OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Underwoods/To Doctor John Brown

XV
TO DOCTOR JOHN BROWN
(Whan the dear doctor, dear to a', Was still amang us here belaw, I set my pipes his praise to blaw Wi' a' my speerit; But noo, Dear Doctor! he's awa', An ne'er can hear it.)
By Lyne and Tyne, by Thames and Tees, By a' the various river-Dee's, In Mars and Manors 'yont the seas Or here at hame, Whaure'er there's kindly folk to please, They ken your name.
​They ken your name, they ken your tyke, They ken the honey from your byke; But mebbe after a' your fyke, (The trüth to tell) It's just your honest Rab they like, An' no yoursel'.
As at the gowff, some canny play'r Should tee a common ba' wi' care— Should flourish and deleever fair His souple shintie— An' the ba' rise into the air, A leevin' lintie:
Sae in the game we writers play, There comes to some a bonny day, When a dear ferlie shall repay Their years o' strife, An' like your Rab, their things o' clay, Spreid wings o' life.
​Ye scarce deserved it, I'm afraid— You that had never learned the trade, But just some idle mornin' strayed Into the schüle, An' picked the fiddle up an' played Like Neil himsel'.
Your e'e was gleg, your fingers dink; Ye didnae fash yoursel' to think, But wove, as fast as puss can link, Your denty wab:— Ye stapped your pen into the ink, An' there was Rab!
Sinsyne, whaure'er your fortune lay By dowie den, by canty brae, Simmer an' winter, nicht an' day, Rab was aye wi' ye; An' a' the folk on a' the way Were blithe to see ye.
​O sir, the gods are kind indeed, An' hauld ye for an honoured heid, That for a wee bit clarkit screed Sae weel reward ye, An' lend—puir Rabbie bein' deid— His ghaist to guard ye.
For though, whaure'er yoursel' may be, We've just to turn an' glisk a wee, An' Rab at heel we're shüre to see Wi' gladsome caper:— The bogle of a bogle, he— A ghaist o' paper!
And as the auld-farrand hero sees In Hell a bogle Hercules, Pit there the lesser deid to please, While he himsel' Dwalls wi' the muckle gods at ease Far raised frae hell:
​Sae the true Rabbie far has gane On kindlier business o' his ain Wi' aulder frien's; an' his breist-bane An' stumpie tailie, He birstles at a new hearth stane By James and Ailie.
# Underwoods/The Mirror Speaks

XVIII
THE MIRROR SPEAKS
Where the bells peal far at sea Cunning fingers fashioned me. There on palace walls I hung While that Consuelo sung; But I heard, though I listened well, Never a note, never a trill, Never a beat of the chiming bell. There I hung and looked, and there In my gray face, faces fair Shone from under shining hair. Well I saw the poising head, But the lips moved and nothing said; ​And when lights were in the hall, Silent moved the dancers all.
So awhile I glowed, and then Fell on dusty days and men; Long I slumbered packed in straw, Long I none but dealers saw; Till before my silent eye One that sees came passing by.
Now with an outlandish grace, To the sparkling fire I face In the blue room at Skerryvore; Where I wait until the door Open, and the Prince of Men, Henry James, shall come again.
# Underwoods/The Spaewife

VI
THE SPAEWIFE
O, I wad like to ken—to the beggar-wife says I— Why chops are guid to brander and nane sae guid to fry. An' siller, that's sae braw to keep, is brawer still to gi'e. —It's gey an' easy spierin', says the beggar-wife to me.
O, I wad like to ken—to the beggar-wife says I— Hoo a' things come to be whaur we find them when we try, The lasses in their claes an' the fishes in the sea. —It's gey an' easy spierin', says the beggar-wife to me.
O, I wad like to ken—to the beggar-wife says I— Why lads are a' to sell an' lasses a' to buy; An' naebody for dacency but barely twa or three. —It's gey an' easy spierin', says the beggar-wife to me.
​O, I wad like to ken—to the beggar-wife says I— Gin death's as shüre to men as killin' is to kye, Why God has filled the yearth sae fu' o' tasty things to pree. —It's gey an' easy spierin', says the beggar-wife to me.
O, I wad like to ken—to the beggar-wife says I— The reason o' the cause an' the wherefore o' the why, Wi' mony anither riddle brings the tear into my e'e. —It's gey an' easy spierin', says the beggar-wife to me.
# Underwoods/To Andrew Lang

