OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Veto of the Apportionment Bill

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives
I have maturely considered the Act passed by the two Houses, intitled, "An Act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first enumeration," and I return it to your House, wherein it originated, with the following objections.
First—The Constitution has prescribed that representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers: and there is no one proportion or divisor which, applied to the respective numbers of the States will yield the number and allotment of representatives proposed by the Bill.
Second—The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the separate and respective numbers of the States: and the bill has allotted to eight of the States, more than one for thirty thousand.
# Veto of A Bill to alter and amend an Act entitled, "An Act to ascertain and fix the military establishment of the United States"

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: Having maturely considered the Bill to alter and amend an Act entitled an Act to ascertain and fix the military establishment of the United States which was presented to me on the twenty second day of this Month I now return it to the House of Representatives, in which it originated with my objections. First. If the Bill passes into a law the two Companies of light dragoons will be from that moment legally out of service, though they will afterwards continue actually in service, and for their services during this interval, namely from the time of legal to the time of actual discharge, it will be unlawful to pay them, unless some future provision be made by law. Though they may be discharged at the pleasure of Congress, in justice they ought to receive their pay not only to the time of passing the law, but at least to the time of their actual discharge. Secondly. It will be inconvenient and injurious to the public to dismiss the light Dragoons as soon as notice of the law can be conveyed to them; one of the Companies having been lately destined to a necessary and important service. Thirdly. The Companies of Light Dragoons consist of one hundred and twenty six non commissioned Officers and privates, who are bound to serve as dismounted Dragoons, when ordered so to do; they have received in bounties about two thousand dollars; one of them is completely equipped, and above half of the non commissioned Officers and privates have yet to serve more than one third the term of their inlistment; and besides there will in the course of the year be a considerable deficiency in the complement of infantry intended to be continued. Under these circumstances to discharge the Dragoons does not seem to comport with œconomy. Fourthly. It is generally agreed that some Cavalry either Militia or regular will be necessary and according to the best information I have been able to obtain, it is my opinion, that the latter will be less expensive and more useful than the former, in preserving peace between the frontier settlers, and the Indians and therefore a part of the Military establishment should consist of Cavalry.
# Vetterlein v. Barnes

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 169
Vetterlein v. Barnes
In the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, sitting in bankruptcy, Theodore H. Vetterlein and Bernhard T. Vetterlein were adjudged bankrupts. The adjudication was made February 7, 1871, upon a petition of certain creditors of the bankrupts, filed December 28, 1870. Taylor died July 1, 1871. Due proof of his death was made by B. T. Vetterlein and T. J. Vetterlein, and they were proceeding to collect the insurance moneys, when the present suit was brought in the district court, August 10, 1871, by Barnes, assignee in bankruptcy of Theodore H. Vetterlein and Bernhard T. Vetterlein, against the bankrupts, Theodore J. Vetterlein, and the insurance [171]
J. D. McPherson, Calderon Carlisle, and T. Mitchell Tyng, for appellants.
Jas. K. Hill, Henry T. Wing, and Harrington Putnam, for appellee.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Who's Who in the Far East/WISNER, Rev. C. F.

Layout 2
​ WISNER, Rev. C. F. ( CANTON.), M.A., D.D.; President of Canton Christian College; b. Sept. 25, 1858; m. July 29, 1889. Educ.: University of Wooster, Ohio; Presb. Theol. Seminary, Allegheny, Pa.: Princeton Theol. Seminary, Princeton, N.J. Address: Canton Christian College, HONGKONG, Canton, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/WODEHOUSE, Philip Peveril John

Layout 2
​ WODEHOUSE, Philip Peveril John (HONGKONG), Asst. Supt. of Police; b. Sept. 26, 1877. Educ.: Elizabeth College, Guernsey. Joined the Col. Service in 1897; was Chief Clerk and Dep. Reg. of marriages in Reg. Genl.'s Dept. until March, 1901, when transferred to police for service with Indian contingent; was attached to Punjaub police for one year (1901-2) and served iu various stations in that province; was officer in charge of general census of Colony, 1900. Clubs: Grosvenor, Piccadilly; Hongkong. Address: Central Police Barracks, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/WOLFE, Edward Dudley Corscaden

Layout 2
​ WOLFE, Edward Dudley Corscaden (HONGKONG), B.A., Cantab.; Hongkong Civil Service; b. May 3, 1875. Educ.: Tonbridge Sch.; Cains Coll., Cambridge. Appointed ​cadet, Federated Malay States, 1898; transferred to Hongkong. 1901; Registrar, Land Court, New Territory, Nov. 19, 1901; acting 2ml Police Mag., Oct., 1902; acting asst. Reg. and Dep. Reg. of Marriages, Nov. 14, 1902; acting asst. Supt. of Police and Mag., New Territory, Dec. 1, 1903; seconded as Transvaal Emigration Agent at Chefoo, March 8, 1905; speaks Cantonese. Address: Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/WOOD, Alexander George

