OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Romance of the Rose (Ellis)/Chapter 47

Layout 2
XLVII
This telleth how in days gone by Earth’s children had no treasury Or store of goods, but everything Was common, free of prince or king.
Simplicity of life And when a-nights they sought their rest, No beds of down their bodies pressed. But scattered they fresh fragrant leaves, Or moss in heaps, or fresh cut sheaves Of grass or reeds, and heaven’s sweet air Was ever soft and gentle there,8820 In one unvarying tide of spring, While tuneful birds made morning ring ​With the sweet latin of their lay That welcome cried to dawning day. Soft Zephirus, and eke his wife, Dame Flora, queen of flowers, new life Gave to the meads where’er they went, And every verdant laund besprent With opening buds, which gladly her Worshipped as dame and verderer.8830 For these, to speed young lovers, go Across the teeming earth and sow Sweet flowers a-tint with varied hues, Which amorous swains and maidens use To twine amid their flowing hair In chaplets fragrant, fresh and fair, And ’tis for such they love to spread Gay counterpanes right well bestead With countless flowrets in such wise As seems, forsooth, to mock the skies,8840 With stars all gloriously beseen.
Old-time freedom On couches thus bedecked I ween, From jealousy and envy free They mingled in felicity Secure, with soft embrace and kiss, ’Neath sheltering boughs in heaven-like bliss. The branches joined above them made A fretted roof of cooling shade. And there right joyously they spent The jolly time in merriment8850 And carolling and amorous play, As simple men for whom the day Was ne’er too long, nor sad nor dull, For all the world was beautiful. ​’Neath tyranny did no man wince, For not as yet had king or prince Claimed others having, but all shared Earth’s gifts in common lot, and fared One as another; none possessed, Therefore were none by lack distressed.8860 Though Ovid’s saying nought they knew, Which none but fools would doubt for true: Never can love and seigniory Travel together, nor can they be In any case fit spouse and bride, High rule sets equal love aside.
# Romance of the Rose (Ellis)/Chapter 48

Layout 2
XLVIII
This notes how ill-bred men will cry “Out” on their wives through jealousy, Calling them names I scarce dare tell, As minx, jade, harlot, Jezebel.8870
Seigniory kills love And thus ’tis seen that strange conceit Of wisdom eggs fools on to treat Their spouses ill, to such degree That they misuse them brutally, Saying that too much time they spend In dancing, or too often wend In company with some young blade With whom they’ve assignation made, And ask them how they love expect From husbands if they dare reject8880 Their counsels, deeming they alone, Their wives, both body and goods, should own. Cries one: Your air is far too gay, And why this mincing mien, I pray? ​Soon as I sally forth to work, Away you start, with smile and smirk, Ready for some wild prank or game. Whereat your cheeks should burn for shame. Singing aloud like siren sleek— God curse you with an evil week.8890
A husband’s woes When business drags me far from home To Frisia’s shores, or e’en to Rome, At once you mount coquettish dress, That leaves but little room to guess My lot, till neighbours talk thereon. And when they ask wherefore you don Such gay attire while I’m away, With brazen impudence you’ll say In mocking tones: Oho! oho! ’Tis that I love my husband so.8900 But I, poor wretch, may mope and grieve, Who careth, whether I forge or weave, Or whether alive or dead am I? Then one would hit me in the eye With bladder reft from goat or sheep, And all the world but holds me cheap. Because to beat you I’ve forborne, Whilst nought I win from you but scorn, You brag! though well ’tis known you lie. Alack! alack! a fool was I8910 With such a pair of gloves to cramp My hands—but I the bit may champ. Alas! a fool’s cap ’twas I wore That day when you obedience swore In church, and I, poor idiot, dreamed You’d later prove what then you seemed. ​How could it be supposed that e’er A bold and brazen face you’d bear Towards the lecherous wanton wights Who follow loose-lived girls o’ nights?8920 For whom, I ask, do you prepare The chestnuts I’m not asked to share? ’Twould seem indeed that you are fain Of me as shield against the rain. And pose you as a ring-dove simple And soft, beneath your modest wimple. But how about that ample cloak ’Neath which fine gallants know to poke Themselves in tête-à-tête? I swear, Except for shame and kindness ’twere.8930 I’d not for bezants four of gold, Your trouncing, well deserved, withhold, But use my stick to bate your pride, Which sorely hath my patience tried. For know that vastly ’tis to me Displeasing that you decked should be To join in carol, song, or dance, Without my leave and countenance.
# Samuels v. McCurdy