XIV
TO ANDREW LANG
Dear Andrew, with the brindled hair, Who glory to have thrown in air, High over arm, the trembling reed, By Ale and Kail, by Till and Tweed: An equal craft of hand you show The pen to guide, the fly to throw: I count you happy starred; for God, When He with inkpot and with rod Endowed you, bade your fortune lead Forever by the crooks of Tweed, Forever by the woods of song And lands that to the Muse belong; Or if in peopled streets, or in The abhorred pedantic sanhedrim, ​It should be yours to wander, still Airs of the morn, airs of the hill, The plovery Forest and the seas That break about the Hebrides, Should follow over field and plain And find you at the window pane; And you again see hill and peel, And the bright springs gush at your heel. So went the fiat forth, and so Garrulous like a brook you go, With sound of happy mirth and sheen Of daylight—whether by the green You fare that moment, or the gray; Whether you dwell in March or May; Or whether treat of reels and rods Or of the old unhappy gods: Still like a brook your page has shone, And your ink sings of Helicon.
# Underwoods/Their Laureate to an Academy Class Dinner Club

X
THEIR LAUREATE TO AN ACADEMY CLASS DINNER CLUB
Dear Thamson class, whaure'er I gang It aye comes ower me wi' a spang: "Lordsake! they Thamson lads—(deil hang Or else Lord mend them!)— An' that wanchancy annual sang I ne'er can send them!"
Straucht, at the name, a trusty tyke, My conscience girrs ahint the dyke; Straucht on my hinderlands I fyke To find a rhyme t' ye; Pleased—although mebbe no pleased-like— To gie my time t' ye.
​"Weel," an' says you, wi' heavin' breist, "Sae far, sae guid, but what's the neist? Yearly we gaither to the feast, A' hopefü' men— Yearly we skelloch 'Hang the beast— Nae sang again!'"
My lads, an' what am I to say? Ye shürely ken the Muse's way: Yestreen, as gleg's a tyke—the day, Thrawn like a cuddy: Her conduc', that to her's a play, Deith to a body.
Aft whan I sat an' made my mane, Aft whan I laboured burd-alane, Fishin' for rhymes an' findin' nane, Or nane were fit for ye— Ye judged me cauld's a chucky stane— No car'n' a bit for ye!
​But saw ye ne'er some pingein' bairn As weak as a pitaty-par'n'— Less üsed wi' guidin' horse-shoe aim Than steerin' crowdie— Packed aff his lane, by moss an' cairn, To ca' the howdie.
Wae's me, for the puir callant than! He wambles like a poke o' bran, An' the lowse rein, as hard's he can, Pu's, trem'lin' handit; Till, blaff! upon his hinderlan' Behauld him landit.
Sic-like—I awn the weary fac'— Whan on my muse the gate I tak, An' see her gleed e'e raxin' back To keek ahint her;— To me, the brig o' Heev'n gangs black As blackest winter.
​"Lordsake! we're aff" thinks I, "but whaur? On what abhorred an' whinny scaur, Or whammled in what sea o' glaur, Will she desert me? An' will she just disgrace? or waur— Will she no hurt me?"
Kittle the quaere! But at least The day I've backed the fashious beast, While she, wi' mony a spang an' reist, Flang heels ower bonnet; An' a' triumphant—for your feast, Hae! there's your sonnet!
# United States v. Parker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 89
United States v. Parker
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for the United States.
C. J. Hillyer and Wm. M. Stewart, for defendants in error.
MATTHEWS, J.

## 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. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court anti-trust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurrence/Dissent