Layout 2
​ WOOD, Alexander George (HONGKONG), Merchant; partner in Gibb, Livingston and Co., Hongkong and China; b. 1841. Educ: Privately. Chairman of Shanghai Municipal Council, 1885-88. Clubs: Hongkong; Shanghai; Reform and City of London. Address: St. George's Building, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/WOOD, John Roskruge

Layout 2
​ WOOD, John Roskruge (HONGKONG). B.A., Cantab; Asst. Land Officer, New Territories; b. Nov. 17, 1877. Educ.: City of London Sch.; Jesus Coll., Cambridge. Appointed Cadet, Hongkong Civil Service, Oct. 12, 1899; Reg. of Land Court, New Territories, Nov. 21, 1900; acting Pol. Mag., New Territories, May to Aug., 1902; asst. Land Officer for New Territories, Jan. 1, 1905; has passed exams, in Hakka and Cantonese. Address: Hongkong,
# Who's Who in the Far East/WISE, Alfred Gascoigne

Layout 2
​ WISE, Alfred Gascoigne (HONGKONG), LL.B.; Puisne Judge, Supreme Court, b. Aug. 15, 1854, at Colombo, Ceylon, s. of late Alfred Wise; m. Augusta Frances, d. of A. N. C. R. Nugent. Educ.: Repton; Trinity Coll., Cambridge. Called to Bar, Lincoln's Inn, 1878; Pol. Mag., Hongkong, 1884; Registrar, Supreme Court, etc., 1892; Puisne Judge, since 1895. Clubs: Conservative; Thatched House; Hongkong. Address: The Peak, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/WOLFE, Samuel Williamson

Layout 2
​ WOLFE, Samuel Williamson (SINGAPORE), General Manager of Dr. Williams Medicine Co. in the Far East; b. Jan. 9, 1872. Educ.: Cork, Ireland, and London, England. General Manager to Dr. Williams Medicine Co. in South Africa, 1894-1904; tranferred to Singapore, Oct., 1903; M.M. British Lodge, 334, Capetown. Address: Cavanagh Bridge, Singapore, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/WOLFERSTAN, Littleton Edward Pipe

Layout 2
​ WOLFERSTAN, Littleton Edward Pipe (SINGAPORE), B.A., 1888; Official Assignee. Edtic.: Eton, and Clare College, Cambridge. Cadet, Straits Settlements, Oct., 1889, passed final examination in Malay, July, 1891; acting Private Secretary to Sir C. Smith, Jan., to April, 1890; after filling various other positions was appointed Collector of Land Revenue and Registrar of Deeds, Penang, Aug., 1902; Official Assignee, Straits Settlements, Sept., 1903. Address: Singapore, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/WOOD, Dr. Andrew H.

Layout 2
​WOOD, Dr. Andrew H. (CANTON), B.A., M.D.; Physician and Professor; b. Aug. 25, 1872; m. Fanny S. Sinclair. Educ: Pantops Academy, Washington; Lee University; Penna. University. Address: Christian Coll., Canton, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/WOOD, David

Layout 2
​ WOOD, David (HONGKONG), J.P.; Civil Service; b. Aberdeen, Scot., Sept. 3, 1865. Educ.: Gordon's Coll., Aberdeen. Ch. Acct., P.W.D., Hongkong, 1891; supt. accts., correspondence and stores, 1894; Sec. to Commission on Housing Chinese during plague, 1894; ag. Govt. Assessor of Taxes, on several occasions; Hon. Sec., Jubilee Com. (Jubilee Road and Victoria Hospital) from July, 1900, to April, 1903. Club: Hongkong. Address: Magazine Gap, Hongkong.
# United States v. Demko

