OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Bound to Rise
### Contents

* Chapter I
* Chapter II: A Calamity
* Chapter III: Hiram's Motto
* Chapter IV: A Sum in Arithmetic
* Chapter V: The Prize Winner
* Chapter VI: Looking out on the World
* Chapter VII: In Franklin's Footsteps
* Chapter VIII: Harry's Decision
* Chapter IX: Leaving Home
* Chapter X: The General
* Chapter XI: In Search of Work
* Chapter XII: The New Boarder
* Chapter XIII: An Invitation Declined
* Chapter XIV: The Tailor's Customer
* Chapter XV: "By Express"
* Chapter XVI: Asking a Favor
* Chapter XVII: The Night Scholars
* Chapter XVIII: Lost, or Stolen
* Chapter XIX: An Unwelcome Visitor
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI: In the Tailor's Power
* Chapter XXII: The Coming of the Magician
* Chapter XXIII: The Ventriloquist
* Chapter XXIV: Harry's Letter
* Chapter XXV: A Strange Companion
* Chapter XXVI: Pages from the Past
* Chapter XXVII: A Mystifying Performance
* Chapter XXVIII: An Unexpected Payment
* Chapter XXIX: In the Printing Office
* Chapter XXX: The Young Treasurer
* Chapter XXXI
* Chapter XXXII: The Good Samaritan
* Chapter XXXIII: The Reward of Fidelity
* Chapter XXXIV: In Difficulty
* Chapter XXXV: Settled
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
# Boumediene v. Bush/DO1
### I.

Where a court has no jurisdiction it is powerless to act. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-74 (1803). But a statute enacted by Congress purporting to deprive a court of jurisdiction binds that court only when Congress acts pursuant to the powers it derives from the Constitution. The court today concludes that the Suspension Clause is an individual right that cannot be invoked by the detainees. See Op. at 22. The text of the Suspension Clause and the structure of the Constitution belie this conclusion. The court further concludes that the detainees would have had no access to the writ of habeas corpus at common law. See Op. at 14-17. The historical record and the guidance of the Supreme Court disprove this conclusion.
In this Part, I address the nature of the Suspension Clause, the retroactive effect of Congress’s recent enactment on habeas corpus — the MCA — and conclude with an assessment of the effect of the MCA in light of the dictates of the Constitution.
# Boumediene v. Bush/Dissenting Opinion
## Dissenting Opinion

Rogers, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I can join neither the reasoning of the court nor its conclusion that the federal courts lack power to consider the detainees’ petitions. While I agree that Congress intended to withdraw federal jurisdiction through the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (“MCA”), the court’s holding that the MCA is consistent with the Suspension Clause of Article I, section 9, of the Constitution does not withstand analysis. By concluding that this court must reject “the detainees’ claims to constitutional rights,” Op. at 21, the court fundamentally misconstrues the nature of suspension: Far from conferring an individual right that might pertain only to persons substantially connected to the United States, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990), the Suspension Clause is a limitation on the powers of Congress. Consequently, it is only by misreading the historical record and ignoring the Supreme Court’s well-considered and binding dictum in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 481-82 (2004), that the writ at common law would have extended to the detainees, that the court can conclude that neither this court nor the district courts have jurisdiction to consider the detainees’ habeas claims.
A review of the text and operation of the Suspension Clause shows that, by nature, it operates to constrain the powers of Congress. Prior to the enactment of the MCA, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the detainees held at Guantanamo had a statutory right to habeas corpus. Rasul, 542 U.S. at 483-84. The MCA purports to withdraw that right but does so in a manner that offends the constitutional constraint on suspension. The Suspension Clause limits the removal of habeas corpus, at least as the writ was understood at common law, to times of rebellion or invasion unless Congress provides an adequate alternative remedy. The writ would have reached the detainees at common law, and Congress has neither provided an adequate alternative remedy, through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-148, Div. A, tit. X, 119 Stat. 2680, 2739 (“DTA”), nor invoked the exception to the Clause by making the required findings to suspend the writ. The MCA is therefore void and does not deprive this court or the district courts of jurisdiction.
On the merits of the detainees’ appeal in Khalid v. Bush, 355 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D.D.C. 2005) and the cross-appeals in In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005), I would affirm in part in Guantanamo Detainee Cases and reverse in Khalid and remand the cases to the district courts.
# Boumediene v. Bush/Panel Information
## Panel Information

