OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Effect of Adjournment on Unfinished Business

Layout 2
EFFECT OF ADJOURNMENT ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
85. The effect of an adjournment to the pending question varies according to the nature of the assembly. When a question is interrupted by adjournment of the session (30) of an assembly whose members are elective, and the terms of a portion of them expire with the session, or when the meeting is one called for some special purpose, the question under consideration at the time of adjournment would be defeated and would not stand before the assembly at the next session; the same question may, however, be introduced at the next session as if it had never been before the assembly.
86. If the adjournment does not close the session the question should come up at the next meeting after the reading of the minutes and be treated as if there had been no adjournment. When the adjournment closes the session of an assembly holding regular sessions oftener than once each year, said adjournment does not put an end to unfinished business; all such business ​should be taken up in its regular order at the next session under the order of unfinished business and consideration upon it resumed at the point where it was interrupted by adjournment.
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
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Duties of the Secretary

Layout 2
DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
19. It is the duty of the secretary to keep a correct record of the proceedings of the assembly. The character of this record depends upon the kind of meeting and upon the nature of the society. In ordinary societies where the minutes are not published ​it is only necessary that he record what is done—what business is introduced and how it is disposed of. It is often as important to know what measures were introduced and rejected as what ones were adopted. What is said by the members or merely proposed, or moved without coming to a vote, has no place in the record. There are, however, assemblies in which it is necessary to know what is said as well as what is done. In such assemblies where the duties of the secretary are difficult, he should have one or more assistants. When more than one secretary is elected the one first elected is considered the secretary, the others his assistants.
20. In the absence of the presiding officer (if there be no vice presidents present) it is the duty of the secretary to call the meeting to order, state the fact of the presiding officer's absence, call for nominations and preside at the election of a temporary presiding officer. He should be attentive to his duties, capable of expressing himself accurately in writing, be a good reader with a voice strong enough to be ​heard in all parts of the place of meeting. He should have charge of all papers and documents of every description belonging to the assembly and not otherwise assigned. He should notify members of their appointment on committees; also of the the purpose of their appointment, and give to the chairman of such committee the names of the members of the committee and all papers, if any, referred to it. He should keep for the convenience of the presiding officer a record of all committees which are expected to report, and of the time when such report is due; also of all unfinished business which should come up before that meeting. He should generally attend to all the clerical work of the presiding officer and authenticate by his signature all the acts or proceedings of the assembly.
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
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Effect of Negative Action

Layout 2
EFFECT OF NEGATIVE ACTION.
115. So if a motion to strike out certain words is rejected it cannot be renewed as ​to the same words, or part of the same words, because the assembly by deciding in the negative as to striking out has really adopted the words (a negative decision in one case is equivalent to an affirmative in the other); the assembly has by vote decided said words shall stand as a part of the proposition, and (unless by reconsideration) it cannot be so amended. It may, however, be moved that the same words with others or part of the same words with other be struck out, provided with the other words said motion constitutes practically a new proposition.
116. The same rules will apply to a motion to insert certain words into a paragraph. If the motion to insert be decided in the affirmative, then the words so inserted, or any of them, cannot be struck out except with other words. And then only when with the other words they present a new proposition. So if the motion to insert is rejected, it cannot be repeated as to the same words, or part of them—because by a negative decision on the vote to insert the assembly has decided said words in their ​present form shall not become a part of the proposition, and having been once acted upon it cannot be renewed as an amendment, but it may be moved to insert the same words with others, provided the said motion presents a new proposition. This is upon the principle that what has been agreed to by an assembly on vote, either adopting or rejecting, becomes the judgment of the assembly and cannot be again brought into question at that session unless the former vote is reconsidered.
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
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Do Not Require to be Seconded

Layout 2
DO NOT REQUIRE TO BE SECONDED.
76. A call for the orders of the day.
Objection to consideration.
A nomination (unless by special rule).
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
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Duties of a Presiding Officer

Layout 2
DUTIES OF A PRESIDING OFFICER.
15. It is the duty of the presiding officer of an assembly to call the meeting to order promptly at the proper time, ascertain if a quorum (45) is present, announce the business in its order before the assembly, receive and submit all motions or business regularly presented by the members, put to vote and announce the result on all questions before the assembly, and conduct the proceedings in accordance with parliamentary procedure and its own rules. While being careful not to be too strict, he should require that the rules of the society be complied with; that all debate be confined to the question before the assembly and he should be ready at all times to interfere for the preservation of order.
16. As the order and decorum of an assembly often depends more upon the con​duct of the presiding officer than upon any other condition, it therefore follows that in order to have perfect control of the assembly he should be able to control himself, pay strict attention to all debate, be ready to answer all parliamentary inquiries and to explain the parliamentary effect of proposed acts of the assembly. Remembering always that he is not the autocrat, but the servant of the assembly, subject always to its control, and he should be ready at all times to obey its commands, since if he abuses his authority the assembly has power to censure, reprimand or, (unless the term of office be fixed by higher authority) to remove him from office for violation of the rules or for misconduct while in office.
17. When a motion has been made and seconded it is the duty of the presiding officer (of the motion is in order) to state the question so that the members may know what question is before them. The question should be stated in the form in which it will appear in the minutes (21) if it passes in the affirmative. The chair should state the motion in language as near ​to the original as possible; he may, however, suggest any necessary correction in its wording before stating it to the assembly.
18. While the presiding officer unquestionably has the right to participate in debate (after first calling a member to the chair) he should rarely exercise that right, because by virtue of his position he has great power over the assembly and great influence in debate, and when he takes the floor he cannot divest himself of that power or influence. Therefore, after having taken part in debate, common courtesy to the assembly requires that he do not resumes the chair until the question to which he has spoken is disposed of.
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
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Definition of Terms

