OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Pettenkofer, Max von

Edition of 1879. See also Max Joseph von Pettenkofer on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
​PETTENKOFER, Max von, a German chemist, born at Lichtenheim, Bavaria, Dec. 3, 1818. He studied at Munich, was employed in the Bavarian mint from 1845 to 1847, and was afterward professor of medicine. In 1865 he became one of the editors of the Zeitschrift für Biologie. Among his writings are: Die atmospherische Luft in Wohngebäuden (Brunswick, 1858); Ueber Oehlfarbe und Conservirung der Gemäldegalerien durch Regeneration der Bilder (1870; 2d ed., 1872); and Die Verbreitungsart der Cholera in Indien (1871).
# The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Petter, Anton

Edition of 1879. See also Anton Petter on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
​PETTER, Anton, a German painter, born in Vienna, April 12, 1783, died there in 1858. He visited Rome in 1808, and won several prizes at the academy of Vienna, to which he was admitted in 1814 in reward for his “Meleager murdered by his Mother in the Arms of his Wife.” In 1820 he became professor, and in 1828 director of that institution. Among his best works are the “Meeting of Maximilian with his Bride, Mary of Burgundy,” “Rudolph of Hapsburg,” “Queen Joan beside the Coffin of her Husband Philip,” and “Charles V. visiting his Prisoner, Francis I.”
# The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Petrobrussians

Edition of 1879. See also the disclaimer.
​PETROBRUSSIANS. See Bruys, Peter de.
# The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Petromyzon

Edition of 1879. See also the disclaimer.
​PETROMYZON. See Lamprey.
# Sursum Corda

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sursum Corda."
* 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.
* "Sursum Corda", anonymous hymn, sometimes attributed to Walter Raleigh or Henry Wotton
* "Sursum Corda", poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson
* "Sursum Corda", a poem by Elinor Jenkins
* "Sursum Corda", a poem by Agnes Louisa Storrie
# Sursum Corda (Emerson)

Seek not the spirit, if it hide
* Sursum Corda in Poems (1847)
* Sursum Corda in Poems (Household Edition, 1904)
# Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Rosborough/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 429
Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Rosborough
Argued: November 30, 1914. --- Decided: December 14, 1914
This cause was removed from the state court to the district court, and comes here solely because plaintiff in error is incorporated under an act of Congress. We go no further than to inquire whether there is plain error. Chicago Junction R. Co. v. King, 222 U.S. 222, 224, 56 L. ed. 173, 174, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 79; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Howell, 224 U.S. 577, 582, 56 L. ed. 892, 894, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 601.
The circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, rendered upon a verdict, against the railway company for the value of cotton destroyed by fire alleged to have started from sparks and cinders negligently permitted to escape from some passing locomotive. The answer of the company denied all negligence, and expressly set up: (1) That it exercised ordinary care to procure and use upon all of its engines proper spark arresters, and that these were in good repair when the accident occurred. (2) That, without its consent, the cotton was stored on the part of an open platform which extended over its right of way, and was thus voluntarily exposed near tracks along which twenty engines were operated every day.
While insisting that sparks or cinders from only three identified engines could have caused the fire, the railway company nevertheless introduced some evidence tending to show that all locomotives were properly equipped. In rebuttal, and over objection, a witness was permitted to testify that within a few days after the accident he saw engines, while passing near the scene, emit large cinders; and the admission of such evidence constitutes the principal subject of complaint here. In view of the pleadings and the statements of preceding witnesses, this action was not improper. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Watson, 190 U.S. 287, 289, 47 L. ed. 1057, 1059, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681; Goodman v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 78 N. J. L. 317, 325, 326, 74 Atl. 519.
The court was requested, but refused, to charge that if the railway had not assented to the storage of the cotton over its right of way, and if in fact the fire started there, then it would not be liable. This refusal is said to constitute plain and material error; but we think otherwise, in view of the long-continued use of the platform, and the clear instruction in respect of contributory negligence. The mere presence of the cotton on the right of way without affirmative permission would not suffice to relieve the company from the consequence of its own negligence. Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 91 U.S. 454, 471, 23 L. ed. 356, 362. $The other assignments of error are not much relied upon and are without substantial merit.
Judgment affirmed.

## 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
# Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Swearingen

