OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Letter to Thomas Turpin - February 5, 1769

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
* related portals: Letters.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
DEAR SIR, -- I am truly concerned that it is not in my power to undertake the superintendance of your son in his studies; but my situation both present and future renders it utterly impossible. I do not expect to be here more than two months in the whole between this and November next, at which time I propose to remove to another habitation which I am about to erect, and on a plan so contracted as that I shall have but one spare bedchamber for whatever visitants I may have. nor have I reason to expect at any future day to pass a greater proportion of my time at home. thus situated it would even have been injustice to Phill to have undertaken to give him an assistance which will not be within my power; a task which I otherwise should with the greatest pleasure have taken on me, and would have desired no higher satisfaction than to see him hold that rank in the profession to which his genius and application must surely advance him. these however encourage me to hope that the presence of an assistant will be little necessary. I always was of opinion that the placing a youth to study with an attorney was rather a prejudice than a help. we are all too apt by shifting on them our business, to incroach on that time which should be devoted to their studies. the only help a youth wants is to be directed what books to read, and in what order to read them. I have accordingly recommended strongly to Phill to put himself into apprenticeship with no one, but to employ his time for himself alone. to enable him to do this to advantage I have laid down a plan of study which will afford him all the assistance a tutor could, without subjecting him to the inconvenience of expending his own time for the emolument of another. one difficulty only occurs, that is, the want of books. but this I am in hopes you will think less of remedying when it is considered that had he been placed under the care of another, a proper collection of books must have been provided for him before he engaged in the practice of his profession; for a lawyer without books would be like a workman without tools. the only difference then is that they must now be procured something earlier. should you think it necessary, it would be better to consider the money laid out in books as a part of the provision made for him and to deduct it from what you intended to give him, than that he should be without them. I have given him a catalogue of such as will be necessary, amounting in the whole to about pound 100 sterling, but divided into four invoices. Should Phill enter on the plan of study recommended, I shall endeavor as often as possible to take your house in on my way to and from Williamsburgh as it will afford me the double satisfaction of observing his progress in science and of seeing yourself, my aunt, and the family. I am Dear Sir with great respect
Your most humble servant
# Letter to UN Security Council by Sir Jeremy Greenstock

* related portals: Historical documents.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
From Sir Jeremy Greenstock GCMG
20 March 2003
To HE Mamady Traore President of the Security Council
Excellency:
I have the honor to inform you on behalf of my Government that the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom - in association with those of the United States and Australia - engaged in military action in Iraq on 20 March 2003. The action is continuing.
The action follows a long history of non-cooperation by Iraq with UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and the IAEA and numerous findings by the Security Council that Iraq has failed to comply with its disarmament obligations imposed on it by the Council, including in resolutions 678 (1990), 687 (1991) and 1441 (2002). In resolution 1441 (2002) the Council reiterated that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security; that Iraq has failed, in clear violation of its obligations to disarm; and that in consequence Iraq is in material breach of the conditions for the ceasefire at the end of hostilities in 1991 laid down by the Council in resolution 687 (1991). Military action was undertaken only when it became apparent that there was no other way of achieving compliance by Iraq.
The objective of this action is to secure compliance by Iraq with its disarmament obligations as laid down by the Council. All military action will be limited to the minimum measures necessary to secure this objective. Operations will conducted in accordance with the international laws of armed conflict. Targets have been carefully chosen to avoid civilian casualties.
Please accept Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration.
(signed) Jeremy Greenstock
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Letter to St. John de Crevecoeur - January 15, 1787

