OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1987/B10
## Major Group 10: Metal Mining

This major group includes establishments primarily engaged in mining, developing mines, or exploring for metallic minerals (ores). These ores are valued chiefly for the metals contained, to be recovered for use as such or as constituents of alloys, chemicals, pigments or other products. This major group also includes all ore dressing and beneficiating operations, whether performed at mills operated in conjunction with the mines served or at mills, such as custom mills, operated separately. These include mills which crush, grind, wash, dry, sinter, calcine, or leach ore, or perform gravity separation or flotation operations. Magnesite and brucite operations are classified in Industry 1459, and crushed dolomite operations are classified in Industry 1422. Smelters and refineries are classified in Manufacturing, Major Group 33, and establishments engaged in producing primary magnesium metal are classified in Manufacturing, Industry 3339. The operation of brine wells or sea water plants for the production of magnesium is classified in Manufacturing, Major Group 28.
When performed by operators of the properties, exploration under preliminary phases of operation should be classified according to the type of ore expected to be found. Exploration performed on a contract or fee basis is classified in Industry 1081.

### Industry Group 101: Iron Ores

* 1011 Iron Ores

### Industry Group 102: Copper Ores

* 1021 Copper Ores

### Industry Group 103: Lead And Zinc Ores

* 1031 Lead and Zinc Ores

### Industry Group 104: Gold And Silver Ores

* 1041 Gold Ores
* 1044 Silver Ores

### Industry Group 106: Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium

* 1061 Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium

### Industry Group 108: Metal Mining Services

* 1081 Metal Mining Services

### Industry Group 109: Miscellaneous Metal Ores

* 1094 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores
* 1099 Miscellaneous Metal Ores, Not Elsewhere Classified
This text is taken from the Standard Industry Classification 1987 (index).
Divisions: A B C D E F G H I J
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
# Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1987/B12
## Major Group 12: Coal Mining

This major group includes establishments primarily engaged in producing bituminous coal, anthracite, and lignite. Included are mining operations and preparation plants (also known as cleaning plants and washeries), whether or not such plants are operated in conjunction with mine sites. The production of coal fuel briquettes and packaged fuel is classified in Manufacturing, Industry 2999. Establishments primarily engaged in the production of gas and hydrocarbon liquids from coal at the mine site are classified in Major Group 13.

## Industry Group 122: Bituminous Coal And Lignite Mining

* 1221 Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining
* 1222 Bituminous Coal Underground Mining

## Industry Group 123: Anthracite Mining

* 1231 Anthracite Mining

## Industry Group 124: Coal Mining Services

* 1241 Coal Mining Services
This text is taken from the Standard Industry Classification 1987 (index).
Divisions: A B C D E F G H I J
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
# Short Stories (magazine)/Plundered Cargo

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.
Extracted from Short Stories magazine (Doubleday, Page & Co, Garden City) 1926 Feb 10, pp. 3-52. Cover illustration by H. C. Murphy
This tale, one whereon murder will be done and barratry—with shipwreck, and villainy finally unmasked—finds its beginning in that city of enchanted hills in those days of its earlier glory. And it is in tone that so trivial a circumstance as the breaking of the driving machinery of a Ferris wheel near the Cliff House should start something destined to come to its climax in the Vermilion Sea.
PLUNDERED CARGO
By ROBERT WELLES RITCHIE
Author of “Light Ridin' Durry,” “Rat-Tail Spills the Beans,” etc.
   THE EVENING BEGAN FOR HEADLONG SPIKE HORN IN A SAN FRANCISCO FERRIS WHEEL, AND ENDED WITH HIS FINDING HIMSELF SHANGHAIED ABOARD THE “LONNEY LEE,” FORCED TO SHARE IN THAT CRAFT'S SOUTHWARD SEARCH FOR A TREASURE-LADEN HULK. SKIPPER STORRS RATED SPIKE AS DANGEROUS. IN THE LONELY WATERS OF THE GULF OF CALIFORNIA HE WELL PROVED HIS RIGHT TO THE RATING
* I. Introducing a Ferris Wheel 3
* II. Fate amid the Cabbages 5
* III. Shanghaied 7
* IV. Quarterdeck Law 9
* V. Dividends of Sin 11
* VI. The Matter of a Boiled Cigar 14
* VII. A Worm Plans to Turn 18
* VIII. Mutiny 21
* IX. Spike Horn Talks Business 23
* X. Where a Water Tram Led 25
* XI. Surprise at Sabina Island 28
* XII. Karelia Lofgreen 29
* XIII. “Man Is Like to Vanity” 31
* XIV. The Doctor Leads an Ace 33
* XV. A Good Will Embassy 37
* XVI. The “Sierra Park's” Cargo 40
* XVII. Decision 42
* XVIII. Angelo Renders a Recessional 43
* XIX. The Balance Shifts 45
* XX. Judah Storrs, Strategist 47
* XXI. As the Cards Fall 49
* XXII. Curtain 52
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1942, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 81 years or less. 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
# State Board of Tax Commissioners of Indiana v. Jackson

