OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Geraldine

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Geraldine."
* 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.
* Geraldine, a poem by Emily Brontë
* Geraldine, a poem by Letitia Elizabeth Landon
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Preface

Layout 2
PREFACE.
​In preparing this book such well-known authorities as Reed, Cushing, Robert, Shattuck, and other kindred works have been consulted. These authorities have been carefully studied and compared, and, where they seem to conflict, preference has been given to those rules which seem most applicable and helpful to such assemblies as are not legislative.
While simplicity has been his chief aim, the author has endeavored to give a complete outline of the subject in as few words as possible, by omitting nothing which should be said and saying nothing which might be omitted, and to arrange and explain each motion in so concise a manner that any person, whether informed or not upon parliamentary law, will, after a careful perusal of the pages, be competent to take an active part in the proceedings of any deliberative assembly, or be able to preside at a public meeting with the ease and dignity expected of a presiding officer.
By explaining the reason for the rule, and by giving proper forms for presenting ​questions to the assembly, the author hopes to give the student information which will enable him to understand the basic principles of parliamentary law. While giving forms for stating the question, putting to vote and declaring the result, the author does not assert that said form are the best, but that they are good forms, which may be varied at the will of the chairman.
That this handbook of present procedure may be to the student a friend in need, and as such receive a kindly welcome, is the desire of the author.
O. B. F.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Questions of Privilege

Layout 2
QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.
87. Questions of privilege are those affecting the rights and privileges of an assembly, or of its individual members. They are of two kinds—those affecting the whole assembly as a body, and those affecting an individual member, and rank in the order named—i. e., the questions affecting the rights, safety, dignity, or integrity of the assembly as a body take precedence of and should be acted upon before those affecting a member. All such questions take precedence of questions of order and of all other questions for the time being, or if the question of privilege is requiring immediate action it may even interrupt a member while speaking. While questions of privilege, questions of order and questions of consideration are not, properly speaking, motions, they take a high rank in every de​liberative assembly and may give rise to motions which may even supersede a motion to adjourn, or to fix the time to which to adjourn. The questions of privilege and the motions arising from them must first be acted upon.
When rising to a question of privilege the member should not wait for recognition by the chair before stating his object in rising.
88. The form is, “Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege.” The chairman will ask the member to state his question. After the member states the question it is the chairman's prerogative to decide whether it is properly a question of privilege or one that requires immediate action. This decision is subject to an appeal (124) to the assembly. If it is decided to be a question of privilege, it temporarily supersedes the question pending at the time, together with all subsidiary (93) and incidental (123) motions, and it must be disposed of, though not of necessity decided at once, as it may be postponed or have any ​subsidiary motion applied to it, but if the question is postponed, tabled or referred to a committee it loses its right of precedence. After the question of privilege have been disposed of the assembly resumes the business interrupted by the question and the member speaking at the time of interruption, if any, is entitled to the floor.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Require a Two-Thirds Vote

Layout 2
REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS VOTE.
77. To make a special order.
To take up out of order.
Suspension of the rules.
Objection to consideration (in the negative to suppress).
The previous question.
To amend the rules (usually requiring previous notice also).
To close or limit debate.
To close nominations.
Any question which has the effect of changing or suspending a rule of the society, or its established order of business.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Seconding a Motion

Layout 2
SECONDING A MOTION.
25. After a motion has been made it should have the support of another member (to assure the assembly it has more than one supporter, and is worthy of consideration), who rises in his place and without waiting for recognition says: “I second the motion.” There are many reasons why a member should rise in seconding a motion. Among these reasons may be mentioned that it bars a non-member ​from seconding a motion, and also where a record is kept of those who second as well as of as of those who make motions, it enable the secretary to see who seconds the motion.
26. In many assemblies too much importance is placed on the formality of seconding motions. This is contrary to the principle that every member has a right introduce any proper business and gave it acted upon by the assembly. Furthermore, if the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he has a right to second it, and if the motion is put without a second he is understood to second it. If, however, a formal second is insisted upon, the chair may inquire if the motion is seconded before stating it to the assembly, but it is not his duty to inquire if the motion is seconded. However, if a second is insisted upon, the motion is not before the assembly for consideration or debate until it has been seconded and stated to the assembly by the presiding officer. Until that time in relation to it, or debate it, or to ask the floor for ​either purpose. Until the presiding officer has stated it to the assembly, the member offering the motion may modify it, or, with the consent of the seconder, he may even withdraw it entirely. When the mover modifies his motion, the member who seconded it may withdraw his second. On the other hand, after it has been stated by the chair, the question is in the possession of the assembly to adopt, postpone, modify, reject or suppress according to its pleasure, and cannot be withdrawn except by unanimous consent of the assembly, or by a motion and vote granting leave to withdraw (37), nor can it be modified except by unanimous consent, or by the regular process of amendment (106). The proposition thus before the assembly is called the “main or principal question.”
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Privileged Motions

