OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Welch v. Obispo Oil Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
301 U.S. 190
Welch v. Obispo Oil Company
Argued: March 10, 11, 1937. --- Decided: April 26, 1937
The Attorney General and Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Joseph D. Peeler, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Welch v. Swasey

Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the statutes of Massachusetts, chap. 333 of the Acts of 1904, and chap. 383 of the Acts of 1905, limit the height of buildings in a certain quarter of a city, do not violate the Constitution of the United States. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
214 U.S. 91
Welch v. Swasey
Argued: April 15, 16, 1909. --- Decided: May 17, 1909
The plaintiff in error duly applied to the justices of the supreme judicial court of the state of Massachusetts for a mandamus against the defendants, who constitute a board of appeal from the building commissioner of the city of Boston, to compel the defendants to issue a permit to him to build on his lot on the corner of Arlington and Marlborough streets, in that city. The application was referred by the justice presiding to the full court, and was by it denied (193 Mass. 364, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523, 79 N. E. 745), and the plaintiff has brought the case here by writ of 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
# United States v. Fruit Growers' Express Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 363
United States v. Fruit Growers' Express Company
Argued: Dec. 3, 1928. --- Decided: May 13, 1929
The Attorney General and Mr. Wm. J. Donovan, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 363-365 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Wm. S. Dalzell, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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. Fruehauf/Dissent Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Stewart
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 146
United States v. Fruehauf
Argued: Jan. 11, 1961. --- Decided: Feb 20, 1961
Mr. Justice STEWART, dissenting.
The dismissal of the indictment in this case was placed squarely upon the district court's construction of a criminal statute. Specifically, the court ruled that a loan of money did not fall within the prohibition of § 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (before its amendment in 1959). In bringing the appeal directly here, the Government eliminated from the case any possible questions other than the correctness of the district court's construction of the underlying statute-to which this Court's jurisdiction is limited under the Criminal Appeals Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731. United States v. Keitel, 211 U.S. 370, 397-398, 29 S.Ct. 123, 131, 53 L.Ed. 230; United States v. Patten, 226 U.S. 525, 535, 540, 33 S.Ct. 141, 142, 57 L.Ed. 333; United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 301, 306, 39 S.Ct. 465, 466, 63 L.Ed. 992; United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 192-194, 60 S.Ct. 182, 185, 84 L.Ed. 181. '(I)n reviewing a direct appeal from a District Court under the Criminal Appeals Act, supra, our review is limited to the validity or construction of the contested statute. For 'The Government's appeal does not open the whole case." United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 5, 67 S.Ct. 1538, 1541, 91 L.Ed. 1877.
I think the issue whether a loan of money came within the proscriptions of the statute is before us now and should be decided. I further think this is the only issue properly before us. However, since the Court thinks otherwise, I am persuaded that an expression of my views on the subject would not be appropriate.

## 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. Fruehauf

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 146
United States v. Fruehauf
Argued: Jan. 11, 1961. --- Decided: Feb 20, 1961
See 365 U.S. 875, 81 S.Ct. 899.
Mr. S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Louis Nizer, New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Where Animals Talk; West African Folk Lore Tales

Boston: Richard G. Badger, page 1
WHERE ANIMALS TALK
West African Folk Lore Tales
By
ROBERT H. NASSAU
Author of "Fetichism in West Africa," "The Youngest King," etc.
RICHARD G. BADGER
THE GORHAM PRESS
BOSTON
CONTENTS
Part First
Mpongwe Tribe
| TALE | PAGE |
Part Second
Benga Tribe
Part Third
Fang Tribe
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
# Who's Who in the Far East/HONDA, Yoichi

Layout 2
​ HONDA, Yoichi (TOKYO), President of Tokyo Aoyama Gakuin (Christian College); b., Hirosaki, Dec., 1848. ​A leading educationalist and Christian evangelist; visited Europe and America several times to attend International Christian Association Conferences as representative of Japan; attended the World's Y.M.C.A. Union, held in France, 1904. Address: Tokyo. Japan.
# Who's Who in the Far East/HOARE, Rt. Rev. Joseph Charles

Layout 2
​ HOARE, Rt. Rev. Joseph Charles (HONGKONG), D.D. Bishop of Victoria; b. Nov. 15, 1851, at Ramsgate, 4th s. of Rev. E. Hoare, Hon. Canon of Canterbury; m. 1st, Alice Juliana, d. of Canon Patteson; 2nd Ellen T. Gough, 1886. Educ.: Tonbridge School; Trinity College, Cambridge Scholar; second class classical tripos, 1874. Curate of Holy Trinity Church, Tunbridge Wells, 1874-1875; Principal of C.M.S. Training College, Ningpo, China, 1876-1898; consecrated Bishop 1898. Publications: Several Theological books, and commentaries in Chinese. Address: St. Paul's College, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/HOKKAIDO, Bishop of