United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 527
State Board of Tax Commissioners of Indiana v. Jackson
Argued: March 5, 1931. --- Decided: May 18, 1931
Messrs. Joseph W. Hutchinson, George W. Hufsmith, and James M. Ogden, all of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellants.
Messrs. Wm. H. Thompson, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Martin A. Schenck and Clark McKercher, both of New York City, for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 528-529 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# State Children's Health Insurance Program

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "State Children's Health Insurance Program."
* 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.
* Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
* Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
* State Children's Health Insurance Program (Presidential memorandum)
# State Children's Health Insurance Program (Presidential memorandum)

Memorandum published by whitehouse.gov on February 4, 2009. Memorandum filed on February 5, 2009, at 12:00 P.M. and published at the Federal Register on February 6, 2009.
Administration of Barack Obama, 2009
February 4, 2009
By the President of the United States of America
A Memorandum
Subject: State Children's Health Insurance Program
Memorandum for the Secretary of Health and Human Services
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) encourages States to provide health coverage for uninsured children in families whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford private insurance. Since 1997, when SCHIP was enacted, States have had the authority to set their SCHIP income eligibility levels, subject to available funding. In recent years, as the cost of private insurance has increased, States have raised eligibility levels to offer health care coverage to more families, with families paying a share of the cost based on their income.
On August 17, 2007, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a letter to State health officials limiting the flexibility of States to set income eligibility standards for their SCHIP programs. On May 7, 2008, CMS issued a subsequent letter restating the policy set forth in the August 17, 2007, letter.
The August 17, 2007, letter imposes additional requirements that States must meet in order to cover children under SCHIP plans, including plans that CMS had previously approved. These requirements have limited coverage under several State plans that otherwise would have covered additional, uninsured children. As a result, tens of thousands of children have been denied health care coverage. Unless the August 17, 2007, letter is withdrawn, many more children will be denied coverage.
By this memorandum, I request that you immediately withdraw the August 17, 2007, and May 7, 2008, letters to State health officials and implement SCHIP without the requirements imposed by those letters.
This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
    Barack Obama
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
# State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
299 U.S. 59
State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market Company
Argued: Oct. 19, 1936. --- Decided: Nov 9, 1936
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.
Messrs. Walter L. Bowers, of Los Angeles, Cal., and U.S. Webb, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.
Messrs. Frederick H. Wood, of New York City, and M. J. Donnelly, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
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
# State Corporation Commission of Kansas v. Arrow Transportation Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 353
State Corporation Commission of Kansas v. Arrow Transportation Company

## 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
# State Board of Insurance v. Todd Shipyards Corporation

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 451
STATE BOARD OF INSURANCE et al., Petitioners, v. TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION.
Argued: March 21, 1962. --- Decided: June 25, 1962
Bob E. Shannon and Fred B. Werkenthin, Austin, Tex., for petitioners.
Charles R. Vickery, Jr., Houston, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Steele v. General Mills

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 433
Steele v. General Mills
Argued: Dec. 18, 1946. --- Decided: Jan 6, 1947
See 329 U.S. 834, 67 S.Ct. 628.
Mr.Cecil A. Morgan, of Fort Worth, Tex., for petitioner.
Mr. Alfred McKnight, of Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Elton M. Hyder, Jr., of Austin, Tex., for State of Texas, amicus curiae.
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
# Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 192
Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
Argued: Nov. 14, 15, 1944. --- Decided: Dec 18, 1944
Mr. Charles H. Houston, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles H. Eyster, of Decatur, Ala., for respondent Louisville and N.R. Co.
Mr. James A. Simpson, of Birmingham, Ala., for respondents brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen et al.
Mr. Chief Justice STONE 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
# Steele v. New York

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 710
Steele v. New York

## 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
# Steele v. Culver

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
211 U.S. 26
Steele v. Culver
Argued: June 1, 1908. --- Decided: October 26, 1908
Messrs. Thomas J. Cavanaugh and L. A. Tabor for appellees.
[Argument of counsel from page 26 intentionally omitted.]
Messrs. Edward Maher, W. J. Barnard, and Ernest Dale Owen for appellants.
[Argument of counsel from page 27 intentionally omitted.]
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
# Steele v. New York/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 710
Steele v. New York
Mr. James Steele, pro se.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
For decision below, see 241 App. Div. 875, 271 N. Y. S. 979.
The motions for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis are denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the papers herein submitted, finds no ground upon which writs of certiorari should be issued. The petitions for writs of certiorari are therefore also 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
# Steele v. Drummond

