OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Public Law 93-54

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To amend the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 915), as amended, establishing a program for the preservation of additional historic properties throughout the Nation, and for other purposes.
​Public Law 93-54
AN ACT
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Historic property preservation program. Extension.That the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 915), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470) is further amended in the following respects:
(a) 84 Stat. 204. 16 USC 470h.Section 108 is amended by deleting the first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “To carry out the provisions of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated not more than $15,600,000 in fiscal year 1974, $20,000,000 in fiscal year 1975, and $24,400,000 in fiscal year 1976.”
(b) International study centre, U.S. participation. 16 USC 470n.Section 206 is amended by deleting all of subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
“(c) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be appropriated not more than $100,000 in fiscal year 1974, $100,000 in fiscal year 1975, and $125,000 in fiscal year 1976: Provided, That effective January 1, 1974, no appropriation is authorized and no payment shall be made to the Centre in excess of 25 per centum of the total annual assessment of such organization.”
(c) Advisory Council, time extension. 16 USC 470i.Section 201 is amended by inserting the following new subsection:
“(g) The Council shall continue in existence until December 31, 1985.”
(d) 16 USC 470a.Section 101(b)(1) is amended by deleting “and American Samoa.” and inserting “American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.”
Approved July 1, 1973.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Robb v. Vos

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
155 U.S. 13
Robb v. Vos

## 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
# Robards v. Lamb/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 58
Robards v. Lamb
The only question among those presented of which this court can take cognizance is whether the statute of Missouri, which authorizes a special administrator having charge of the estate of a testator pending a contest as to the validity of his will, to have a final settlement of his accounts, without giving notice to distributees, and which settlement, in the absence of fraud, is deemed conclusive as against such distributees, is repugnant to the clause of the constitution of the United States forbidding a state to deprive any person of his property without due process of law. We have no difficulty in answering this question in the negative. Without stating all the grounds upon which this conclusion might be rested, it is sufficient to say that, in matters involved in the accounts of such special administrator, the executor or administrator with the will annexed represents all claiming under the will. The regular representative of the estate, before passing his receipt to the special administrator, has an opportunity to examine this settlement, and, if it is not satisfactory, to contest its correctness by some appropriate proceeding. When an executor or administrator with the will annexed proposes to make a final settlement of his own accounts, he is required to give notice to creditors and distributees; for there are no other representatives of the estate. But when a special administrator ceases to act as such, that is, when his functions cease by operation of law, he must account for the property and estate in his hands, to the executor or administrator with the will annexed, who, in receiving what had been temporarily in the charge of the former, acts for all interested in the distribution of the estate. As, therefore, the regular representative of the estate has an opportunity to contest the final settlement of the special administrator, before giving him an acquittance, it cannot be said that the absence of notice to the distributees of such settlement amounts to a deprivation of their rights of property without due process of law. The judgmn t is 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
# Robbery Under Arms

Robbery Under Arms is a classic Australian novel by Rolf Boldrewood (a pseudonym for Thomas Alexander Browne). It was first published in serialised form by the Sydney Mail between July 1882 and August 1883, then in three volumes in London in 1888. It was edited into a single volume in 1889 as part of Macmillan's Colonial Library series and has not been out of print since. It is considered to be one of the greatest Australian colonial novels, along with Marcus Clarke's For the Term of his Natural Life, and has inspired numerous adaptations in film, television and theatre.
Writing in the first person, the narrator Dick Marston tells the story of his life and loves and his association with the notorious bushranger Captain Starlight, a renegade from a noble English family. Set in the bush and goldfields of Australia in the 1850s, Starlight's gang, with Dick and his brother Jim's help, sets out on a series of escapades that include cattle theft and robbery under arms. Warning: template has been deprecated.
ROBBERY UNDER ARMS
A STORY OF
LIFE AND ADVENTURE IN THE BUSH AND IN THE GOLDFIELDS OF AUSTRALIA
BY ROLF BOLDREWOOD AUTHOR OF 'THE MINER'S RIGHT,' 'THE SQUATTER'S DREAM,' 'A COLONIAL REFORMER,' ETC
London MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1906
PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION
I dedicate this 'ower true tale' of the wilder aspects of Australian life to my old comrade R. Murray Smith, late Agent-General in London for the colony of Victoria, with hearty thanks for the time and trouble he has devoted to its publication. I trust it will do no discredit to the rising reputation of Australian romance. But though presented in the guise of fiction, this chronicle of the Marston family must not be set down by the reader as wholly fanciful or exaggerated. Much of the narrative is literally true, as can be verified by official records. A lifelong residence in Australia may be accepted as a guarantee for fidelity as to local colour and descriptive detail. I take this opportunity of acknowledging the prompt and liberal recognition of the tale by the proprietors of the Sydney Mail, but for which it might never have seen the light.
ROLF BOLDREWOOD
Collins Street West, Melbourne, 12th December 1999.