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Butler
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 188
Samuels v. McCurdy
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 22, 1925. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
Mr. Hooper Alexander, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 188-190 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# San Antonio Conservation Society v. Texas Highway Department

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 968
Named Individual Members of the San Antonio Conservation Society v. Texas Highway Department et al.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 1101. Argued: N/A --- Decided: December 21, 1970
Certiorari denied.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Samuel Purdy's Sine die Address of May 4, 1852

Senators:
In closing the labors of this long and tiresome session—and as we are about parting, each to pursue his own path of life and death, it is impossible for me to express the sense of obligation I feel for the uniform courtesy and kindness which you have manifested towards me during our labors together. I have received from you every mark of attention and generous consideration which I cannot easily forget, and for which, gentlemen, I shall ever feel grateful. I felt an embarrassment, owing to my want of experience in legislative affairs ; but that feeling was soon removed by your kind indulgence and courtesy. It affords me pleasure to believe that nothing has occurred, since our meeting, to interrupt those feelings of friendship and respect for each other, which tend so greatly to individual advantage, and to correct and proper legislation.
I can now bid you farewell, and trust that all your paths may be prosperous, and your lives full of blessings.
And in accordance with a concurrent resolution of the two Houses, I now declare this Senate adjourned sine die.
Journal of the third session of the Legislature of the State of California May 4, 1852
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Samuels v. Mackell

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 66
Samuels et al. v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
No. 7. Argued: April 1, 1969; April 29, and November 16, 1970 --- Decided: February 23, 1971
Appellants, who had been indicted under New York's criminal anarchy law, sought declaratory as well as injunctive relief against their protections, on the ground that the law is unconstitutional. A three-judge District Court upheld the law and dismissed the complaints.
Held:
    1. Since there was no showing that appellants have suffered or will suffer great and immediate irreparable injury by virtue of their being prosecuted in the state courts, where they can make their constitutional contentions, there is no basis for federal injunctive relief. Younger v. Harris, supra, p. 37. Pp. 68-69.
    2. The same principles that govern the propriety of federal injunctions of state criminal proceedings govern the issuance of federal declaratory judgments in connection with such proceedings, and appellants here should have been denied declaratory relief without consideration of the merits of their constitutional claims. Pp. 69-74.
288 F. Supp. 349, affirmed.
BLACK, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and HARLAN, STEWART, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 74. STEWART, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which HARLAN, J., joined, ante, p. 54. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which WHITE and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 75.
Victor Rabinowitz argued the cause for appellants in No. 7 on the original argument and on the rearguments. With him on the briefs were Leonard B. Boudin, Michael Standard, and Dorian Bowman. Eleanor Jackson Piel argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant in No. 9 on the original argument and on the rearguments.
Frederick J. Ludwig argued the cause for appellee Mackell in both cases on the original argument and on the rearguments. With him on the briefs was Thomas J. Mackell, pro se. Maria L. Marcus, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellee Attorney General of New York in both cases on the original argument and on the rearguments. With her on the briefs were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Hillel Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General.

## Notes

* ↑ Together with No. 9, Fernandez v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al., also on appeal from the same court.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company v. Wagner

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 476
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company v. Wagner
Argued: April 14, 1916. --- Decided: June 5, 1916
Messrs. Robert J. Boyle, Rufus S. Day, Samuel Herrick, and A. B. Storey for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. H. C. Carter, Perry J. Lewis, and John Sehorn for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Pitney 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
# Schmidt v. Badger

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
107 U.S. 85
Schmidt v. Badger
C. W. Hornor, for appellant in error.
Sol. Gen. Phillips, 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
# Schmidinger v. City of Chicago

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 578
Schmidinger v. City of Chicago
Argued: and submitted December 20, 1912. --- Decided: January 13, 1913
Messrs. Harry Rubens and Benjamin F. Ninde for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 579-581 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph F. Grossman and William H. Sexton for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 581-583 intentionally omitted]
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
# Schmidt's Law Journal