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 199
Steele v. Drummond
Argued: and Submitted Oct. 20, 1927. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1927
Messrs. William D. Thomson, Harold Hirsch, and Daniel MacDougald, all of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
[Syllabus from page 200 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John A. Sibley, of Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 201-202 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Arkansas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 136
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Arkansas
Argued: January 26, 27, 1910. --- Decided: April 4, 1910
Messrs. Roy F. Britton, Nicholas J. Gantt, Jr., William T. Wooldridge, Frank G. Bridges, and Samuel H. West for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 137 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Hal L. Norwood, F. E. Brown, and Pettit & Pettit for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 138-139 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
# St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (289 U.S. 76)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 76
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas
No. 364 Argued: Jan. 18, 1933. --- Decided: March 27, 1933

## Linked case(s)

185 Ark. 824
* In a proceeding under an Arkansas statute to determine the place and manner in which a proposed track of one railroad may cross the track of another railroad, the question whether the proposed track is an " extension" for the construction of which a certificate must first be obtained from the Interstate Commerce Commission was irrelevant. P. 81.
* The remedy of a railroad company which objects to a proposed crossing as an "extension" for which no certificate has been granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, is not b defense in the state proceeding to fix the place and manner of crossing, but by suit for injunction under paragraph 20 of § 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act. P. 82.
* A judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in the state statutory proceeding, merely fixing the place and manner of the crossing, is not in conflict with the federal law, whether the proposed track will be a spur or an extension. P. 83.
* Where the state supreme court, besides ordering the fixing of the place and manner of crossing, characterized the proposed track as a spur and not an extension, thus undertaking to decide an irrelevant federal question,-held that the judgment, and its affirmance in other respects by this Court, would not operate as res judicata on that question. P. 84.
185 Ark. 824; 49 S.W. (2d) 1054, affirmed.
CERTIORARI, 287 U.S. 589, to review the affirmance of a judgment which reversed an order of the Arkansas Railroad Commission denying an application to fix the place and manner of a proposed crossing of railroad tracks.
Mr. Harold R. Small, with whom Mr. Arthur L. Adams was on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr. Robert E. Wiley, with whom Mr. Edward J. White was on the brief, for respondent.
[p77] MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opiaon of the Court.
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
# St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas v. Alexander

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 218
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas v. Alexander
Argued: December 2, 1912. --- Decided: February 3, 1913
Messrs. Lawrence Greer and F. C. Nicodemus, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 219-221 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Phelan Beale for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Day 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
# St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (185 Ark. 824)

The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 185 Ark. 824 (1932), was affirmed upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. See 289 U.S. 76 (1933).
Supreme Court of Arkansas
185 Ark. 824
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division
No. 4-2547.—Decided May 16, 1932.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Linked cases: 289 U.S. 76
* EMINENT DOMAIN—SPUR TRACK.—Under Const., art. 17, § 1, providing that "every railroad company shall have the right with its road to intersect, connect with or cross any other road," the Railroad Commission, under Crawford & Moses' Digest,. § 1643, is authorized, on application by a railroad company for, a spur track across the industrial track of another road, to fix the point and manner of the crossing without first requiring petitioner to obtain right-of-way by condemnation.
* RAILROADS—SPUR TRACK—CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE.—A proposed track extending from petitioner's main line to cottonseed plants to serve them directly held. a spur track within Interstate Commerce Act, authorizing constructiop of, spur tracks without obtainfng a certificate of convenience from the Interstate Commerce Commission.
​Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Richard M. Mann, Judge; affirmed.
Carter, Jones & Turney and Lamb & Adams, for appellant.
R. E. Wiley, for appellee.
[Opinion of the court by Justice THOMAS H. HUMPHREYS.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Sir Walter Scott

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sir Walter Scott."
* 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.
* Sir Walter Scott, a poem by Richard Watson Gilder
* Sir Walter Scott, a poem by Lydia Huntley Sigourney (1834)
# Sir William Herschel, his life and works

SIR W$^m$ HERSCHEL. Bt
Sir William Herschel
HIS LIFE AND WORKS
BY
EDWARD S. HOLDEN
United States Naval Observatory, Washington
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
743 and 745 Broadway
1881
Copyright, 1880,
By CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.
PRESS OF J. J. LITTLE & CO., NOS. 10 TO 20 ASTOR PLACE, NEW YORK.
PREFACE.
In the following account of the life and works of Sir William Herschel, I have been obliged to depend strictly upon data already in print—the Memoir of his sister, his own scientific writings and the memoirs and diaries of his cotemporaries. The review of his published works will, I trust, be of use. It is based upon a careful study of all his papers in the Philosophical Transactions and elsewhere.
A life of Herschel which shall be satisfactory in every particular can only be written after a full examination of the materials which are preserved at the family seat in England; but as two generations have passed since his death, and as no biography yet exists which approaches to completeness, no apology seems to me to be needed for a ​conscientious attempt to make the best use of the scanty material which we do possess.
This study will, I trust, serve to exhibit so much of his life as belongs to the whole public. His private life belongs to his family, until the time is come to let the world know more of the greatest of practical astronomers and of the inner life of one of its most profound philosophers,—of a great and ardent mind, whose achievements are and will remain the glory of England. ​
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
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