## Contents

This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Robb v. Connolly

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
111 U.S. 624
Robb v. Connolly
H. G. Sieberst, for plaintiff in error.
A. C. Searle, for defendant in error.
HARLAN, 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
# Reed v. County Commissioners of Delaware County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
277 U.S. 376
Reed v. County Commissioners of Delaware County
Argued: April 25, 26, 1928. --- Decided: May 28, 1928
Messrs. Levi Cooke and Jerry C. South, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 376-383 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Albert J. Williams, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 383-385 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Reed v. Allen

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
286 U.S. 191
Reed v. Allen
Argued: and Submitted April 18, 1932. --- Decided: May 16, 1932
Messrs. J. Wilmer Latimer, Walter C. Clephane, and Gilbert L. Hall, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 192-193 intentionally omitted]
Mr. George C. Gertman, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 194-196 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Reed v. Director General of Railroads

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 92
Reed v. Director General of Railroads
Argued: Jan. 13, 1922. --- Decided: Feb 27, 1922
Messrs. John J. McDevitt, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., and Frederick S. Tyler, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Wm. Clarke Mason, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Proclamation 7514

Delivered on 13 December 2001.
By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
On December 17, 1903, from the dunes near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, Orville Wright made the first manned flight in an engine- powered aircraft. Though the flight only covered 120 feet and lasted just 12 seconds, Orville and his brother Wilbur Wright changed history on that cold and gusty winter day.
Success had not come easily to the Wright brothers. Many thought powered flight impossible; and skeptics called the Wrights dreamers for even entertaining the idea. Undeterred, the Wrights spent years in study, analyzing the flight of birds and experimenting with model airplanes in their bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. After many trials and errors, the Wright brothers finally achieved a controlled flight and opened the door to a new world.
On December 17 of each year, we honor the Wright brothers for their contributions to our Nation. Their invention of powered flight made the world community more connected. We have since traveled to the Moon and back, and space shuttles orbit our planet. All of these amazing advances can be traced back to that windy day at Kitty Hawk when the indomitable will of the Wrights persevered to triumph over the supposed impossible.
Air travel now is an essential part of this Nation's everyday life. This proud industry will endure through the new challenges presented by the tragedies of September 11. Joining together as a Nation, we will continue to strengthen security while maintaining the economic and social benefits of an efficient air transportation system.
This Wright Brothers Day we salute all the scientific pioneers and visionaries who, despite the critics, have over come seemingly insurmountable odds and made great advances for man. The Wright brothers' perseverance and creativity can serve as an inspiration for those inventors who will take us to new heights in the 21st century.
The Congress, by a joint resolution approved December 17, 1963 (77 Stat. 402; 36 U.S.C. 143), has designated December 17 of each year as "Wright Brothers Day," and has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation inviting the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 17, 2001, as Wright Brothers Day.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.
George W. Bush
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
# Proclamation 7513

Delivered on 9 December 2001.
By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
The terrible tragedies of September 11 served as a grievous reminder that the enemies of freedom do not respect or value individual human rights. Their brutal attacks were an attack on these very rights. When our essential rights are attacked, they must and will be defended.
Americans stand united with those who love democracy, justice, and individual liberty. We are committed to upholding these principles, embodied in our Constitution's Bill of Rights, that have safeguarded us throughout our history and that continue to provide the foundation of our strength and prosperity.
The heinous acts of terrorism committed on September 11 were an attack against civilization itself, and they have caused the world to join together in a coalition that is now waging war on terrorism and defending international human rights. Americans have looked beyond our borders and found encouragement as the world has rallied to join the American-led coalition. Civilized people everywhere have recognized that terrorists threaten every nation that loves liberty and cherishes the protection of individual rights.
Respect for human dignity and individual freedoms reaffirms a core tenet of civilized people everywhere. This important observance honoring our Bill of Rights and advocating human rights around the world allows all Americans to celebrate the universal principles of liberty and justice that define our dreams and shape our hopes as we face the challenges of a new era.
Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 10, 2001, as Human Rights Day; December 15, 2001, as Bill of Rights Day; and the week beginning December 9, 2001, as Human Rights Week. I call upon the people of the United States to honor the legacy of human rights passed down to us from previous generations and to resolve that such liberties will prevail in our Nation and throughout the world as we move into the 21st century.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.
George W. Bush
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
# Pugh v. Fairmount Gold Silver Mining Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 238
Pugh v. Fairmount Gold Silver Mining Company
John W. Ross and Mills Dean, for appellant.
A. T. Britton, J. H. M. Gowen, and A. B. Browne, for appellees.
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
# Pugh v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 633
Pugh v. United States
The destruction of property complained of was during the war and in one of the States engaged in the rebellion, and the presumption, in the absence of inconsistent allegations, is that it was by the military forces of the United States. It is clear that a petition for compensation for injuries of this character could not be sustained in the Court of Claims, for the demand plainly grows 'out of the destruction or appropriation of or damage to property by the army or navy engaged in the suppression of the rebellion,' and is excluded from the cognizance of that court by the express terms of the act of July 4th, 1864.
But it is insisted that the court had at least jurisdiction of the case made by the petition in respect to the leasing of the plantation, under the amendment to the Captured and Abandoned Property Act made by the second and third sections of the act of July 2d, 1864. These sections provide for leasing abandoned lands by the agents of the Treasury Department, and the payment of the net amounts of rents collected into the Treasury. But the petition in this case makes the leasing an incident only to the unlawful appropriation and spoliation of the plantation. It does not allege any leasing by the agents of the Treasury Department, or that any rents were collected by them or paid into the Treasury.
It is plain, therefore, that the petition does not state a case within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. If the petitioner has any claim upon the government he must seek relief from Congress.
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
# Richmond Company v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
169 U.S. 311
Richmond Company v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Company
H. T. Wickham, for plaintiff in error.
A. W. Patterson, for defendant in error.
Mr. 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
# Richmond Company v. Thouron