DEAR SIR,
I see by the Journal of this morning, that they are robbing us of another of our inventions to give it to the English. The writer, indeed, only admits them to have revived what he thinks was known to the Greeks, that is, the making the circumference of a wheel of one single piece. The farmers in New Jersey were the first who practised it, and they practised it commonly. Dr. Franklin, in one of his trips to London, mentioned this practice to the man now in London, who has the patent for making those wheels. The idea struck him. The Doctor promised to go to his shop, and assist him in trying to make the wheel of one piece. The Jersey farmers do it by cutting a young sapling, and bending it, while green and juicy, into a circle; and leaving it so until it becomes perfectly seasoned. But in London there are no saplings. The difficulty was, then, to give to old wood the pliancy of young. The Doctor and the workman labored together some weeks, and succeeded; and the man obtained a patent for it, which has made his fortune. I was in his shop in London, he told me the whole story himself, and acknowledged, not only the origin of the idea, but how much the assistance of Dr. Franklin had contributed to perform the operation on dry wood. He spoke of him with love and gratitude. I think I have had a similar account from Dr. Franklin, but cannot be quite certain. I know, that being in Philadelphia when the first set of patent wheels arrived from London, and were spoken of by the gentleman (an Englishman) who brought them, as a wonderful discovery, the idea of its being a new discovery was laughed at by the Philadelphians, who, in their Sunday parties across the Delaware, had seen every farmer's cart mounted on such wheels. The writer in the paper, supposes the English workman got his idea from Homer. But it is more likely the Jersey farmer got his idea from thence, because ours are the only farmers who can read Homer; because, too, the Jersey practice is precisely that stated by Homer: the English practice very different. Homer's words are (comparing a young hero killed by Ajax to a poplar felled by a workman) literally thus: `He fell on the ground, like a poplar, which has grown smooth, in the west part of a great meadow; with its branches shooting from its summit. But the chariot maker, with his sharp axe, has felled it, that he may bend a wheel for a beautiful chariot. It lies drying on the banks of the river.' Observe the circumstances which coincide with the Jersey practice.
It is a tree growing in a moist place, full of juices and easily bent. It is cut while green. It is bent into the circumference of a wheel. It is left to dry in that form. You, who write French well and readily, should write a line for the Journal, to reclaim the honor of our farmers.
Adieu. Yours affectionately,
Thomas Jefferson
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
# Lewis v. United States (385 U.S. 206)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 206
Lewis v. United States (385 U.S. 206)
Argued: Oct. 17, 1966. --- Decided: Dec 12, 1966
See 386 U.S. 939, 87 S.Ct. 951.
S. Myron Klarfeld, Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Ralph Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# Lewis v. United States (92 U.S. 618)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 618
Edwin M. Lewis v. The United States
No. 866. Argued: February 7, 8, 1876. --- Decided: February 21, 1876.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Mr. William M. Evarts, Mr. R. L. Ashhurst, and Mr. W. P. Clough, for the appellant.
Mr. Attorney-General Pierrepont and Mr. R. C. McMurtrie, contra.
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
# Lewis v. Wilson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
151 U.S. 551
Lewis v. Wilson
Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER:
The facts in this case are as follows: Plaintiff in error (the plaintiff below) brought suit against the defendants to recover damages for libel. At the December, 1887, term, and on April 9, 1888, a jury returned a verdict in his favor, assessing the damages at $10,000. On April 16, 1888, the defendants filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive. After the entry of this motion the following appears of record.
'Edward H. Lewis vs. Geo. C. Wilson et al.
'December Term, 1887. Libel.
'After the rendition of the verdict of the jury in this action, and a motion by the defendants for a new trial on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury were excessive, the court said from the bench that the defendants' motion would be granted unless the plaintiff consents to reduce the verdict from ten to five thousand dollars, as the verdict is clearly excessive if we eliminate all damages which arose out of the claim of the plaintiff for special damages to his business in Texas, and to which he could lay no claim under the pleading and evidence in this case, and which the court withdrew from the consideration of the jury.
'And the court further said, if the plaintiff consents to reduce the verdict to five thousand dollars in pursuance of this suggestion, and the defendants decline to pay the judgment for that amount, and desire to prosecute a writ of error to the supreme court, then, in that event, jugment will be entered up for the sum of ten thousand dollars upon the verdict of the jury.
'And afterwards, to wit, on the 23d day of April, A. D. 1888, comes the plaintiff, by his attorney, and enters his consent to the reduction of the verdict of the jury to the sum of five thousand dollars.
'And then come the defendants, by their attorney, and submit to pay the said five thousand dollars.
'It is therefore considered by the court that the plaintiff, Edward H. Lewis, do have and recover of and from the defendants: Geo. C. Wilson; John N. C. Stockton; Mumby, Stockton & Knight, composed of Frank W. Mumby, John N. C. Stockton, and Raymond D. Knight; Wightman & Christopher, composed of William S. Wightman and John G. Christopher; A. W. Owens; Daniel G. Ambler; George F. Drew; J. M. Lee; C. B. Smith; George Hughes; J. M. Barrs; Samuel Barton; F. P. Fleming; J. R. Tysen; C. E. Garner; John N. C. Stockton, trustee; F. W. Hawthorne, C. P. Cooper; J. S. Smith, Jr.; James P. Taliaferro; James M. Fairlie; A. W. Cockrell; Charles W. Da Costa; W. B. Young; J. R. Cambell; T. E. Stribling; Roswell H. Mason; B. M. Baer; A. W. Barrs, J. E. T. Bowden; James M. Kreamer; and Telfair Stockton,-the sum of five thousand dollars and his costs, taxed at $644.25.