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 149
United States v. Demko
Argued: Nov. 8, 1966. --- Decided: Dec 5, 1966
Richard S. Salzman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Gerald N. Ziskind, Pittsburgh, Pa., 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. Delaware & Hudson Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
213 U.S. 366
United States v. Delaware & Hudson Company
Argued: January 10, 20, 1909. --- Decided: May 3, 1909
[Syllabus from pages 366-370 intentionally omitted]
Attorney General Bonaparte, Solicitor General Hoyt, and Messrs. L. Allison Wilmer and Thomas C. Spelling for plaintiff in error and appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 370-381 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John C. Johnson and Robert W. de Forest for defendants in error and appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 381-387 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walker D. Hines, James M. Beck, and William S. Opdyke for the Delaware & Hudson Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 387-389 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George F. Brownell and Adelbert Moot for the Erie Railroad company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 389-392 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Delespine's Heirs Lazarus/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
37 U.S. 654
United States v. Delespine's Heirs Lazarus
In this case, it is conceded by the attorney general that the only ground upon which it can be taken out of the decisions of this Court, confirming the decrees of the courts of Florida, upon grants and concessions of land made by the authorities of the king of Spain to his subjects, before the 24th January, 1818; was, that the superior court of East Florida, in adjudicating upon this claim, received as evidence the copy of a copy of a concession or grant to Joseph Delespine. We think the copy, in this instance, was properly received by the court. The first copy was made from the original, filed in the proper office, from which the original could not be removed for any purpose. That copy, it is admitted, would have been evidence in the cause. It is shown, by the affidavit of Mr. Drysdale, to have been lost whilst the claim was under examination by the board of commissioners established by congress for ascertaining land claims in Florida; and that the copy received as evidence, is a translation of the first, certified by the secretary of the board of land commissioners, whose duty it was to translate Spanish documents given in evidence before the board of land commissioners; and is a part of the papers in this claim, transferred, according to law, to the keeper of the public archives of East Florida. And it appears, also, by proofs in this cause, that the papers in the office from which the first copy was taken, and the original of which is also sufficiently proved to have been on file, have been, by accident or otherwise, mutilated, since the first copy was taken; that the original could no longer be found; and, consequently, that the copy in this case, was the best evidence, from the nature of the case, which could be given of the existence of an original paper lost or destroyed.
The decree of the superior court of East Florida was confirmed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the district of East Florida, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here decreed and ordered by this Court, that the decree of the said superior court in this cause be, and the same is hereby 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
# Walkley v. City of Muscatine/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 481
Walkley v. City of Muscatine
We are of opinion the complainant has mistaken the appropriate remedy in the case, which was by writ of mandamus from the Circuit Court in which the judgment was rendered against the defendants. The writ affords a full and adequate remedy at law. There are numerous recent cases in this court on the subject.
We have been furnished with no authority for the substitution of a bill in equity and injunction for the writ of mandamus. An injunction is generally a preventive, not an affirmative remedy. It is sometimes used in the latter character, but this is in cases where it is used by the court to carry into effect its own decrees as in putting the purchaser under a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage into the possession of the premises. Even the exercise of power to this extent was doubted till the case of Kershaw v. Thompson, in which the learned chancellor, after an examination of the cases in England on the subject, came to the conclusion he possessed it; not, however, by the writ of injunction, but by the writ of assistance. Chancellor Sanford, who adopted the practice in Ludlow v. Lansing, observed that it was not usual before the case of Kershaw v. Thompson, but that he had examined all the cases cited, and that the English cases seemed to warrant the decision. He further observed that if the decision of the late chancellor was in any respect new, the innovation was, in his opinion, jui cious and fit.
The counsel for the complainant has referred to some expressions by the learned judge in the opinion delivered in the case of The Board of Commissioners of Knox County v. Aspinwall, as giving countenance to the remedy by bill in equity; but this is a clear misapprehension. It is there observed, 'that a court of equity is sometimes resorted to as auxiliary to a court of law in obtaining satisfaction of judgments. But no court,' he observes, 'having proper jurisdiction and process to compel the satisfaction of its own judgments, can be justified in turning its suitors over to another tribunal to obtain justice.' We add, that a court of equity is invoked as auxiliary to a court of law in the enforcement of its judgments in cases only where the latter is inadequate to afford the proper remedy. The principle has no application in the present case.
DECREE AFFIRMED.

## Notes

* ↑ Board of Commissioners of Knox County v. Aspinwall, 24 Howard, 376; Supervisors v. United States, 4 Wallace, 435; Von Hoff nan v. City of Quincy, Id. 535; City of Galena v. Amy, 5 Id. 705.
* ↑ 4 Johnson's Chancery, 609.
* ↑ Hopkins, 231; see also Valentine v. Teller, Id. 422.
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
# Walks in the Black Country and its Green Border-Land

Lichfield Cathedral.
WALKS
IN
THE BLACK COUNTRY
AND
ITS GREEN BORDER-LAND.
BY
ELIHU BURRITT, M.A.
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
# Walkley v. City of Muscatine