The Louisiana Law Journal is a periodical, published from 1841 to 1842. It was edited by Gustavus Schmidt. It is sometimes called Schmidt's Law Journal.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Schmidt Story v. Bank of Commerce

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
234 U.S. 64
Schmidt Story v. Bank of Commerce
Argued: March 19, 1914. --- Decided: May 25, 1914
Messrs.
Francis E. Wood and O. N. Marron for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Harry M. Dongherty and James G. Fitch for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Hughes 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
# Royal Naval Biography/Vassall, Nathaniel

Layout 2
NATHANIEL VASSALL, Esq. [Commander.]
Obtained his first commission in Nov. 1790; and was wounded, while serving as one of Nelson’s lieutenants, at the memorable battle of the Nile. During the whole of the late war, he commanded the Juniper schooner, of 10 guns. His promotion to the rank of commander took place on the 15th June, 1814. He died Sept. 8th, 1832.
# Royal Naval Biography/Vernon, Octavius Henry Cyril Venables

Layout 2
OCTAVIUS H. C. VENABLES VERNON, Esq. [Captain of 1827.]
Is a son of the Right Hon. Edward Venables Vernon, D.C.L., Archbishop of York, Primate of England, &c. &c. &c. He -was made a lieutenant, Jan. 11, 1814; appointed to the Amelia frigate, Captain the Hon. Granville Proby, fitting out for the Mediterranean station. Mar. 27, 1815; and to the Sir Francis Drake, flag-ship at Newfoundland, May 2, 1818; promoted to the command of the Drake sloop, Feb. 3, 1820; appointed to the Britomart of 10 guns, June 5, 1824; and removed from that vessel into the Primrose 18, on the Jamaica station. May 30, 1825. He subsequently visited Vera Cruz, Tampico, Havannah, New York, Washington, Philadelphia, and Baltimore; brought home the British Chargé d’affaires, and upwards of a million of dollars, from Mexico, in July, 1827; and was advanced to the rank of Captain, on the 7th of the following month.
# Royal Naval Biography/Vashon, James

Layout 2
JAMES VASHON, Esq Admiral of the White, and a Vice-President of the Naval Charitable Society.
This officer obtained Post rank April 12th, 1782, and in the following year commanded the Sybil, of 28 guns, at Jamaica. He was subsequently appointed to the Europa 50, on the same station, in which latter ship the gallant Captain Duff, who fell at Trafalgar, was his first Lieutenant.
During the Spanish and Russian armaments, Captain Vashon commanded the Ardent, 64; and at the commencement of the war with the French republic, the St. Albans, of the same force. In that vessel he proceeded to Gibraltar with the fleet under Lord Hood, and returned from thence with a convoy; after which he escorted the trade to the West Indies. In the summer of 1795, our officer removed into the Pompée of 80 guns, stationed in the Channel. On the 15th June, 1797, he returned to Spithead, in consequence of a most dangerous conspiracy among his crew, which was happily discovered before ready for execution. A court-martial was immediately assembled to try six of the principal mutineers; when the charges having been proved in the clearest manner against four of them, they were sentenced to suffer death, one to be imprisoned twelve months, and the other acquitted. On the 28th two of these unhappy men were executed on board the Pompée, and the other two received the royal pardon.
In the spring of 1799, Captain Vashon removed into the Neptune, of 98 guns, and was sent to reinforce the fleet in the Mediterranean, under Earl St. Vincent; on which station, however, he remained but a few months. Early in 1801, he took the command of the Dreadnought, a new 98-gun ship; and after cruising for some time in the Channel, proceeded off Cadiz and to Minorca, where he continued until the summer of 1802.
Towards the latter end of the following year, we find Captain Vashon in the Princess Royal, 98, stationed at the mouth ​of Southampton River, to guard that place, and the west end of the Isle of Wight, in case of an invasion. On the 23rd April, 1804, he was promoted to the rank of Rear-Admiral; and about the same time appointed to the command of the naval force on the coast of Scotland, under the general orders of Lord Keith. He accordingly proceeded to Leith, where his flag was hoisted, and remained till the latter end of 1808, when he was relieved by Sir Edmund Nagle.
Previous to his relinquishment of the above command, the only one, we believe, enjoyed by him as a Flag-Officer, the Master and Brethren of the Trinity-House, Leith, presented him with the freedom of their Corporation, and an elegant silver snuff-box.
He was made Vice-Admiral, April 28, 1808; and Admiral, June 4, 1814. His only son is in holy orders.
# Royal Naval Biography/Vesey, Francis