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 131
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
Argued: Feb. 9, 10, 11, 1948. --- Decided: May 3, 1948
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
[Syllabus from pages 131-138 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Tom C. Clark, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Wright, of Washington, D.C., and John F. Sonnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Thurman Arnold, of Washington, D.C., for American Theatres Ass'n and others.
Messrs. John G. Jackson, of New York City, and Robert T. Barton, of Richmond, Va., for W. C. Allred and others.
Mr. John W. Davis, of New York City, for Loew's Inc.
Mr. William J. Donovan, of Washington, D.C., for Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation and others.
Mr. Joseph M. Proskauer, of New York City, for Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., and others.
Mr. James F. Byrnes, of Washington, D.C., for Twentieth Century-Fox and others.
Mr. Whitney North Seymour, of New York City, for Paramount Pictures, Inc., and another.
Mr. Louis D. Frohlich, of New York City, for Columbia Pictures Corporation and another.
Mr. Thomas Turner Cooke, of New York City, for Universal Pictures Co. and others Mr. George A. Raftery, of New York City, for United Artists Corporation.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 139 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Parke, Davis & Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 29
United States v. Parke, Davis & Company
Argued: Nov. 10, 1959. --- Decided: Feb 29, 1960
Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Gerhard A. Gesell, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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. Parke Davis & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 125
United States v. Parke Davis & Company
Argued: Jan. 23, 1961. ---
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Daniel M. Friedman and Richard A. Solomon, for the United States.
Gerhard A. Gesell, Edward S. Reid, Jr. and Roberts B. Owen, for appellee.
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
# United States v. Parke Davis & Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 125
United States v. Parke Davis & Company
Argued: Jan. 23, 1961. ---
When this case was last here we held that the Government's proofs were sufficient to show that Parke Davis violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note. However, in reversing the District Court's judgment we remanded the case with direction to afford Parke Davis a further opportunity to submit evidence in defense in order to refute the Government's right to injunctive relief. United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, 49, 80 S.Ct. 503, 514, 4 L.Ed.2d 505. On remand, Parke Davis introduced evidence not to rebut the Government's proof as to violation but only to show that it had abandoned its illegal sales policy, and that therefore an injunction, being unnecessary, should not issue. On that record the District Court, 164 F.Supp. 827, entered an order denying not only the injunctive relief sought by the Government, but also an adjudication that Parke Davis had violated the law. The present appeal is not from the provision which denies injunctive relief, but from the omission of a provision adjudging that Parke Davis violated the Act. We have examined the record as supplemented on the remand and hold that under our prior order the Government is entitled to a judgment on the merits, as prayed in paragraph 1 of the section of the Complaint captioned 'Prayer.' We also hold that the District Court should retain the case on the docket for future action in the event the Government applies for further relief from an alleged resumption by Parke Davis of illegal activity. The order of the District Court filed July 18, 1960, is therefore vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with direction to enter judgment accordingly.
It is so ordered.
Order vacated and case remanded.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, with whom Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER agrees, would place this case on the summary calendar for argument, postponing to the merits consideration of the question of jurisdiction raised by the respondent.

## 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 of America v. Congress Construction Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 199
United States of America v. Congress Construction Company
Argued and submitted November 14 and 15, 1911.
Decided December 4, 1911.
Assistant Attorney General Harr for the United States.
Mr. Jesse R. Long for plaintiffs in error other than the United States.
Mr. Allen G. Mills for S. N. Crowen, one of the defendants in error.
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. Carver (278 U.S. 294)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 294
United States v. Carver (278 U.S. 294)
Argued: Nov. 28, 1928. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1929
Under Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, par. (b), 40 Stat. 182, authorizing the President to modify, suspend, cancel, or requisition contracts for building, production, or purchase of ships or material, Shipping Board, to which President delegated his authority, had no authority to cancel contract between owner and charterer for carriage of freight, so as to entitle owners to compensation for loss from cancellation.
Findings in suit for compensation, under Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, 40 Stat. 182, that Australian officials notified owner of vessel that Shipping Board had decided vessel would be ordered to abandon charome ore charter and return to United States for cargo of wheat, and that owners, without waiting for such order, signed wheat charter, did not show that the Shipping Board or the Emergency Fleet Corporation in fact canceled the chrome ore charter.
Where owners of vessel, on being informed that Shipping Board had decided to order vessel to abandon its charter and carry a cargo of wheat, signed wheat charter with Food Administration Grain Corporation to prevent taking over of vessel by government, the Shipping Board did not requisition or take over the vessel, under Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, per. (e), 40 Stat. 182, so as to entitle owners to compensation for loss from abandonment of the existing charter.
Even if Shipping Board had ordered vessel to abandon charter and carry a cargo of wheat, this would not have been a placing of an order for the ship, within Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, par. (a), 40 Stat. 182, so as to entitle owners of vessel to compensation for loss from abandonment of the charter.
Where owners of vessel were notified that Shipping Board had decided to order vessel to abandon charter and carry a cargo of wheat, and to prevent requisition owners signed wheat charter, the Shipping Board did not requisition the first charter, within Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, par. (e), 40 Stat. 182, authorizing requisition of ships or charters, so as to entitle owners to compensation for their loss.
The Attorney General and Mr. Wm. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Frank E. Scott, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.
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
# United States v. Carter (231 U.S. 492)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 492
United States v. Carter
Argued: December 1, 1913. --- Decided: December 15, 1913
Solicitor General Davis for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. William A. Blount and Francis B. Carter for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Chief Justice White, 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
# United States v. Carver

