26, 1965
Leonard B. Boudin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Kevin T. Maroney and Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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
# United States v. Lewis (340 U.S. 590)/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 590
United States v. Lewis (340 U.S. 590)
Argued: March 2, 1951. --- Decided: March 26, 1951
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS (dissenting).
The question in this case is not whether the bonus had to be included in 1944 income for purposes of the tax. Plainly it should have been because the taxpayer claimed it as of right. Some years later, however, it was judicially determined that he had no claim to the bonus. The question is whether he may then get back the tax which he paid on the money.
Many inequities are inherent in the income tax. We multiply them needlessly by nice distinctions which have no place in the practical administration of the law. If the refund were allowed, the integrity of the taxable year would not be violated. The tax would be paid when due; but the government would not be permitted to maintain the unconscionable position that it can keep the tax after it is shown that payment was made on money which was not income to the taxpayer.

## 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
# United States v. Lewis (235 U.S. 282)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 282
The United States v. Charles Lewis
No. 380. Argued: October 22, 1914. --- Decided: November 30, 1914.
Assistant Attorney General Underwood for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Pitney 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
# United States v. Lewis (340 U.S. 590)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 590
United States v. Lewis (340 U.S. 590)
Argued: March 2, 1951. --- Decided: March 26, 1951
See 341 U.S. 923, 71 S.Ct. 741.
Mr. Ellis N. Slack, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Sigmund W. David, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
232 U.S. 399
United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Company
Argued: January 5, 1914. --- Decided: February 24, 1914
Attorney General McReynolds and Mr. Francis G. Caffey for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 400 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Edward P. Smith, Bruce S. Elliott, Edward L. Scarritt, C. J. Smyth, and W. C. Scarritt for respondent.
Mr. Henry P. Blair in behalf of
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 401-404 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Ralph S. Rounds as amicus curia.
Mr. Justice Day 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
# United States v. Harvey Steel Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Harvey Steel Company."
* 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.
* United States v. Harvey Steel Company (196 U.S. 310)
* United States v. Harvey Steel Company (227 U.S. 165)
# United States v. Harvey Steel Company (196 U.S. 310)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
196 U.S. 310
United States v. Harvey Steel Company
Argued: January 3, 4, 1905. --- Decided: January 16, 1905
Assistant Attorney General Pradt for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 311-312 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. James Russell Soley and Frederic H. Betts for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 312-313 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
# United States v. Hart/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 770
United States v. Hart
The Supreme Court in reversing the judgment below, held, that the act in question did not extend to, or embrace proceedings under the act of 17th of July, 1862, providing for confiscation of the property of persons engaged in, or aiding and abetting the rebellion, of the correctness of which decision we can entertain no doubt.
If the District Court below could have, under any circumstances, jurisdiction of the case, according to the practice as settled in the cases of the Union Insurance Company v. United States, Armstrong's Foundry and the St. Louis Street Foundry, #fn-s-s decided at the present term, as it has been tried on the admiralty side of the court, the proper disposition of it would be to reverse the decree, and remand the cause to the court below, with directions to enter a decree remitting it to the District Court that it might be tried on the common law side with a jury, the seizure having been made on land, and not on waters navigable from the sea. But, as the Supe me Court of the Territory has reversed the decree of confiscation for the want of jurisdiction, in the correctness of which judgment we concur, the proper disposition of it will be to AFFIRM THE DECREE, as this reaches directly the right conclusion in the case.
NOTE. Like decrees were made in the similar cases of United States v. Crosby, and United States v. Gillet, as governed by this one.
# United States v. Harvey Steel Company (227 U.S. 165)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 165
United States v. Harvey Steel Company (227 U.S. 165)
Argued: January 6, 1913. --- Decided: February 3, 1913
Assistant Attorney General Thompson and Mr. P. M. Ashford for the United States.
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, Frank S. Busser, and A. H. Wintersteen for the Midvale Steel Company.
Messrs. James R. Sheffield and James J. Cosgrove for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice White 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
# What Is To Be Done? (Lenin, 1935)

Third printing of a 1931 edition of a translation fist published in The Iskra Period (1929)
LITTLE LENIN LIBRARY
VOLUME 4
WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
By V • I • LENIN
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS
381 FOURTH AVENUE • NEW YORK
page
WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
Burning Questions of Our Movement
… Party struggles … give a party strength and life. … The best proof of the weakness of a party is its diffuseness and its blurring of clear-cut differences. … A party becomes stronger by purging itself.
[From a letter by Lassalle to Marx, dated June 24, 1852.]
page
IN THE LITTLE LENIN LIBRARY
| 1. | The Teachings of Karl Marx |
| 2. | The War and the Second International |
| 3. | Socialism and War |
| 4. | What Is To Be Done? |
| 5. | The Paris Commune |
| 6. | The Revolution of 1905 |
| 7. | Religion |
| 8. | Letters from Afar |
| 9. | The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution |
| 10. | The April Conference |
| 11. | The Threatening Catastrophe and How To Fight It |
| 12. | Will the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? |
| 13. | On the Eve of October |
| 14. | State and Revolution |
| 15. | Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism |
| 16. | Lenin, by Joseph Stalin |
| 17. | A Letter to American Workers |
| 18. | Foundations of Leninism, by Joseph Stalin |
| 19. | Problems of Leninsm, by Joseph Stalin |
| 20. | "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder |
| 21. | The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky |
| 22. | Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution |
page
WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
Burning Questions of Our Movement
BY V. I. LENIN
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS NEW YORK
page
Copyright, 1929, by INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS CO., INC.
Reprinted from The Iskra Period, by V. I. Lenin.
First Printing, 1931. Second Printing, 1932. Third Printing, 1935.
PRINTED IN THE U. S. A.
This book is composed and printed by union labor.
page
CONTENTS
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/6th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 23

Chap. XXIII.—An Act to alter the form of certain oaths and affirmations directed to be taken by the act intituled “An act providing for the second census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States.”
Act of Feb. 28, 1800, ch. 12.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the first section of the act passed during the present session of Congress, intituled “An act providing for the second census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States,” as relates to the form of the oaths or affirmations thereby directed to be taken by the marshals, secretaries, and assistants therein mentioned respectively, shall be, and hereby is repealed, and that the said oaths or affirmations shall be in the following form; that is to say: the marshals and secretaries’ oath or affirmation in the form following: “I, A. B. marshal of the district of (or the secretary of the territory of as the case may be) do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will well and truly cause to be made a just and perfect enumeration and description of the persons resident within my district (or within the territory of as the case may be) and will return the same to the Secretary of State agreeably to the directions of an act of Congress, intituled ‘An act providing for the second census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States,’ according to the best of my ability.” And the assistants’ oath or affirmation in the form following: I, A. B. do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will make a just and perfect enumeration and description of all persons resident within the division assigned to me by the marshal of the district of (or the secretary of the territory of as the case may be) and make due return thereof to the said marshal (or secretary) agreeably to the directions of an act of Congress, intituled “An act providing for the second census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States,” according to the best of my ability.
Approved, April 12, 1800.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/6th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 21

Chap. XXI.—An Act to allow a drawback of duties on goods exported to New Orleans, and therein to amend the act intituled “An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage.”
Repealed by Act of Nov. 25, 1803, ch. 5.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any goods, wares or merchandise, which shall be exported from the United States, after the tenth day of April current, in the manner prescribed by law, to the port of New Orleans, on the river Mississippi, shall be deemed and taken to be entitled to such drawbacks of duties as would be allowable thereon, when exported to any other foreign port or place, any thing in the act intituledVol. i. 627. “An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage,” to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
Approved, April 5, 1800.