Layout 2
PRIVILEGED MOTIONS.
80. Privileged motions (sometimes called independent motions) are those which on account of the importance, and of the needs of the assembly as a deliber​ative body, or by reason of the necessity or urgency of their nature, are entitled to precedence over the main question (27) and over all subsidiary (93) and incidental (123) questions and are as follows in their order of precedence among themselves;
To fix the time (or place) to which to adjourn.
To adjourn.
Questions of privilege.
Orders of the day.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Proxy Voting

Layout 2
PROXY VOTING.
​Where proxy voting is allowed a proxy committee should be appointed a reasonable time before the voting begins, in order that this committee, after ascertaining who have given proxies, to whom given, extent of power conferred, etc., may prepare a list for the use of the secretary, and report to the assembly before the voting begins.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Quorum

Layout 2
QUORUM.
45. A quorum is that number of the members of a society necessary to transact business legally, and in the absence of a rule adopted by the organization, or fixed by law, consists of a majority of the members. The society may (unless it is an assembly whose quorum is fixed by law) adopt any number, even a small part of its membership. In many societies having a large membership, a majority of the members is seldom, if ever, present: therefore, in such societies a rule requiring that a majority must be present to constitute a quorum would be decidedly unwise. For this reason, every society should adopt a rule fixing the quorum.
The quorum of a committee, however, is a majority of the committee, unless the superior body has otherwise directed. In a ​temporary meeting the question of quorum does not arise, since those present constitute the competent number.
In ascertaining if a quorum is present, it is not necessary that all vote or had voted on a question. The fact that a sufficient number is present renders the assembly competent to transact business, as those who refrain from voting are regarded as consenting to the result.
46. The chair or any member may raise the question of quorum. When it is raised the chair should count the members, to ascertain if a quorum is present. Members present, but not voting, count in determining a quorum; but in nothing else. If a quorum is present, business proceeds as before. If the number is less than the required quorum, the assembly adjourned. If, however, no time or place has been fixed for the next meeting, those present (even if there be less than a quorum) may, by reason of the necessity and urgency of the ​case, fix the time or place for the next meeting to adjourn to that time or place. Otherwise, the assembly might be dissolved by less than a quorum. Business transacted without a quorum is legal until the question of quorum is raised.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Reading of Papers

Layout 2
READING OF PAPERS.
134. Every member of an assembly has a right to hear a paper once read before a final vote on it. There should, however, be a reasonable limit to the number of times the request may be made, because the delay which would naturally ensue from reading every paper that might be called for might consume the principal part of the session, leaving but little time for action.
Whenever any member asks for the reading of a paper which is then under consideration, and it is evident that the request is made for the purpose of gaining information and not for the sake of delay, the chairman should direct that the paper be read.
The reading of any paper upon which a final vote is not being taken is not in order, if anyone objects.
If there is an objection, leave may be obtained of the assembly for its reading by ​a motion and vote for that purpose; but this motion cannot be debated or amended.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Renewal of a Motion

Layout 2
RENEWAL OF A MOTION.
38. Sometimes it is found advisable to renew a motion, resolution, or amendment, which has been withdrawn to make room for other business, to prevent defeat, or for other reasons.
A question that has been acted upon and either adopted or rejected, cannot be renewed at that session except by a motion to reconsider (135).
​A motion to adjourn may be renewed if business or debate has been intervened. A motion to suspend the rules (130) cannot be renewed at the same meeting for the same purpose; but it may be renewed at the next meeting, although the meeting be held on the same day.
After any business has been introduced that alters the state of affairs, it is in order to renew any defeated motion, since by reason of the altered state of affairs the question before the assembly is a different one; but, in such cases, it is not in order to call for the orders of the day again, or to offer the same amendment a second time, or to move a suspension of the rules (130) for the same purpose, because in these cases the questions involved remain the same.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Grimm's Household Tales (Edwardes)/The Changeling