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 481
Walkley v. City of Muscatine
APPEAL from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for Iowa.
A bill had been filed in that court to compel the authorities of the city of Muscatine to levy a tax upon the property of the inhabitants, for the purpose of paying the interest on certain bonds, to the amount of $130,000, that had been issued for the benefit of the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company. It appeared that a judgment had been recovered in the same court against the city for $7666, interest due on the bonds held by the plaintiff; that execution had been issued and returned unsatisfied, no property being found liable to execution; that the mayor and aldermen had been requested to levy a tax to pay the judgment, but had refused; that the city authorities possessed the power under their charter to impose a tax of one per cent. on the valuation of the property of the city, and had made a levy annually, but had appropriated the proceeds to other purposes, and wholly neglected to pay the interest on the bounds before the judgment, or to pay the judgment since it was rendered. The bill prayed that the mayor and aldermen might be decreed to levy a tax, and appropriate so much of the proceeds as might be sufficient to pay the judgment, interest, and costs. An answer was put in, and replication and proofs taken. On the hearing the court dismissed the bill. The creditor appealed.
Mr. J. Grant, for the appellant:
In The Board of Commissioners of Knox County v. Aspinwall, where the application was for a mandamus to compel the levy of a tax, this court, in answer to an argument that the creditor could have relief in equity alone, say:
'A court of equity is sometimes resorted to as ancillary to a court of law in obtaining satisfaction of its judgment. It is no objection to the writ of mandamus that the party might possibly obtain another remedy by new litigation in a new tribunal.'
The court holds, apparently, that a writ of mandamus is a cumulative remedy, and does not oust the court of equity of its jurisdiction.
Mr. W. F. Brannan, contra.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 24 Howard, 385.
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 Will He Do With It? (Belford)/Book 2/Chapter 12

CHAPTER XII.
Guy Darrell gives way to an impulse, and quickly decides what he will do with it.
"Lionel Haughton," said Guy Darrell, regaining his young cousin's side, and speaking in a firm and measured voice, "I have to thank you for one very happy minute; the sight of a heart so fresh in the limpid purity of goodness is a luxury you can not comprehend till you have come to my age; journeyed, like me, from Dan to Beersheba, and found all barren. Heed me; if you had been half a dozen years older, and this child for whom you plead had been a fair young woman, perhaps just as innocent, just as charming—more in peril—my benevolence would have lain as dormant as a stone. A young man's foolish sentiment for a pretty girl. As your true friend, I should have shrugged my shoulders, and said, 'Beware!' Had I been your father, I should have taken alarm, and frowned. I should have seen the sickly romance, which ends in dupes or deceivers. But at your age, you hearty, genial, and open-hearted boy—you caught but by the chivalrous compassion for helpless female childhood—oh, that you were my son—oh, that my dear father's blood were in those knightly veins! I had a son once. God took him;" the strong man's lips quivered—he hurried on. "I felt there was manhood in you when you wrote to fling my churlish favors in my teeth—when you would have left my roof-tree in a burst of passion which might be ​foolish, but was nobler than the wisdom of calculating submission—manhood, but only perhaps man's pride as man—man's heart not less cold than winter. To-day you have shown me something far better than pride; that nature which constitutes the heroic temperament is completed by two attributes—unflinching purpose, disinterested humanity. I know not yet if you have the first; you reveal to me the second. Yes! I accept the duties you propose to me; I will do more than leave to you the chance of discovering this poor child. I will direct my solicitor to take the right steps to do so. I will see that she is safe from the ills you fear for her, Lionel; more still, I am impatient till I write to Mrs. Haughton. I did her wrong. Remember, I have never seen her, I resented in her the cause of my quarrel with your father, who was once dear to me. Enough of that. I disliked the tone of her letters to me. I dislike it in the mother of a boy who had Darrell blood; other reasons too—let them pass. But in providing for your education, I certainly thought her relations provided for her support. She never asked me for help there; and, judging of her hastily, I thought she would not have scrupled to do so if my help there had not been forestalled. You have made me understand her better; and at all events, three-fourths of what we are in boyhood most of us owe to our mothers! You are frank, fearless, affectionate—a gentleman. I respect the mother who has such a son."
Certainly praise was rare upon Darrell's lips; but, when he did praise, he knew how to do it! And no man will ever command others who has not by nature that gift. It can not be learned. Art and experience can only refine its expression.
# Wilcox v. Jackson

United States Supreme Court
38 U.S. 498
Wilcox v. Jackson

## 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
# Wild-Goose Chase

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wild-Goose Chase."
* 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.
* The Wild Goose Chase, a play by John Fletcher (c. 1621)
* A Wild-Goose Chase, a play by H. Jameson, first performed in 1820
* A Wild-Goose Chase, a novel by Edwin Balmer, published in 1915
# Weed & Company v. Lockwood

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Weed & Company v. Lockwood."
* 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.
* 1920 • Weed & Company v. Lockwood (264 F. 453),
* 1921 • Weed & Company v. Lockwood (255 U.S. 104), ( 65 L.Ed. 532 ), ( 41 S.Ct. 305 )