Before: Sentelle, Randolph and Rogers, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Rogers.
# Buddenbrooks/Volume 2/Part 7

PART SEVEN
# Author of Life Divine

Author of life divine, Who hast a table spread, Furnished with mystic wine And everlasting bread, Preserve the life Thyself hast given, And feed and train us up for Heav’n.
Our needy souls sustain With fresh supplies of love, Till all Thy life we gain, And all Thy fullness prove, And, strengthened by Thy perfect grace, Behold without a veil Thy face.
# Authority for Mandate Delay Act (H.R. 2667; 113th Congress)

* related portals: United States Congress.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
H.R. 2667 as introduced
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2667
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 11, 2013
Mr. Griffin of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. Young of Indiana, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mrs. Black, Mr. Camp, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Renacci, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Schock, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Paulsen, and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.

# Section 1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the “Authority for Mandate Delay Act”.

# Sec. 2. Delay in application of employer health insurance mandate
## (a) In general–

Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking “December 31, 2013” and inserting “December 31, 2014”.

## (b) Reporting requirements–
### (1) Reporting by employers–

Section 1514(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking “December 31, 2013” and inserting “December 31, 2014”.

### (2) Reporting by insurance providers–

Section 1502(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking “2013” and inserting “2014”.

## (c) Effective date–

The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they relate.
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
# Author of Our Salvation, Thee

Author of our salvation, thee,
With lowly, thankful hearts, we praise;
Author of this great mystery,
Figure and means of saving grace.
The sacred, true, effectual sign,
Thy body and thy blood it shows;
The glorious instrument divine,
Thy mercy and thy strength bestows.
We see the blood that seals our peace;
Thy pardoning mercy we receive;
The bread doth visibly express
The strength through which our spirits live.
Our spirits drink a fresh supply,
And eat the bread so freely given,
Till, borne on eagle wings, we fly,
And banquet with our Lord in heaven.
# Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha. (S.Con.Res 10; 113th Congress)

* related portals: United States Congress.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
S.Con.Res. 10 as introduced
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. CON. RES. 10
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 22, 2013
Ms. Hirono (for herself and Mr. Schatz) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration
{CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha.

# Section 1. Use of Emancipation Hall for Event to Celebrate Birthday of King Kamehameha

    (a) Authorization– Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an event on June 9, 2013, to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha.
    (b) Preparations– Physical preparations for the conduct of the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.
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
# Author of Faith, to Thee I Cry

Author of faith, to thee I cry, To thee, who wouldst not have me die, But know the truth and live; Open mine eyes to see thy face, Work in my heart the saving grace, The life eternal give.
Shut up in unbelief I groan, And blindly serve a God unknown, Till thou the veil remove; The gift unspeakable impart, And write thy name upon my heart, And manifest thy love.
I know the work is only thine, The gift of faith is all divine; But, if on thee we call, Thou wilt the benefit bestow, And give us hearts to feel and know That thou hast died for all.
Thou bidd'st us knock and enter in, Come unto thee, and rest from sin, The blessing seek and find; Thou bidd'st us ask thy grace, and have; Thou canst, thou wouldst, this moment save Both me and all mankind.
Be it according to thy word! Now let me find my pardoning Lord, Let what I ask be given; The bar of unbelief remove, Open the door of faith and love, And take me into heaven.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tangēdu

​Tangēdu.— Tangēdu or Tangēdla {Cassia auriculata) has been recorded as an exogamous sept of Kāpu and Padma Sāle. The bark of this shrub is one of the most valuable Indian tanning agents, and is, like myrabolams {Terminalia fruits), used in the manufacture of indigenous dyes.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tartharol

​Tartharol.— The name, recorded by Dr. W. H. R. Rivers, of a division of the Todas. Tartal is also given by various writers as a division of this tribe.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tambān