Layout 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS.
3. In the study of this volume much misunderstanding may be avoided if the reader will bear in mind the difference in meaning and use of the following terms:
Motion. Question. Vote. A motion is the proposition submitted to the assembly. After it has been stated to the assembly by the presiding officer it becomes the question before the assembly—as it can then be answered by yea or nay. After it has been decided, it becomes the vote or expression of the will of the assembly.
Precedence. A motion is said to have precedence over another when it has priority in rank over that motion, and therefore may be brough before the assembly and be first put to vote when the motion of lower rank is pending.
​Pending. Ordered. A proposition or motion is said to be pending after it has been stated to the assembly by the presiding officer, and until a vote has been taken on it, or until it has been at least temporarily disposed of. After the vote on the question is taken, if in the affirmative, it is then ordered.
Yields to. When the pending motion may be forced to give way to another it is said to yield to that motion.
Applies to. One motion is said to apply to another when it may be used for the purpose of changing or disposing of it.
Meeting. Session. For a distinction between these terms see Sec. 29.
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
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Division of a Question

Layout 2
DIVISION OF A QUESTION.
128. When a question is composed of two or more propositions, and these propositions are so far independent of each other that if one were adopted and the others rejected it would still be an intelligible expression of the opinion of the assembly, the question may be divided to enable the assembly to vote on each proposition separately.
The division cannot be demanded as the right of any member, but the question may be divided by the chair (subject to an appeal to the assembly) or by a motion regularly made and seconded for the purpose; but each proposition into which it is proposed to divide the question must be distinct and capable of standing upon its own merits if none of the other propositions were adopted. In other words, the division of a question is a form of amendment used to secure a separate vote on different parts of a motion or resolution, and is subject to all rules governing amendments. It may be amended by dividing the question dif​ferently, and is debatable if the question it is sought to divide is debatable.
129. When the motions for the division is made the mover should specify in his motion the manner in which he proposes to makes the division by stating the word with which each part ends; but since the last part must end with the last word of the motions or resolution, that ending should be included in the motion to divide. If the vote be in the affirmative each proposition created by the division must be acted upon separately (and in its turn, beginning with the first) and if debatable, each in its turn may be debated.
When the motion for the division has been rejected, and the object of the motion was to accept one proposition and reject another, then the desired object may be accomplished by the motion to strike out (113), or by offering a substitute (141).
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
# Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure/Equivalent Motions

Layout 2
EQUIVALENT MOTIONS.
71. Equivalent motions are those which have either the same effect, or effects exactly opposite to each other, or those which exactly deny a proposition already decided—for example—if a motion or resolution approving any action has been adopted, or rejected, it would not be in order to offer a motion or resolution disapproving of such action. Since the question to be decided by the assembly is the same—an affirmative vote in one case is equivalent to an negative in the other—a decision on one question decides the other.
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
# Gray v. Rollo

