OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# On the Sublime/Chapter 7

It is proper to observe that in human life nothing is truly great which is despised by all elevated minds. For example, no man of sense can regard wealth, honour, glory, and power, or any of those things which are surrounded by a great external parade of pomp and circumstance, as the highest blessings, seeing that merely to despise such things is a blessing of no common order: certainly those who possess them are admired much less than those who, having the opportunity to acquire them, through greatness of soul neglect it. Now let us apply this principle to the Sublime in poetry or in prose; let us ask in all cases, is it merely a specious sublimity? is this gorgeous exterior a mere false and clumsy pageant, ​which if laid open will be found to conceal nothing but emptiness? for if so, a noble mind will scorn instead of admiring it.2 It is natural to us to feel our souls lifted up by the true Sublime, and conceiving a sort of generous exultation to be filled with joy and pride, as though we had ourselves originated the ideas which we read. 3 If then any work, on being repeatedly submitted to the judgment of an acute and cultivated critic, fails to dispose his mind to lofty ideas; if the thoughts which it suggests do not extend beyond what is actually expressed; and if, the longer you read it, the less you think of it,—there can be here no true sublimity, when the effect is not sustained beyond the mere act of perusal. But when a passage is pregnant in suggestion, when it is hard, nay impossible, to distract the attention from it, and when it takes a strong and lasting hold on the memory, then we may be sure that we have lighted on the true Sublime. 4In general we may regard those words as truly noble and sublime which always please and please all readers. For when the same book always produces the same impression on all who read it, whatever be the difference in their pursuits, their manner of life, their aspirations, their ages, or their language, such a harmony of opposites gives irresistible authority to their favourable verdict.
# North Carolina v. Tennessee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 1
North Carolina v. Tennessee
Argued: October 15, 16, 1914. --- Decided: November 9, 1914
Mr. Thomas W. Bickett, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Messrs. F. A. Sondley, Theodore F. Davidson, and C. B. Matthews for complainant.
Messrs. Charles T. Cates, Jr., and Mr. Frank M. Thompson, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Messrs. T. E. H. McCroskey and Samuel G. Shields for defendant.
Messrs. John Franklin Shields and William A. Stone for the Babcock Lumber & Land Company, as amicus curioe.
Messrs. W. D. Spears and L. N. Spears for Theodore A. Cobb et al.-
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# North Carolina v. Tennessee (240 U.S. 652)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 652
North Carolina v. Tennessee (240 U.S. 652)

## 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
# North Carolina v. Pearce/Concurrence White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Harlan White
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 711
State of NORTH CAROLINA et al., Petitioners, v. Clifton A. PEARCE. Curtis M. SIMPSON, Warden, Petitioner,
Argued: Feb. 24, 1969. ---
Mr. Justice WHITE, concurring in part.
I join the Court's opinion except that in my view Part II-C should authorize an increased sentence on retrial based on any objective, identifiable factual data not known to the trial judge at the time of the original sentencing proceeding.

## 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
# North Carolina v. Rice

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 244
North Carolina v. Rice
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 70-77 Argued: October 12, 1971 --- Decided: December 14, 1971
Respondent was convicted in a General County Court in North Carolina of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and payment of a fine. On appeal, he was tried de novo in the Superior Court, found guilty, and given a two-year sentence. The District Court denied habeas corpus, and respondent, who by then had been completely discharged from prison, appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court, relying on North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, held the the case was not mooted by respondent's discharge, and that respondent was entitled to have the record of his conviction expunged.
Held: North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, does not require that respondent's conviction be invalidated but only that he be resentenced if the higher sentence imposed after the de novo trial was vulnerable under Pearce. Since the present record deals with the mootness issue only from the standpoint of conviction vel non and does not reveal whether, under state law, benefits accrue to respondent in having his sentence reduced after he has served it, the case is remanded for reconsideration of the mootness question.
434 F. 2d 797, vacated and remanded.
Jacob L. Safron, Assistant Attorney General of North Carolina, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Robert Morgan, Attorney General. Joining in and adopting the brief were the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Gary K. Nelson of Arizona, Ray Thornton of Arkansas, Robert L. Shevin of Florida, Theodore L. Sendak of Indiana, Vern Miller of Kansas, John B. Breckinridge of Kentucky, James S. Erwin of Maine, Francis B. Burch of Maryland, A.F. Summer of Mississippi, Robert L. Woodahl of Montana, Clarence A.H. Meyer of Nebraska, Helgi Johanneson of North Dakota, Crawford C. Martin of Texas, Vernon B. Romney of Utah, and Andrew P. Miller of Virginia.
William W. Van Alstyne argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by John W. Benoit, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for the State of Maine, and by Vernon B. Romney, Attorney General of Utah, pro se.
The Prison Research Counsel filed a brief as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

## 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
# North Carolina v. Temple/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
134 U.S. 22
North Carolina v. Temple
I dissent from so much of the judgment in this case as holds that this suit cannot be maintained against the auditor of the state of North Carolina. The legislation of which complaint is here made impaired the obligation of the state's contract, and was, therefore, unconstitutional and void. It did not, in law, affect the existence or operation of the previous statutes out of which the contract in question arose. So that the court was at liberty to compel the officer of the state to perform the duties which the statutes, constituting the contract, imposed upon him. A suit against him for such a purpose is not, in my judgment, one against the state. It is a suit to compel the performance of ministerial duties, from the performance of which the state's officer was not, and could not be, relieved by unconstitutional and void legislative enactments.