​Tambān. — One of the divisions of Kshatriyas in Travancore. (See Tirumalpād.)
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tattān

​Tattān.— The goldsmith section of the Tamil and Malayalam Kammalans.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tangalān

​Tangalān.— A sub-division of Paraiyan. The word indicates one who may not stand near, in reference to their belonging to the polluting classes.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tantuvāyan

​Tantuvāyan (thread - wearer). — An occupational name used by various weaving castes.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tapodhanlu

​Tapodhanlu. — The name, meaning those who believe in self-mortification as wealth, adopted by some Telugu mendicants.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tarwād

​Tarwād.— Defined by Mr. Wigram as a marumakkathāyam family, consisting of all the descendants in the female line of one common female ancestor.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tanda

​Tanda.— The word literally refers to a settlement or encampment of the Lambadis, by some of whom it is, at times of census, returned as a tribal synonym.
# Bonnaffe Company v. Williams/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 574
Bonnaffe Company v. Williams
This is a writ of error from the southern district of Mississippi.
The plaintiffs brought their action on four promissory notes, payable at different times, for different sums, and bearing different dates, except two, which were dated the 23d January, 1839. In each of the notes the defendants promised, or either of them, to pay to Cowles Meade, or bearer, for the use of the Real Estate Banking Company of Hinds county, at their banking house in Clinton, the sum named, without defalcation, for value received.
The defendants demurred to the declaration, and assigned the following causes of demurrer:
1. 'The plaintiffs cannot maintain the action, because, by their own showing, the defendants who are sued are also a part of the persons for whose use the suit is commenced.'
2. 'The court can have no jurisdiction of this case, because, although it is true, the nominal plaintiffs are the bearers of the paper sued on, and citizens of a state other than Mississippi, yet, those for whose benefit suit is brought, for any thing which appears in the declaration, are citizens of the state of Mississippi.'
The notes in question passed by delivery, and the plaintiffs, as bearers, have a right to sue in their own names, as the promise to pay is made to bearer. The plaintiffs allege that they are citizens of New York, and, consequently, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the case. Where the citizenship of the parties give jurisdiction, and the legal right to sue is in the plaintiff, the court will not inquire into the residence of those who may have an equitable interest in the claim. They are not necessary parties on the record. A person having the legal right may sue, at law, in the federal courts, without reference to the citizenship of those who may have the equitable interest. Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Pet., 298. The judgment of the Circuit Court, which sustained the demurrer, is reversed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

## 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
# Bonin v. Gulf Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
198 U.S. 115
Bonin v. Gulf Company
Argued: and submitted March 16, 1905. --- Decided: April 24, 1905
Messrs. Branch K. Miller and David Todd for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Edgar H. Farrar, B. F. Jonas, and E. B. Kruttschnitt for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller 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
# Bonner v. City of Indianapolis Durham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 350
Bonner v. City of Indianapolis Durham
William C. Erbecker, for appellants.
Patrick J. Smith, for appellee.
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
# Bonin v. California/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Marshall
Denied.
Justice MARSHALL, with whom Justice BRENNAN joins, 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
# Bonner v. City of Indianapolis Durham/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 350
Bonner v. City of Indianapolis Durham
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeals are dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeals were taken as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

## 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
# Budget Law of the People's Republic of China

* Budget Law of the People's Republic of China (1994)
* Budget Law of the People's Republic of China (2014)
* Budget Law of the People's Republic of China (2018)
# Campbell v. O'Neill/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 767
Campbell v. O'Neill
No opinion. Docketed and dismissed, with costs, on motion of A. G. Riddle, for defendants in error.