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
134 U.S. 45
Richmond Company v. Thouron
Pope Barrow, for appellants,
Chas. M. De Costa and Samuel Dickson, for appellees.
FULLER, C. 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
# Richmond Enquirer editorial on the Dred Scott case

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
published 10 March 1857
In anticipation of the definitive decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case some months or more ago, its adjudication was announced through a respectable proportion of the press, emanating, we do not now recollect precisely, whence or how; but, as the sequel shows, not from mere conjecture, or without reliable data, for it was then stated that seven of the nine judges constituting the court, agreed on the opinion that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and consequently, that the rights originating in it and under it, were even factitious and ineffective. And it will be seen by the authentic annunciation of the grave and deliberate decision of that august body, in another column, that what was rumor then is reality now. -- Thus has a politico-legal question, involving others of deep import, been decided emphatically in favor of the advocates and supporters of the Constitution and the Union, the equality of the States and the rights of the South, in contradistinction to and in repudiation of the diabolical doctrines inculcated by factionists and fanatics; and that too by a tribunal of jurists, as learned, impartial and unprejudiced as perhaps the world has ever seen. A prize, for which the athletes of the nation have often wrestled in the halls of Congress, has been awarded at last, by the proper umpire, to those who have justly won it. The nation has achieved a triumph, sectionalism has been rebuked, and abolitionism has been staggered and stunned. Another supporting pillar has been added to our institutions; the assailants of the South and enemies of the Union have been driven from their point d'appui; a patriotic principle has been pronounced; a great, national, conservative, union saving sentiment has been proclaimed. An adjudication of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, in the Dred Scott case, inseparably embraced collateral questions of such character, as also to involve incidental issues, not unfrequently arising in the councils of the country, and which have ever proved, points of irreconcilable antagonism between the friends and enemies of the institutions of the South; all of which, it will be seen, have been uneqivocally established in accordance with the sense of the Southern people. And thus it is, that reason and right, justice and truth, always triumph over passion and prejudice, ignorance and envy, when submitted to the deliberations of honest and able men: that the dross and the genuine metal are separated when the ore is accurately assayed.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Richmond Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company v. Louisa Railroad Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Curtis
United States Supreme Court
54 U.S. 71
Richmond Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company v. Louisa Railroad Company
(Mr. Justice DANIEL did not sit in this cause.)

## 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
# Progress and Poverty (George, D. Appleton & Company, fifth edition)/Book 7

BOOK VII.
JUSTICE OF THE REMEDY.
* Chapter I.—Injustice of private property in land.
* Chapter II.—Enslavement of laborers the ultimate result of private property in land.
* Chapter III.—Claim of land owners to compensation.
* Chapter IV.—Property in land historically considered.
* Chapter V.—Property in land in the United States.
Justice is a relation of congruity which really subsists between two things. This relation is always the same, whatever being considers it, whether it be God, or an angel, or lastly a man.—Montesquieu.
# Progress and Poverty (George, D. Appleton & Company, fifth edition)/Book 8

BOOK VIII.
APPLICATION OF THE REMEDY.
* Chapter I.—Private property in land inconsistent with the best use of land.
* Chapter II.—How equal rights to the land may be asserted and secured.
* Chapter III.—The proposition tried by the canons of taxation.
* Chapter IV.—Indorsements and objections.