## 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
# Lexicon Technicum
### Contents

* Cover
* Introduction
* Some Thoughts about the Nature of Acids by Sir Isaac Newton
* A
* B
* C
* D
* E
* F
* G
* H
* I
* J
* K
* L
* M
* N
* O
* P
* Q
* R
* S
* T
* U
* V
* W
* X
* Y
* Z
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
# Lewyt Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
349 U.S. 237
Lewyt Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued: April 19, 1955. --- Decided: May 23, 1955
Mr. Seymour Sheriff, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Asst. Atty. Gen. H. Brian Holland, 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
# Kenyon v. Fowler/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 593
Kenyon v. Fowler
Judgment affirmed with costs, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U.S. 138, 33 L. ed. 531, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 290; Finn v. Brown, 142 U.S. 56, 35 L. ed. 936, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U.S. 27 30 L. ed. 864, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788; Matteson v. Dent, 176 U.S. 521, 44 L. ed. 571, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419.

## 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
# Kenyon v. Fowler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 593
Kenyon v. Fowler
Mr. Dorr Raymond Cobb for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Leonard C. Crouch for defendant in error.
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
# Keokuk Company v. County Court of Scotland County

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Keokuk Company v. County Court of Scotland County."
* 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.
* Keokuk Company v. County Court of Scotland County (152 U.S. 317)
* Keokuk Company v. County Court of Scotland County (152 U.S. 318)
# Keokee Consolidated Coke Company v. Taylor

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
234 U.S. 224
Keokee Consolidated Coke Company v. Taylor
KEOKEE CONSOLIDATED COKE COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,
v.
J. P. KELLY, A. P. Hickam, and G. E. Woliver, Partners
under the Firm Name of Kelly, Hickam Company.
No. 373.
Nos. 372, 373.
Submitted May 7, 1914.
Decided June 8, 1914.
Messrs, J. T. Bullitt and R. T. Irvine for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 225 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. J. C. Noel and C. T. Duncan for defendants in error.
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
# Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 156
Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company
Argued: Oct. 12, 1922. --- Decided: Nov 13, 1922
Mr. H. P. Young, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 157-159 intentionally omitted]
Mr. R. Bruce Scott, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants in error.
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
# Leeds v. The Marine Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
19 U.S. 565
Leeds v. The Marine Insurance Company
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.
This was a suit in Equity, commenced in the Court below by the respondents against the appellants, in which the injunction obtained on the filing of the bill was made perpetual. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
This cause was argued by Mr. Swann and Mr. Jones for the appellant, and by the Attorney-General and Mr. Lee 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
# Leffingwell v. Warren

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
67 U.S. 599
Leffingwell v. Warren
Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin.
Mr. Lynde, of Wisconsin, for Plaintiff in Error.
Mr. Doolittle, for Wisconsin, contra.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE.

## 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
# Leeper v. Texas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
139 U.S. 462
Leeper v. Texas
[Statement of Case from pages 463-467 intentionally omitted]
Wm. S. Flippin and G. P. M. Turner, for plaintiffs in error.
R. H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen. Tex., for the State.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Lees v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
150 U.S. 476
Lees v. United States
Hector T. Fenton, for plaintiffs in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BREWER 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
# Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder

"Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder
BY N. LENIN
AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION THE MARXIAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 5941 Jos. Campau Ave., Detroit, Mich. 1921
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Layout 2
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 1924, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 99 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
# Lewis v. Roberts

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 467
Lewis v. Roberts
Argued: Jan. 29, 1925. --- Decided: March 16, 1925
Messrs. Hugo L. Black and Claude D. Ritter, both of Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner.
Mr. William H. Sadler, Jr., of Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Lewis v. Reynolds

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 281
Lewis v. Reynolds
Argued: Dec. 8, 9, 1931. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1932
Mr. N. E. Corthell, of Laramie, Wyo., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Young-quist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Lewis v. Red Jacket Consolidated Coal

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 536
Lewis v. Red Jacket Consolidated Coal
and
Messrs. Wm. A. Glasgow, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., Henry Warrum, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Thomas C. Townsend, of Charleston, W. Va., for petitioners.
Messrs. Edgar L. Greever, of Tazewell, Va., and Albert M. Belcher, and Robert S. Spilman, both of Charleston, W. Va. (Messrs. George S.C.ouch, of Charleston, W. Va., and Samuel L. Austin, of counsel), for respondents.

## 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
# Lewis v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Lewis 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.
* Lewis v. United States (92 U.S. 618), ( 23 L.Ed. 513 ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* Lewis v. United States (146 U.S. 370), ( 36 L.Ed. 1011 ), ( 13 S.Ct. 146 )
* Lewis v. United States (216 U.S. 611), ( 54 L.Ed. 637 ), ( 30 S.Ct. 438 )
* Lewis v. United States (244 U.S. 134), ( 61 L.Ed. 1039 ), ( 37 S.Ct. 570 )
* Lewis v. United States (279 U.S. 63), ( 73 L.Ed. 615 ), ( 49 S.Ct. 257 )
* Lewis v. United States (348 U.S. 419)
* Lewis v. United States (385 U.S. 206)
See also United States v. Lewis.