## 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
# Campbell v. Porter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 478
Campbell v. Porter
This was a petition by the executors of the will of the late Admiral David D. Porter, who died February 13, 1891, to the special term of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, sitting as an orphans' court, for the admission to probate of his will, and of a codicil thereto.
Upon citation to the next of kin, Elena Porter, a daughter of the testator (having become, by marriage, Elena Campbell) appeared, and demanded full proof of the execution of the will and codicil.
The will and the codicil each bore the signature of the testator, and those of the same three persons as witnesses. At the hearing in special term, it was shown by the examination of the witnesses that the will was duly executed by the testator, and attested by all three witnesses, and that the codicil was signed by the testator, and attested by two of the witnesses; and the only controverted question was whether the testator did or did not make or acknowledge his signature to the codicil in the presence of the third witness.
Upon the whole evidence (which was set forth in the record, but is unnecessary to the understanding of the points decided by this court), the judge holding the special term ordered the will to be admitted to probate as to both real and personal property, and the codicil to be admitted to probate in respect of personal property, and certified to the general term, for hearing in the first instance, the question of the sufficiency of the codicil to devise or dispose of real estate.
At the hearing in general term it was ordered and adjudged, for reasons stated in the opinion reported in 9 Mackey, 493, that the codicil was duly executed by the testator, and subscribed and attested by three witnesses, as required by law, and should be admitted to probate as a devise of real estate. A bill of exceptions to this ruling and order was tendered by Mrs. Campbell, and allowed by the court, which certified that the value of the real estate devised to her in the codicil was less than that devised to her in the will by more than the sum of $5,000,-a sufficient amount to sustain the appellate jurisdiction of this court, under the act of March 3, 1885, c. 355 (23 Stat. 443). And Mrs. Campbell on June 22, 1892, sued out this writ of error.
Walter D. Davidge, for plaintiff in error.
Chapin Brown, for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages479-481 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, 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
# Campbell v. O'Neill

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 767
Campbell v. O'Neill

## 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
# Campbell v. Rankin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 261
Campbell v. Rankin
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. J. Hubley Ashton and Mr. Nathaniel Wilson for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Richard T. Merrick, contra.
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
# Campbell v. Read

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
69 U.S. 198
Campbell v. Read

## 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
# Campbell v. Pratt

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
18 U.S. 429
Campbell v. Pratt
March 13th.
THIS cause was argued by Mr. Key, for the appellant, and by Mr. Jones, for the respondents.
Mr. Justice JOHNSON 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
# Biographies of Scientific Men/Index

INDEX
| Lavoisier | Frontispiece page |
| Death Warrant of Lavoisier | 13 |
| Baron Cuvier | 18 |
| Cavendish and Cavendish House | 30 |
| Priestley and His Statue | 44 |
| Linnæus | 62 |
| Sir Richard Owen and Sheen Lodge | 75 |
| Liebig and the Giessen Laboratory in 1840 | 91 |
| Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. | 104 |
| Dalton and His Tomb | 114 |
| Mendeléeff | 126 |
| Count Buffon | 137 |
| Berthelot | 146 |
| Sir Humphry Davy, Bart. | 163 |
| Gay-Lussac | 175 |
| Lord Kelvin | 185 |
PRINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD. EDINBURGH.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tolar

​Tolar (Wolf). — An exogamous sept of Halēpaik. The equivalent Tolana occurs as a sept of Mogēr.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tondamandalam

​Tondamandalam.— The name of a sub-division of Vellāla, derived from Tondanādu, the ancient Pallava country.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tiyōro

​Tiyōro. — The Tiyōros are described, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, as "Oriya fishermen, who also make lotus-leaf platters. They have four endogamous sections, viz., Torai, Ghodai, Artia, and Kulodondia." It has been suggested that the caste name is a corruption of the Sanskrit tivara, a hunter. (See Risley, Tribes and Castes of Bengal, Tiyar.)
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tollakkādan

​Tollakkādan (one with a big hole in the lobes of his ears). — Taken, at the census, 1901, as a sub-caste of Shānān, as those returning the name, who are vendors of husked rice in Madras, used the Shānān title Nādān. The equivalent Tollakādu was returned as a sub-division of Konga Vellāla.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tohala

​Tohala.— Recorded, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, as a small class of Oriya hill cultivators and petty traders in the Ganjam Agency.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Tolagari

​Tolagari.— Recorded, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, as a sub-caste of Mutrācha. In the North Arcot Manual the Tolagaris are described as a small ​cultivating caste, who were formerly hunters, like the Pālayakkārans.