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
196 U.S. 51
Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Swearingen
Argued: November 3, 1904. --- Decided: December 19, 1904
Messrs. John F. Dillon, D. D. Duncan, and T. J. Freeman for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 51-53 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Leigh Clark for defendant in error.
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
# Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Watson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
190 U.S. 287
Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Watson
Argued: and submitted March 20, 1903. --- Decided: May 4, 1903
This action was originally commenced in a Texas state court by the appellee Watson, to recover the value of 64 bales of cotton, less insurance thereon. The cotton was alleged to have been destroyed by fire on January 3, 1896, while stored upon what was known as the O'Neil cotton platform near the depot of the railway company at Clarksville, Red River county, Texas. The fire was averred to have been occasioned by the negligence of the railway company in the use of a defectively constructed locomotive and in the careless operation thereof while passing said platform. Subsequently the insurance company was joined as plaintiff, and recovery was asked of the full value of the cotton. Upon application of the defendant, based upon the fact that it was incorporated under the laws of the United States, the cause was removed to the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Texas. In the latter court an amended answer was filed. This pleading contained general and special demurrers, a general denial, and a special answer setting up various defenses. The general and special demurrers were subsequently overruled, and defendant excepted. A trial was had, and it was shown by the evidence that at the point where the fire in question occurred the track of the railway company ran east and west, and the train which it was asserted caused the fire in question was moving eastward, and a strong wind was blowing from the north. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff Watson and against the railroad and against the plaintiff insurance company in favor of the railroad. Judgment was entered on the verdict; the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals for the fifth circuit (50 C. C. A. 230, 112 Fed. 402), and the cause was then brought to this court by writ of error.
Messrs. David D. Duncan, John F. Dillon, and Winslow S. Pierce for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. J. W. Bailey, E. S.C.hambers, and Amos L. Beaty for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, 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
# Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Rosborough

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 429
Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Rosborough
Argued: November 30, 1914. --- Decided: December 14, 1914
Messrs. F. H. Prendergast and W. L. Hall for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. S. P. Jones, William Thompson, and J. S. Patterson for defendants in error.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice McReynolds, by direction 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
# Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Stewart

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
228 U.S. 357
Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Stewart
Argued: March 20, 1913. --- Decided: April 21, 1913
Messrs. W. L. Hall and F. H. Prendergast for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 357-359 intentionally omitted]
Mr. S. P. Jones for defendants 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
# The Atlantic Monthly/Volume 18/Number 108/Her Pilgrimage

Featured in Volume 18, Number 108 of The Atlantic Monthly. (October 1866)
HER PILGRIMAGE.
In Memoriam, January 12, 1866
The snow-flakes floated many a star To earth, from pale December's skies, When a fair spirit from afar Smiled through an infant's violet eyes.
And as she sweetly breathed, the hours Wove, like a robe of gossamer, All grace about her, while the flowers Their tints and perfumes gave to her.
In after time, when violets grew, And pale anemones veiled the land, She drooped her modest eyes of blue, And gave to Love her maiden hand.
Four times the holy angels came, To greet her with a dear unrest; And, in a mother's saintly name, Left a young angel on her breast.
Eight lustrums pure celestial eyes Beamed through her tender, loving gaze, Commingling all the sweet surprise Of heavenly with the earthly rays.
At last, her gentle face grew pale As the anemones of spring; And whiter than her bridal veil Was that in which she took her wing.
And than that fixed despair more white, Softly the stars, in feathery snows, Came, covering with serener light Her folded hands, her meek repose.
Pale stars, through which the Night looked down, Until they wept away in showers On those dear hands, which clasped the crown, And closer still the cross, of flowers.
The snow-flakes melt on earth in tears; The eternal stars in glory shine; While in the shroud of desolate years Dead Love awaits the immortal sign.
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
# The Adela

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 266
The Adela
APPEAL from a decree of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, condemning the Adela and her cargo as prize to the Quaker City, a war steamer of the United States during the blockade established by the Federal government of its southern coast during the late rebellion. The ship and cargo were apparently neutral property. The condemnation was for attempted breach of blockade.
Mr. Ashton, special counsel for the United States; Mr. A. F. Smith, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE 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
# The Adela/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 266
The Adela
It is claimed that the capture took place in British waters. It was made, in fact, near Great Abaco Island, which belongs to Great Britain; but the evidence is by no means convincing that it was made within three miles from the land. On the contrary, while it is not, perhaps, certain that the Adela was was without the line of neutral jurisdiction when first required to lay to by the Quaker City, it cannot be doubted that she had passed beyond it when she was actually captured. If, however, the capture had been actually made in neutral waters, that circumstance would not, of itself, prevent condemnation, especially, in a case of capture made in good faith, without intent to violate neutral jurisdiction, or knowledge that any neutral jurisdiction was in fact infringed, and in the absence of all intervention or claim on the part of the neutral government. 'It might,' as was observed in the case of The Sir William Peel, 'constitute a ground of claim by the neutral power whose territory had suffered trespass, for apology or indemnity. But neither an enemy, nor a neutral acting the part of an enemy, can demand restitution on the sole ground of capture in neutral waters.'
We come, then, to the grounds of condemnation in the District Court.
The evidence of neutral destination in the preparatory proof was contradictory. The master and several other witnesses declared that her destination was Nassan, and that they knew of no ulterior destination. The credibility of their statements was much impaired by their evasive character. The master, particularly, professed himself entirely ignorant of the nature of ownership of the cargo; declared that he had no bill of lading, or any other document relating to the merchandise on board, and knew nothing of the ownership of the vessel except what he derived from the ship's register. He was appointed master by one Burns, of Liverpool, who shipped the goods, whether for himself or as agent for other parties, and on whose real account, r sk, and profit, he did not know.
On the other hand, the chief officer stated distinctly that the Adela was intended to run the blockade, and would have entered Nassau as her first port, and, as he believed, Charleston as her next.
The character of her cargo, of which much the largest part consisted of Enfield rifles and other goods clearly contraband of war, and the destination of the letters found on board, many of which were directed to Charleston, Savannah, and neighboring places, strongly confirm the testimony of the chief officer.
Upon the whole evidence we are satisfied that the Adela and her cargo were, in fact, destined for a blockaded port, and that the decree of the District Court was correct. It is therefore.
AFFIRMED.