The Changeling.
A mother once had her child stolen from her by the elves. They took it out of the cradle and placed in its stead a changeling with a large head and staring eyes, that would do nothing but eat and drink. In her distress, she went to one of her neighbours and asked her advice. The neighbour told her to carry the changeling into the kitchen and seat it on the hearth, then to light a fire and boil some water in two egg-shells. That, she said, would make the changeling laugh, and if he once laughed, it would be all over with him. The mother went back and followed out all these directions. As she put the egg-shells with water in them on the fire, the little gnome-child said—
"I am old as the woods, But from ages of yore, I never saw shells Used for boiling before."
and with that he began to laugh. While he was laughing a company of elves came crowding into the kitchen, bringing with them the woman's own child, which they laid down on the hearth. Then they took up the changeling and disappeared with him.
# Hall v. United States (92 U.S. 27)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 27
Hall v. United States
APPEALS from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. C. F. Peck, for the appellant Hall, cited Williamson v. Daniel, 12 Wheat. 568; Menard v. Aspasia, 5 Pet. 513; McCutchen v. Marshall, 8 id. 220; Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. 375; 1 Pars. on Contr. 329; Butler v. Craig, 2 H. & McH. 216, 236; Rawlings v. Boston, 3 id. 139; Hudgins v. Wright, 1 Hen. & Munf. 134; Pallas et al. v. Hill et al., 2 id. 149; Gregory v. Bough, 2 Leigh, 686; Leiper v. Hoffman et al., 26 Miss. 623; Pepoon v. Clarke, 1 Const. Ct. Rep. (S.C..) 137; Matilda v. Crenshaw, 4 Yerg. 299; Herod et al. v. Davis, 43 Miss. 102; Morgan v. Nelson, 43 Ala. 587.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Edwin B. Smith for the United States.
Mr. T. H. N. McPherson for the appellee Roach.
Hall, being a slave, was not entitled to political or civil rights while subject to his condition of servitude. Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. 326; Lenoir v. Sylvester, 1 Bail. (S.C..) 633; Catche v. The Circuit Court, 1 Miss. 608; Vincent v. Duncan, 2 id. 214; Hall v. Mullin, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 190; The State v. Hart, 4 Ired. (N. C.) 256; Gist v. Coby, 2 Rich. (S.C..) 244; Jenkins v. Brown, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 299. His acquisitions belonged to his master. 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 397; 2 Hill, Ch. (S.C..) 397; 1 Bail. (S.C..) 633; 2 Rich. (S.C..) 424; 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 299; 2 Ala. 320; 5 B. Monr. (Ky.) 186.
He had not the ability to contract or be contracted with (Hall v. Mullin, 5 Har. & J. 190; Gregg v. Thompson, 2 Const. Ct. Rep. (S.C..) 331; Jenkins v. Brown, 6 Humph. 299, 5 Cow. 397; Emerson v. Howland et al., 1 Mas. 45; Bland and Others v. Dowling, 9 Gill & J. 27), and could, therefore, make no binding contract with his master. 11 B. Monr. 239; 9 Gill & J. 19; 3 Bos. & P. 69; 8 Mart. 161.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
46 U.S. 96
Hall v. Smith

## 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
# Hall v. United States (168 U.S. 632)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
168 U.S. 632
Hall v. United States
Arthur C. Butts, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Boyd, for the United States.
Mr. Justice PECKHAM 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
# Hall v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hall v. United States."
* 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.
* Hall v. United States (91 U.S. 559)
* Hall v. United States (92 U.S. 27)
* Hall v. United States (150 U.S. 76)
* Hall v. United States (168 U.S. 632)
* Hall v. United States (566 U.S. 506)
See also United States v. Hall.
# Hall v. United States (91 U.S. 559)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 559
Hall v. United States
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.
Argued by Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Edwin B. Smith for defendants, and submitted on printed arguments by H. J. Horn for plaintiffs.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD 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
# Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Association Inc/Dissent Stevens

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Stevens
Justice STEVENS, dissenting.
In my opinion appellants' concession is a reason for affirming, rather than vacating, the judgment of the District Court insofar as it enjoins the Postmaster General from enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 1302 as applied to prize lists. I therefore respectfully dissent.

## 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
# Frank v. United States/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 147
Ben H. FRANK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
Argued: Dec. 12, 1968. --- Decided: May 19, 1969
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.
I cannot say what is and what is not a 'petty crime.' I certainly believe, however, that where punishment of as much as six months can be imposed, I could not classify the offense as 'petty' if that means that people tried for it are to be tried as if we had no Bill of Rights. Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution provides that:
'The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury * * *.'
'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury * * *.'
Neither of these provisions gives any support for holding that a defendant charged with a crime is not entitled to a jury trial merely because a court thinks the crime is a 'petty' one. I do not deny that there might possibly be some offenses charged for which the punishment is so minuscule that it might be thought of as petty. But to my way of thinking, when a man is charged by a governmental unit with conduct for which the Government can impose a penalty of imprisonment for any amount of time, I doubt if I could ever hold it petty. (See my dissent in Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 223, 88 S.Ct. 1472, 1476, 20 L.Ed.2d 538.) Nor do I take any stock in the idea that by naming an offense for which a man can be imprisoned a 'contempt,' he is any the less charged with a crime. See Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 193, 78 S.Ct. 632, 648, 2 L.Ed.2d 672 (dissenting opinion), and United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 724, 84 S.Ct. 984, 1007, 12 L.Ed.2d 23 (dissenting opinion). Those who commit offenses against courts should be no less entitled to the Bill of Rights than those who commit offenses against the public in general.
For these reasons I dissent from the Court's holding that the petitioner in this case is not netitled to a trial by jury.

## 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
# Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Association Inc

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stevens
United States Supreme Court
490 U.S. 225
Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Association Inc
No. 87-1956
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Paul A. Magnuson, Judge.
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
# Frank v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 147
Ben H. FRANK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
Argued: Dec. 12, 1968. --- Decided: May 19, 1969
See 90 S.Ct. 34.
John B. Ogden, Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioner.
Peter L. Strauss for respondent.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL 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