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
85 U.S. 629
Gray v. Rollo
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the case being thus:
The Bankrupt Act enacts:
'That in all cases of mutual debts or mutual credits between the parties, the account between them shall be stated, and one debt set off against the other, and the balance only shall be allowed or paid.'
And a statute of Illinois enacts that—
'All joint obligations shall be taken and held to be joint and several obligations.'
These statutes being in force, Moses Gray filed a bill in the court below against William Rollo, assignee in bankruptcy of the estate of the Merchants' Insurance Company of Chicago, to compel a set-off of alleged mutual debts. The insurance company had become bankrupt by the great fire at Chicago, and at that time held two promissory notes for $5555 each, made by the complainant, Gray, jointly with one Gaylord, which the company had received from the payee in the regular course of business. By the fire referred to, Moses Gray, the complainant, and his brother, Franklin Gray, doing business under the firm of Gray Brothers, suffered in the destruction of buildings, and these being insured by the said insurance company for $30,000 on three several policies, the company became indebted to them in the sum named. The complainant alleged in his bill that his just share of liability on the two notes was one-half of the amount, and he desired to have that half extinguished by a set-off of the like amount due on the policies. The money due on the policies was confessedly not due to him alone, but to Gray Brothers. But he alleged that his brother assented to and authorized such appropriation.
The insurance company demurred, and the demurrer being sustained the court dismissed the bill. From its action herein Gray took this appeal.
Mr. J. S. Norton, for the appellant, argued that under the statute of Illinois the whole debt, under both notes, which Moses Gray owed to the assignee in bankruptcy, was a several debt; that while it would be inequitable that Gaylord's debt should be paid by the application of a policy of insurance in which he had no interest, the reverse was true in regard to the share of the notes which Moses Gray owed. The counsel cited Tucker v. Oxley, in this court, as much in point and binding; a case which he observed was supported by Wrenshall v. Cook, in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, ever more in point, and by other cases in that tribunal.
Mr. A. M. Pence, contra.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 14 Stat. at Large, 526, § 20.
* ↑ 1 Gross's Statutes of Illinois, 377.
* ↑ 5 Cranch, 34.
* ↑ 7 Watts, 464.
* ↑ Tustin v. Cameron, 5 Wharton, 379; Craig v. Henderson, 2 Pennsylvania State, 261.
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
# Gray v. Sanders/Concurrence Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Stewart
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
* Wikipedia article
Mr. Justice STEWART, whom Mr. Justice CLARK joins, concurring.
In joining the opinion and judgment of the Court, I emphasize what-but for my Brother HARLAN'S dissent-I should have thought would be apparent to all who read the Court's opinion. This case does not involve the validity of a State's apportionment of geographic constituencies from which representatives to the State's legislative assembly are chosen, nor any of the problems under the Equal Protection Clause which such litigation would present. We do not deal here with 'the basic ground rules implementing Baker v. Carr.' This case, on the contrary, involves statewide elections of a United States Senator and of state executive and judicial officers responsible to a statewide constituency. Within a given constituency, there can be room for but a single constitutional rule-one voter, one vote. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368.
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
# Gray v. Taylor

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 51
Gray v. Taylor
Argued: January 6, 1913. --- Decided: January 20, 1913
Messrs. T. B. Catron and George B. Barber for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 52-55 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John Y. Hewitt and Andrew H. Hudspeth for appellees.
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
# Gray v. Powell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
314 U.S. 402
Gray v. Powell
Argued: Oct. 21, 22, 1941. --- Decided: Dec 15, 1941
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Mr. W. R. C. Cocke, of Norfolk, Va., for respondents.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# Gray v. Sanders

Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), was a Supreme Court of the United States case dealing with equal representation in regard to the American election system and formulated the famous "one person, one vote" standard for legislative districting. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Stewart

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 368
Gray v. Sanders
Argued: Jan. 17, 1963. --- Decided: March 18, 1963
[Syllabus from pages 368-369 intentionally omitted]
B. D. Murphy and E. Freeman Leverett, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
Morris B. Abram, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Atty. Gen., Robert F. Kennedy for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
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
# Fires of Fate

Extracted from Short Stories magazine, Oct 1923, pp. 90-111.
FIRES OF FATE
By W. C. TUTTLE Author of “Cultus Collins and the Ghost Gold,” “The Proof of Progress,” etc.
IT TOOK A BUNCH OF CROOKS ALONG THE CANADIAN BORDER QUITE A LONG TIME TO LEARN THEIR LESSON-THAT YOU CAN BUCK THE “MOUNTIES” JUST SO LONG, BUT THEY GET YOU IN THE END. BUT THEY DIDN’T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A MONTANA COWPUNCHER IN THE RANKS OF THE R. N. W. M. P
* The Resignation
* In Defiance of the Law
* The Wooing of the Half-Breed
* A Captive Cowboy
* A Guiding Light
* A Fight in the Flames
* The Runaway Gauntlet
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 1969, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 54 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
# Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark New Jersey v. Conway

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 580
Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark New Jersey v. Conway
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
# Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Landmark Education Corporation (2003)

* related portals: New York.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Landmark Educ. Corp., 309 A.D.2d 1309, 767 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Oct 28, 2003) (TABLE, NO. M-4864X)
309 A.D.2d 1309, 767 N.Y.S.2d 65 (Table)
(The decision of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division is referenced in the New York Supplement in a table captioned 'Memorandum Decisions'.)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
v.
Landmark Education Corporation
NO. M-4864X
October 28, 2003
APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL WITHDRAWN.
N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2003.
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Landmark Educ. Corp.
309 A.D.2d 1309, 767 N.Y.S.2d 65 (Table)
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a publicly-available court filing.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark New Jersey v. Conway/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 580
Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark New Jersey v. Conway
Affirmed on the authority of Meccano, Ltd., v. Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 141, 40 S.C.t. 463, 64 L. Ed. 822; Chicago, Great Western Ry. v. Kendall, 266 U.S. 94, 100, 45 S.C.t. 55, 69 L. Ed. 183; Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel (No. 68) 278 U.S. 1, 49 S.C.t. 18 73 L. Ed. -, decided October 15, 1928.

## 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