Layout 2
FRANCIS VESEY, Esq [Post-Captain of 1799.]
This officer was made a Lieutenant in 1793; commanded l’Amaranthe of 14 guns, at the Leeward Islands in 1797; and captured le Vengeur, a French schooner letter of marque, mounting six 4-pounders, and laden, with flour, near Jamaica, April 13, 1799. This vessel, notwithstanding her vast inferiority, maintained a close action with l’Amaranthe for one hour and eight minutes, during which she had 14 men killed and 5 wounded out of her crew, including passengers, only 36 in number. The English brig had 1 man killed and 3 wounded.
Captain Vesey obtained post rank Sept. 16, 1799; and during the remainder of the war, commanded the Volage, on ​the Jamaica station. In 1804, we find him serving in the Brilliant of 28 guns; and previous to the peace of 1814, superintending the payment of ships at Portsmouth.
Agent.– Harry Cook, Esq.
# Royal Naval Biography/Veitch, James

Layout 2
JAMES VEITCH, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1812.]
Was made Lieutenant early in 1793; promoted to the rank of Commander in Jan. 1801; appointed to the Sea Fencible service, in Scilly, about June, 1803; to the Alonzo sloop, about Nov. 1810; and posted Aug. 12, 1812.
Agent.– J. Copland, Esq.
# Royal Naval Biography/Vidal, Alexander Thomas Emeric

Layout 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS EMERIC VIDAL, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1825.]
Was made a lieutenant, Feb. 6th, 1815; appointed to the Leven 24, Captain David Ewen Bartholomew, C.B., Aug. 25th, 1818; re-appointed to the same ship, under the command of Captain William F. Owen, Aug. 14th, 1821; promoted to the command of the Barracouta, surveying-vessel, on the coast of Africa, May 15th, 1823; and advanced to the rank of captain, Oct. 4th, 1825.
Agent.– John Chippendale, Esq.
# Royal Naval Biography/Vidal, Richard Emeric

Layout 2
RICHARD EMERIC VIDAL, Esq. [Commander.]
Was made a lieutenant on the 10th July, 1809. He commanded the boats of the Cornwallis frigate. Captain (now Sir W. A.) Montague, at the capture of a Dutch brig, lying under the fort of Manippa, laden with turtle, fowls, fruit, and sago, bound to Amboyna, Feb. 1st, 1810. He obtained his present rank on the 22d July, 1830.
# Scrutiny

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Scrutiny."
* 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.
* The Scrutiny
* Scrutiny: A Quarterly Review, literature journal (1932-1953)
# Scudder v. Coler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
175 U.S. 32
Scudder v. Coler
Argued: October 18, 1899. --- Decided: October 30, 1899
Mr. J. Culbert Palmer for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Emmet R. Olcott for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Gray 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
# Scull v. Virginia Committee on Law Reform and Racial Activities

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 344
Scull v. Virginia Committee on Law Reform and Racial Activities
Argued: Nov. 18, 1958. --- Decided: May 4, 1959
Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. Leslie Hall, Alexandria, Va., for the respondent.
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice BLACK, announced by Mr. Justice HARLAN.

## 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
# Security

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Security."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, course, 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.
* "Security", a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson
* "Security", a poem by Dyneley Hussey
# Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the offer of a land sales and service contract was an “investment contract” within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77b, and that the use of the mails and interstate commerce in the offer and sale of these securities was a violation of §5 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 77e. It was an important case in determining the general applicability of the federal securities laws. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
328 U.S. 293
Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Company
Argued: May 2, 1946. --- Decided: May 27, 1946
See 67 S.Ct. 27.
Mr. Roger S. Foster, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Messrs. C. E. Duncan, of Tavares, Fla., and George C. Bedell, of Jacksonville, Fla., for respondents.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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