## Notes

* ↑ The Etrusco, 3 Robinson, 31; Vrow Anna Catharina, 5 Id. 144.
* ↑ 5 Wallace, 535.
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
# The Administration's Most Recent Hypocrisy

Congressional Record: May 17, 2005 (Extensions of Remarks) Page E995. DOCID:cr17my05-9.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S MOST RECENT HYPOCRISY
 ______  
 HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
 of California
 in the House of Representatives
 Tuesday, May 17, 2005
 Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the pot is calling the kettle black. The
Administration is chastising Newsweek magazine for a story containing a
fact that turned out to be false. This is the same Administration that
lied to the Congress, the United Nations and the American people by
fabricating reasons to send us to war. The same Administration
responsible for the death of over 1,500 American servicemen and women
and countless Iraqi civilians; the same Administration which shields
its highest officials from responsibility for prisoner abuse at Abu
Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.  Under those circumstances, how can the Bush Administration, with a
straight face, denounce a journalist for not checking all the facts
before going public with a story?  Of course, Newsweek should have checked the facts more diligently
before publishing their article. They made a big mistake. But, Mr.
Speaker, we must keep this incident in perspective. Newsweek did make a
mistake, but they had the dignity and honor to own up to it.  Unfortunately, I doubt the Bush Administration is capable of
displaying such honesty. Instead, the Bush Administration focuses on
public relations tactics to divert attention from their own
incompetence and fabrications rather than focusing their energies on
creating a plan to get our troops out of Iraq.  The hypocrisy of this Administration is astonishing and this most
recent episode is, unfortunately, merely one example of many. Just
yesterday Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said in reference to the
Newsweek article, ``People lost their lives. People are dead. People
need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be
very careful about what they do. ``I couldn't agree more. People should
be very careful about what they say and do; President Bush and his
Cabinet, most of all.  Mr. Speaker, accountability and power cannot be separated. If the
President accepts the duties and responsibilities of his office he must
do exactly what he is asking Newsweek to do: he needs to tell Americans
the truth about his own indiscretions in this tragic war.
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
# The Adelia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 593
The Adelia
Mr. Justice BRADLEY 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
# The Admirable Bashville

Written 1901, First performed 1902, Published 1909.
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 1950, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 73 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
# The Adirondacs

We crossed Champlain to Keeseville with our friends
* The Adirondacs in May-day and other pieces (1867)
* The Adirondacs in Poems (Household Edition, 1904)
# Swaim v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
165 U.S. 553
Swaim v. United States
On February 23, 1891, David G. Swaim filed in the court of claims a petition against the United States, alleging that he was on the 30th day of June, 1884, and still was, judge advocate general of the army of the United States, with the rank, pay, and allowance of a brigadier general therein. He complained that, by reason of the unlawful creation and action of a certain court-martial, he had been on February 24, 1885, suspended from rank and duty for 12 years, and that one-half of his pay had been forfeited for that period. For reasons set forth in the petition, the claimant asked that the proceedings, findings, and sentence of the said court-martial should be declared to be void, and that judgment should be rendered awarding him the amount of his pay and allowances retained in pursuance of the said sentence.
The court of claims made, upon the evidence, certain findings of fact, and on the 27th day or February, 1893, entered a final judgment dismissing the claimant's petition. From that judgment an appeal was taken to this court.
Benj. Butterworth and J. H. Gillpatrick, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Harmon, for the United States.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS 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
# Swain v. Alabama/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Harlan Black
* Dissenting Opinion Goldberg
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 202
Swain v. Alabama
Argued: Dec. 8, 1964. --- Decided: March 8, 1965
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice GOLDBERG, with whom The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS join, dissenting.

## Notes

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

Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965), was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the legality of a struck jury. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinions

    Harlan
    Black

## Dissenting Opinion

    Goldberg
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 202
Swain v. Alabama
Argued: Dec. 8, 1964. --- Decided: March 8, 1965
Mrs. Constance B. Motley, New York City, for petitioner.
Leslie Hall, Montgomery, Ala., for respondent.
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
# Sun Insurance Office v. Scott

United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 177
Sun Insurance Office v. Scott Norwich Union Fire Insurance Soc
Argued: Oct. 22, 1931. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1931
Mr. Rolland M. Edmonds, of Columbus, Ohio, for petitioners.
Messrs. F. S. Monnett, of Columbus, Ohio, and Elwood Murphy, for respondent.
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