Layout 2
​ HOKKAIDO, Bishop of (see: FYSON, RT. REV. PHILIP KKMBALL).
# Who's Who in the Far East/HIROMI, Jisaburo

Layout 2
​ HIROMI, Jisaburo (OSAKA), Member of House of Peers; Merchant; b. Kaga, Nov., 1854. Established Japan Marine Insurance Co. and was appointed its President; elected to present post for Osaka prefecture; a prominent merchant of Osaka and one of the largest shipowners in Japan. Address: Osaka, Japan.
# Who's Who in the Far East/HOLMES, Ernest Hamilton

Layout 2
​ HOLMES, Ernest Hamilton (PEKING), 1st class Assistant, H.B.M. Consular Service. Appointed Student Interpreter in Japan, Feb. 1, 1897; acting Consul at Nagasaki, 1902 to 1903; promoted 1st Assistant, Dec. 22, 1904; attached to Legation, Seoul, 1905. Address: H.B.M. Legation, Peking, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/HOLDEN, George

Layout 2
​ HOLDEN, George (SINGAPORE), Assistant Superintendent of Works; b. Sept. 25, 1877. Appointed and assumed duties in Province Wellesley, June, 1901. Address: Singapore, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/HOLLIDAY, Cecil W.

Layout 2
​ HOLLIDAY, Cecil W. (SHANGHAI), Merchant, senior partner of firm of Holliday, Wise and Co.; Chairman of Municipal Council; turned first sod of new electric tramway, Shanghai, April 24, 1906. Club: Shanghai. Address: Kiangse Road, Shanghai, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/HOLLINGSWORTH, Arnold Hackney

Layout 2
​ HOLLINGSWORTH, Arnold Hackney (HONGKONG), A.M.I.C.E.; Executive Engineer, Public Works Department; b. Aug. 20, 1871. Arrived in Colony, 1897; appointed to present position, Jan. 1, 1900. Club: Hongkong. Address: Public Works Department, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/HOBART-HAMPDEN

Layout 2
​ HOBART-HAMPDEN (see: HAMPDKX, ERNEST MILES HOBAUT-).
# Who's Who in the Far East/HOBSON, Samuel George

Layout 2
​ HOBSON, Samuel George (PAHANG), Assistant -Superintendent, Posts and Telegraphs; b. Dec. 11, 1872. Assistant Superintendent of Post and Telegraphs, Selangor, July, 1902; acting Superintendent of Post and Telegraphs, Selangor, May, 1904; assistant Supsrinten -dent of Post and Telegraphs, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, and Pahang, 1905. Address: Pahang, Federated Malay States.
# Wessex Poems and Other Verses/She, to Him, III

SHE, TO HIM
iii
I WILL be faithful to thee; aye, I will! And Death shall choose me with a wondering eye That he did not discern and domicile One his by right ever since that last Goodbye!
I have no care for friends, or kin, or prime Of manhood who deal gently with me here: Amid the happy people of my time Who work their love's fulfilment, I appear
Numb as a vane that cankers on its point, True to the wind that kissed ere canker came; Despised by souls of Now, who would disjoint The mind from memory, and make Life all aim,
My old dexterities of hue quite gone, And nothing left for Love to look upon.
1866.
# Wessex Poems and Other Verses/She, to Him, IV

SHE, TO HIM
iv
THIS love puts all humanity from me: I can but maledict her, pray her dead, For giving love and getting love of thee— Feeding a heart that else mine own had fed!
How much I love I know not, life not known, Save as some unit I would add love by; But this I know, my being is but thine own— Fused from its separateness by ecstasy,
And thus I grasp thy amplitudes, of her Ungrasped, though helped by nigh-regarding eyes; Canst thou then hate me as an envier Who see unrecked what I so dearly prize? Believe me, Lost One, Love is lovelier The more it shapes its moan in selfish-wise.
1866.
# Wessex Poems and Other Verses/She

SHE
at his funeral
THEY bear him to his resting-place— In slow procession sweeping by; I follow at a stranger's space; His kindred they, his sweetheart I. Unchanged my gown of garish dye, Though sable-sad is their attire: But they stand round with griefless eye, Whilst my regret consumes like fire!
# Wessex Poems and Other Verses/She, to Him, I