## 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
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 7/Margaret Wilson

Artwork by John Everett Millais.
MARGARET WILSON.
See Lord Macaulay’s History of England, vol. i., page 501. Margaret Wilson’s epitaph, from Wodrow, in the Churchyard of Wigton, is as follows:
Murdered for owning Christ supreme
Head of his Church, and no more crime
But her not owning Prelacy,
And not abjuring Presbytery;
Within the sea, tied to a stake,
She suffered for Christ Jesu’s sake.
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 7/Love song

LOVE SONG.
The sweetest flower of latter spring, That only breathes the breath of May;
The prettiest finch on painted wing,
By dropping acorn scared away,— My Love is fair and shy as they.
A bashful violet of a maid,
She trembles at a gust of care;
But then she’s fairest when afraid,
Her blue eyes look up in a prayer,— My little Love is good as fair.
Once I came back: she sat alone,
Past midnight, in a dusky room;
On face and hair the firelight shone— Ah, happy me! when through the gloom
I heard her sigh, and knew for whom.
Smiling that night, and crown’d with flowers,
All eyes but mine my Love had seen;
I knew the music of those hours
Was witching, but my little Queen
Had sigh’d for me, her smiles between.
I care not if her face be cut
To shape of artists’ fantasies;
The light of it is nameless, but
Fills all my dreams, and when I rise
I follow it to my Love’s blue eyes.
Mary Brotherton.
# Oenone

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Oenone."
* 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.
* "Oenone", a poem by Helen Hunt Jackson
* "Oenone", a poem by Alfred Tennyson
# Oelrichs v. Spain

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 211
Oelrichs v. Spain

## 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
# Oelbermann v. Merritt

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 356
Oelbermann v. Merritt
D. H. Chamberlain, W. B. Hornblower, and E. H. Lewis, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for defendant in error.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# Oelwereke Teutonia v. Erlanger & Galinger Erlanger & Galinger

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 521
Oelwereke Teutonia v. Erlanger & Galinger Erlanger & Galinger
Argued: Jan. 20, 1919. --- Decided: Feb 3, 1919
Mr. Harry W. Van Dyke, of Washington, D. C., for Oelwerke teutonia.
Mr. F. C. Fisher, of Manila, P. I., for Erlanger & Galinger.
[Argument of Counsel from page 522-523 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
# Oelricks v. Ford

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 49
Oelricks v. Ford

## 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
# Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.

### To the Right Honourable P E T E R Lord K I N G, Baron of Ockham, Lord High Chancellor of Great-Britain.

My Lord,
I shall make no Apology for addressing the following Sheets to Your Lordship, who lived in a long Intercourse of Friendship with the Author; and, like him, amidst occupations of a different nature, made Religion your voluntary Study; and in all your Enquiries and Actions, have shewn the same inflexible Adherence to Truth and Virtue.
I shall always reckon it one of the Advantages of my Relation to Sir Isaac Newton, that it affords me an opportunity of making this publick acknowledgment of the unfeigned Respect of,
    My Lord,
          Your Lordship's
                most obedient, and
                      most humble Servant,
                            Benj. Smith.

## CONTENTS.
### PART I.
#### Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel.

CHAP. I. Introduction concerning, the Compilers of the Books of the Old Testament.
CHAP. II. Of the Prophetic Language.
CHAP. III. Of the vision of the Image composed of four Metals.
CHAP. IV. Of the vision of the four Beasts.
CHAP. V. Of the Kingdoms represented by the feet of the Image composed of iron and clay.
CHAP. VI. Of the ten Kingdoms represented by the ten horns of the fourth Beast.
CHAP. VII. Of the eleventh horn of Daniel's fourth Beast.
CHAP. VIII. Of the power of the eleventh horn of Daniel's fourth Beast, to change times and laws.
CHAP. IX. Of the Kingdoms represented in Daniel by the Ram and He-Goat.
CHAP. X. Of the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.
CHAP. XI. Of the Times of the Birth and Passion of Christ.
CHAP. XII. Of the Prophecy of the Scripture of Truth.
CHAP. XIII. Of the King who did according to his will, and magnified himself above every God, and honoured Mahuzzims, and regarded not the desire of women.
CHAP. XIV. Of the Mahuzzims, honoured by the King who doth according to his will.