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Carver."
* 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.
* United States v. Carver (260 U.S. 482)
* United States v. Carver (278 U.S. 294)
See also Carver v. United States.
# United States v. Carver (260 U.S. 482)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 482
United States v. Carver
Argued: Dec. 6, 1922. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1923
The Attorney General and Mr. Norman B. Beecher, of New York City, for the United States.
Mr. E. Curtis Rouse, of New York City, for Carver and Morrell.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 483-487 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
# United States v. Carter

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Carter."
* 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.
* United States v. Carter (217 U.S. 286)
* United States v. Carter (231 U.S. 492)
# United States v. Carter (217 U.S. 286)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 286
United States v. Carter
Argued: January 13, 14, 1910. --- Decided: April 18, 1910
Messrs. Marion Erwin and Edwin W. Sims for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 287-293 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph B. Foraker, Horace G. Stone, John B. Daish, and William W. Gurley for Carter et al.
Solicitor General Bowers and Mr. Marion Erwin for petition for writ of prohibition.
Mr. John B. Daish opposed.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 293-297 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Lurton 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 Reports/Volume 193

* 193 U.S. 1 (1904) United States v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company
* 193 U.S. 10 (1904) Carstairs v. Cochran
* 193 U.S. 17 (1904) Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Company v. Osborn
* 193 U.S. 30 (1904) Cincinnati Street Railway Company v. Snell
* 193 U.S. 38 (1904) W. W. Montague & Company v. Lowry
* 193 U.S. 49 (1904) American Book Company v. Kansas ex rel. Nichols
* 193 U.S. 53 (1904) Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Minnesota Railroad Warehouse Commission
* 193 U.S. 65 (1904) Ah How v. United States
* 193 U.S. 79 (1904) Leigh v. Green
* 193 U.S. 93 (1904) Julian v. Central Trust Company
* 193 U.S. 115 (1904) United States v. Choctaw Nation
* 193 U.S. 127 (1904) Delaware Indians v. Cherokee Nation
* 193 U.S. 146 (1904) Giles v. Teasley
* 193 U.S. 167 (1904) Security Land Exploration Company v. Burns
* 193 U.S. 188 (1904) Security Land Exploration Company v. Weckey
* 193 U.S. 189 (1904) Winous Point Shooting Club v. Caspersen
* 193 U.S. 192 (1904) Hodges v. Colcord
* 193 U.S. 197 (1904) Northern Securities Company v. United States
* 193 U.S. 411 (1904) Eaton v. Brown
* 193 U.S. 416 (1904) Underground Railroad of the City of New York v. City of New York
* 193 U.S. 430 (1904) Barney v. City of New York
* 193 U.S. 441 (1904) Huntington v. City of New York
* 193 U.S. 442 (1904) Boering v. Chesapeake Beach Railway Company
* 193 U.S. 451 (1904) Gagnon v. United States
* 193 U.S. 473 (1904) Tinker v. Colwell
* 193 U.S. 490 (1904) Fargo v. Hart
* 193 U.S. 504 (1904) Rippey v. State of Texas
* 193 U.S. 510 (1904) Adams v. Church
* 193 U.S. 517 (1904) Hong v. United States
* 193 U.S. 523 (1904) Bache v. Hunt
* 193 U.S. 526 (1904) Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Company
* 193 U.S. 528 (1904) United States v. Jones (193 U.S. 528)
* 193 U.S. 532 (1904) Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company v. Jones
* 193 U.S. 551 (1904) Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Hill
* 193 U.S. 561 (1904) Newburyport Water Company v. City of Newburyport
* 193 U.S. 580 (1904) Gloucester Water Supply Company v. City of Gloucester
* 193 U.S. 581 (1904) Third National Bank of Buffalo v. Buffalo German Insurance Company
* 193 U.S. 593 (1904) United States v. McCoy
* 193 U.S. 602 (1904) Platt v. Wilmot
* 193 U.S. 614 (1904) Sloan v. United States
* 193 U.S. 621 (1904) Pope v. Williams
* 193 U.S. 635 (1904) National Mutual Building Loan Association of New York v. Brahan
* 193 U.S. 651 (1904) United States v. Commonwealth Title Insurance Trust Company
* 193 U.S. 657 (1904) Wright v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company
* 193 U.S. 676 (1904) Hall v. First National Bank of Bridgeport