SHE, TO HIM
i
WHEN you shall see me lined by tool of Time, My lauded beauties carried off from me, My eyes no longer stars as in their prime, My name forgot of Maiden Fair and Free;
When in your being heart concedes to mind, And judgment, though you scarce its process know, Recalls the excellencies I once enshrined, And you are irked that they have withered so:
Remembering that with me lies not the blame, That Sportsman Time but rears his brood to kill, Knowing me in my soul the very same— One who would die to spare you touch of ill!— Will you not grant to old affection's claim The hand of friendship down Life's sunless hill?
1866.
# Wessex Poems and Other Verses/The Burghers

THE BURGHERS
(17—)
THE sun had wheeled from Grey's to Dammer's Crest, And still I mused on that Thing imminent: At length I sought the High-street to the West.
The level flare raked pane and pediment And my wrecked face, and shaped my nearing friend Like one of those the Furnace held unshent.
"I've news concerning her," he said. "Attend. They fly to-night at the late moon's first gleam: Watch with thy steel: two righteous thrusts will end
"Her shameless visions and his passioned dream. I'll watch with thee, to testify thy wrong— To aid, maybe—Law consecrates the scheme."
I started, and we paced the flags along Till I replied: "Since it has come to this I'll do it! But alone. I can be strong."
Three hours past Curfew, when the Froom's mild hiss Reigned sole, undulled by whirr of merchandise, From Pummery-Tout to where the Gibbet is,
I crossed my pleasaunce hard by Glyd'path Rise, And stood beneath the wall. Eleven strokes went, And to the door they came, contrariwise,
And met in clasp so close I had but bent My lifted blade upon them to have let Their two souls loose upon the firmament.
But something held my arm. “A moment yet As pray-time ere you wantons die!" I said; And then they saw me. Swift her gaze was set
With eye and cry of love illimited Upon her Heart-king. Never upon me Had she thrown look of love so thoroughsped! . . .
At once she flung her faint form shieldingly On his, against the vengeance of my vows; The which o'erruling, her shape shielded he.
Blanked by such love, I stood as in a drowse, And the slow moon edged from the upland nigh, My sad thoughts moving thuswise: "I may house
"And I may husband her, yet what am I But licensed tyrant to this bonded pair? Says Charity, Do as ye would be done by." . . .
Hurling my iron to the bushes there, I bade them stay. And, as if brain and breast Were passive, they walked with me to the stair.
Inside the house none watched; and on we prest Before a mirror, in whose gleam I read Her beauty, his,—and mine own mien unblest;
Till at her room I turned. "Madam," I said, "Have you the wherewithal for this? Pray speak Love fills no cupboard. You'll need daily bread."
"We've nothing, sire," said she, “and nothing seek, 'Twere base in me to rob my lord unware; Our hands will earn a pittance week by week."
And next I saw she'd piled her raiment rare Within the garde-robes, and her household purse, Her jewels, and least lace of personal wear;
And stood in homespun. Now grown wholly hers, I handed her the gold, her jewels all, And him the choicest of her robes diverse.
"I'll take you to the doorway in the wall, And then adieu," I to them. "Friends, withdraw." They did so; and she went—beyond recall.
And as I paused beneath the arch I saw Their moonlit figures—slow, as in surprise— Descend the slope, and vanish on the haw.
"'Fool,' some will say," I thought. "But who is wise, Save God alone, to weigh my reasons why?" —"Hast thou struck home?" came with the boughs' night-sighs.
It was my friend. “I have struck well. They fly, But carry wounds that none can cicatrize." —"Not mortal?" said he. "Lingering—worse," said I.
# Wessex Poems and Other Verses/She, to Him, II

SHE, TO HIM
ii
PERHAPS, long hence, when I have passed away, Some other's feature, accent, thought like mine. Will carry you back to what I used to say, And bring some memory of your love's decline.
Then you may pause awhile and think, "Poor jade!" And yield a sigh to me—as gift benign, Not as the tittle of a debt unpaid To one who could to you her all resign—
And thus reflecting, you will never see That your thin thought, in two small words conveyed, Was no such fleeting phantom-thought to me, But the Whole Life wherein my part was played; And you amid its fitful masquerade A Thought—as I in yours but seem to be.
1866.
# Wessex Poems and Other Verses/The Casterbridge Captains

THE CASTERBRIDGE CAPTAINS
(KHYBER PASS, 1842)
A Tradition of J. B. L——, T. G. B——, and J. L——
THREE captains went to Indian wars, And only one returned: Their mate of yore, he singly wore The laurels all had earned.
At home he sought the ancient aisle Wherein, untrumped of fame, The three had sat in pupilage, And each had carved his name.
The names, rough-hewn, of equal size, Stood on the panel still; Unequal since.—“'Twas theirs to aim, Mine was it to fulfil!"
—"Who saves his life shall lose it, friends!" Outspake the preacher then, Unweeting he his listener, who Looked at the names again.
That he had come and they'd been stayed, 'Twas but the chance of war: Another chance, and they'd sat here, And he had lain afar.
Yet saw he something in the lives Of those who'd ceased to live That rounded them with majesty Which living failed to give.
Transcendent triumph in return No longer lit his brain; Transcendence rayed the distant urn Where slept the fallen twain.
# United States v. Minker Falcone