### PART II.
#### Observations upon the Apocalypse of St. John.

CHAP. I. Introduction, concerning the time when the Apocalypse was written.
CHAP. II. Of the relation which the Apocalypse of John hath to the Book of the Law of Moses, and to the worship of God in the Temple.
CHAP. III. Of the relation which the Prophecy of John hath to those of Daniel; and of the Subject of the Prophecy.
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
# Pendergast v. United States ex rel. O'Malley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 412
Pendergast v. United States ex rel. O'Malley
Argued: and Submitted Dec. 14, 15, 1942. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1943
Mr. Ralph M. Russell, of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner O'malley.
Mr. John G. Madden, of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner Pendergast.
Mr. James E. Carroll, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner McCormack.
Messrs. William S. Hogsett, of Kansas City, Mo., and Herbert Wechsler, of Washington, D.C., 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
# Pendergraft v. Mississippi

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 715
Pendergraft v. Mississippi
See 395 U.S. 941, 89 S.Ct. 1993.
W. S. Moore, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., of Mississippi, and G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., 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
# Pendleton v. Benner Line

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 353
Pendleton v. Benner Line
Argued: March 11 and 12, 1918. --- Decided: March 25, 1918
Messrs. Harvey D. Goulder, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Avery F. Cushman, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. D. Roger Englar, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 715
Pendergraft v. Mississippi
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

## 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
# Pencil Sketching from Nature/Front matter

PENCIL SKETCHING
FROM NATURE
BY JAMES PARTON HANEY
PUBLISHED BY THE DAVIS PRESS
WORCHESTER, MASS.
# Phillips-Jones Corporation v. Parmley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 233
Phillips-Jones Corporation v. Parmley
Argued: Nov. 19, 1937. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1937
Messrs. Robert T. McCracken, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Herman Goldman, of New York City, for petitioners.
Margaret Wilkinson, a respondent, pro se.
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
# Phillips Chemical Company v. Dumas Independent School District

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 376
Phillips Chemical Company v. Dumas Independent School District
Argued: Nov. 17, 18, 1959. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1960
Mr. Clark M. Clifford, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by invitation of the Court.
Mr. Jack N. Price for State of Texas, as amicus curiae, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Earnest L. Langley for appellee.
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
# Phillips Company v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 662
Phillips Company v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company
Argued: January 15, 1915. --- Decided: March 15, 1915
Messrs. Edward H. S. Martin and George M. Stephen for plaintiff in error.
Mr. L. C. Stanley for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Lamar 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
# Phillips Petroleum Company v. Jenkins

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
297 U.S. 629
Phillips Petroleum Company v. Jenkins
Argued: Feb. 7, 10, 1936. --- Decided: March 30, 1936
Mr. Rayburn L. Foster, of Bartlesville, Okla., for appellants.
Mr. Robert C. Knox, of El Dorado, Ark., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 630 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
# Phillips Chemical Company v. Dumas Independent School District/Concurrence Frankfurter

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 376
Phillips Chemical Company v. Dumas Independent School District
Argued: Nov. 17, 18, 1959. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1960
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concurs in the result.

## 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
# Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
277 U.S. 151
Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio
Argued: Feb. 27, 1928. --- Decided: May 14, 1928
Messrs, Charles A. Ellis and S. B. Axtell, both of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 151-153 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Cletus Keating, of New York City, 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
# Poems (Chandler)/May-Flowers

POEMS.
# Omniana/Volume 2/Force of Habit

176. Force of Habit.
An Emir had bought a left eye of a glass eye-maker, supposing that he would be able to see with it. The man begged him to give it a little time: he could not expect that it would see all at once as well as the right eye, which had been for so many years in the habit of it.
# Omniana/Volume 2/Carp

181. Carp.
This fish, not long after its introduction into England, found its way into the Thames "by the violent rage of sundry land floods, that brake open the heads and dams of divers gentlemen's ponds, by which means it became somewhat partaker of this commodity."
​I wish some such accident would stock our rivers with that beautiful creature the gold fish; or rather, let me wish that some reader of the Omniana, who may have taken half the pleasure that I have done in walking by the side of the New River in Hertfordshire, and watching the motion of its inhabitants (without a rod in my hand), may take the hint, and transfer some half dozen from a glass globe to one of the slow rivers of the midland counties.
It is well known how slowly the carp multiplies in ponds. Izaak Walton accuses the frogs of destroying them, but I cannot persuade myself to find a true bill against these poor persecuted Dutch nightingales, upon the evidence which he produces. The more certain solution is, that they devour their own spawn; and this may be accounted for by the little room they have to range in search of food. ​Besides, all creatures are, more or less, denaturalized by confinement. I once saw a hen at sea, eating the egg which she had just dropt. The sight of the poor sea-sick poultry, in their miserable coops, is at all times exceedingly unpleasant: but I am not ashamed to say, that this seemed to me something shocking. They who have ever thought upon the mystery of incubation will understand the feeling.