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Black
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 179
United States v. Minker Falcone
Argued: Nov. 14, 15, 1955. --- Decided: Jan 16, 1956
No. 35:
Mr. Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Jacob Kossman, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent Minker.
No. 47:
Mr. George Morris Fay, Washington, D.C., for Falcone.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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. Minker Falcone/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Douglas
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 179
United States v. Minker Falcone
Argued: Nov. 14, 15, 1955. --- Decided: Jan 16, 1956
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
While I agree with the result reached by the Court, I do not think this case is comparable to those controversies that frequently rege over the scope of the investigative power in support of administrative action. Cf. Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 62 S.Ct. 651, 86 L.Ed. 895 with United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 70 S.Ct. 357, 94 L.Ed. 401. Congress has provided a special judicial procedure which must be followed, if a citizen is denaturalized. That procedure is contained in § 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. § 1451, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1451. It provides for canceling a certificate of naturalization on the ground that it was procured 'by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.' § 340(a). Suit may be brought by the United States Attorney in the District Court 'upon affidavit showing good cause.' Id. The citizen whose citizenship is challenged has 60 days 'in which to make answers to the petition of the United States.' § 340(b). There is no pretrial administrative procedure provided in the section governing denaturalization. One can search § 340 in vain for any suggestion that the judicial procedure is supplemented by a pretrial procedure. So to hold would make the 60-day period for answer 'empty words,' as Judge Foley ruled in Application of Barnes, D.C., 116 F.Supp. 464, 469. As Judge Hastie, writing for the court below in the Minker case, said, the administrative pretrial procedure is not consistent with the safeguards which Congress has provided in the judicial proceedings. 3 Cir., 217 F.2d 350, 352. I agree with that view and would, therefore, read s 235(a) to exclude witnesses who are potential defendants in § 340 cases.
There is another reason for reading the section narrowly. When we deal with citizenship we tread on sensitive ground. The citizenship of a naturalized person has the same dignity and status as the citizenship of those of us born here, save only for eligibility to the Presidency. He is a member of a community included within the protection of all the guarantees of the Constitution. Those safeguards would be imperiled if prior to the institution of the proceedings the citizen could be compelled to be a witness against himself and furnish out of his own mouth the evidence used to denaturalize him. I would require the Government to proceed with meticulous regard for the basic notions of Due Process which protect every vital right of the American eitizen.

## 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. Minnesota

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 181
United States v. Minnesota
Argued: Jan. 4 and 5, 1926. --- Decided: March 1, 1926
[Syllabus from pages 181-183 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. W. W. Dyar, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 183-190 intentionally omitted]
Messrs, M. J. Brown and G. A. Youngquist, both of St. Paul, Minn., and Charles R. Pierce, of Miami, Fla., for the State of Minnesota.
[Argument of Counsel from page 190 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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. Minnesota Mutual Investment Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 212
United States v. Minnesota Mutual Investment Company
Argued: May 6, 1926. --- Decided: May 24, 1926
Messrs. Blackburn Esterline, of Chicago, Ill., William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and Gardiner P. Lloyd, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Edwin H. Park, of Denver, Colo., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 212-214 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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. Mills (32 U.S. 138)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
32 U.S. 138
United States v. Mills

## 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
# Western Union Telegraph Company v. Samuel Chiles

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
214 U.S. 274
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Samuel Chiles
Argued: April 20, 1909. --- Decided: May 24, 1909
Messrs. Francis Raymond Stark, Rush Taggart, Robert M. Hughes, and George H. Fearons for plaintiff in error.
Mr. W. D. Stoakley (by special leave) for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Moody 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
# Western Union Telegraph Company v. Speight

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
254 U.S. 17
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Speight
Argued: Oct. 12, 1920. --- Decided: Oct 25, 1920
Messrs. Rush Taggart, of New York City, Charles W. Tillett, of Charlotte, N. C., and Francis R. Stark, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Murray Allen, of Raleign, N. C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 160
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Richmond
Argued: March 6 and 7, 1912. --- Decided: April 1, 1912
Messrs. Rush Taggart and A. L. Holladay for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 161-165 intentionally omitted]
Mr. H. R. Pollard for appellee.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

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