OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# St. Louis Post-Dispatch/Deciding the Draw

St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Wednesday, February 10, 1886, Page 1
DECIDING THE DRAW
ZUKERTORT AND STEINITZ MEET
FOR THE EIGHTH GAME OF THEIR SERIES
Progress of the Chess Party This Afternoon
Zukertort Opens with the Queen's Gambit
Which Steinitz Declines
Details of the Game
Mr. Steinitz, as usual, was early at the Harmonie club this afternoon, and seemed as eager to bring the chess match as his phlegmatic nature would allow. As he wandered through the corridors he was interrogated by a Post-Dispatch reporter as to his hope of success. Mr. Steinitz's round, florid face was widened somewhat by the smile that at once followed as he said, with but a slight foreign accent: "I am feeling ever so much better now. My fit of nervousness and insomnia, which rendered me an unworthy opponent in New York, has left me now and I feel that I am myself again. Of course I cannot tell when this trouble will attack me again, but I do know that at present I have the strongest hopes of winning. Why, in New York I was so unfit for playing that I wouldn't back myself. Indeed, Dr. Zukertort's friends will tell you that he did not outplay me in New York at all, but that my blunders were so wonderfully erratic that an insignificant player could have defeated me. These attacks of nervousness have been my bane before. In the Vienna tournament I was thirteenth at the end of the first week but pulled up and tied for first and second places."
Mr. Steinitz had read, with great anxiety, the Post-Dispatch accounts of the London riot and said he was eager to get at the evening paper to read the latest details, as he lived for twenty years in London and was afraid that the outbreak was a general communistic movement.
When the players began play at 2 o'clock promptly, there were an even dozen spectators,
The Smallest Audience
They have yet begun before. Among those twelve were Isador Judd, E.C. Simmons, Adolph Judd, Lewis Haller, S.M. Joseph, J.E. Martin of Toledo, Judge Woerner, Max Judd, E. Helke of Leadville, and Col. George Rowley. This gathering was gradually increased as the game proceeded. Dr. C.D.N. Campbell acted as umpire for Steinitz, and Mr. Isador Judd for Zukertort.
This, the ninth game of the series and the fourth in St. Louis, was opened by Zukertort who chose white and opened with the queen's gambit which Steinitz at once declined. This is the same opening Zukertort has chosen in all the games he has played in this series so far, and there was a little disappointment as the local players had been expecting something better. Both players were deliberate, and took things less nervously than formerly. The arrangements of timing this game were all right and the game proceeded quickly.
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
# St. Louis Post-Dispatch/Played to a Draw

St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Tuesday, February 9, 1886, Page 8
PLAYED TO A DRAW
Steinitz and Zukertort
Agree to Declare the Eighth Game "Off"
Yesterday's game was the most unsatisfactory one yet played in the Steinitz-Zukertort chess series. The day was beautiful, the men started promptly at the appointed hour, and the large audience expected to witness a brilliant contest. But just as the moves became intricate enough to hush the murmurs in the rooms, it was found that one of the clock would not work and the players had to wait for half an hour. Dr. Zukertort voiced the sentiments of the anxious spectators when he said he didn't understand why the committee did not have two sets of clocks to provide against accident. Both players were rendered nervous by the interruption and interest lagged even when play was resumed. The opening was an old chestnut well eaten up by book worms, while nearly all the audience had been hoping that Steinitz would make one of his own brilliant openings and proceed to develop his system. As the plays succeeded one another without any startling departure from the regular book moves, disappointment began to show itself with the growing belief that the last of the series in St. Louis was to be the stupidest of all. So when, on the twenty-second move, Dr. Zukertort proposed to call it a draw and Steinitz consented, there was considerable quiet delight among the old chess players at the prospect of another chance to see a good game. On the seventeenth move, the white was crowded back into the first row, making it necessary for him to effect a lively exchange of pieces which resulted in a loss to each of a rook, bishop, and knight. There were eleven pieces on the board when the game was thrown up, but the local lights were nearly unanimous in the opinion that that was the best way out of a dull game, which would have added nothing materially to either's reputation had he won. The conditions of the match requiring one player to win at least three games in this city, the contest will be continued tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock at the Harmonie club, Eighth and Olive Streets. It is not unlikely that this may be won by Zukertort, which would still further prolong the series here. The total score now is: Zukertort 4, Steinitz 3, Drawn 1; St. Louis games - Steinitz 2, Zukertort none, Drawn 1. It will thus be seen that the first drawn game of the series occurred in this city.
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
# St. Louis O'Fallon Railway Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 461
St. Louis O'Fallon Railway Company v. United States
Argued: Jan. 3, 4, 1929. --- Decided: May 20, 1929
Messrs. Daniel N. Kirby, of St. Louis, Mo., Frederick H. Wood, of New York City, Robert H. Kelley, of Houston, Tex., and Leslie Craven, of Chicago, Ill., for St. Louis and O'Fallon Ry., et al.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 462-467 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. George W. Wickersham, of New York City, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 468-473 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walter L. Fisher, of Chicago, Ill., and P. J. Farrell and Oliver E. Sweet, both of Washington, D. C., for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 473-478 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Donald R. Richberg, of Chicago, Ill., for National Conference on Valuation of American Railroads, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
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
# St. Louis Post-Dispatch

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, daily newspaper based in St. Louis, Missouri.
Content exists for this periodical, though at this stage it is not specifically organised beyond a basic hierarchy.
The pages listed below are an automatically generated listing.
Special:PrefixIndex/St. Louis Post-Dispatch/

## Manual aggregation

* Their First Game Steinitz and Zukertort — Wednesday, February 3, 1886, Page 3
* Secured by Steinitz — Thursday, February 4, 1886, Page 5
* Steinitz Gets It — Friday, February 5, 1886, Page 2
* Nip and Tuck — Saturday, February 6, 1886, Page 8
* The Eighth Chess Game — Monday, February 8, 1886, Page 2
* Played to a Draw — Tuesday, February 9, 1886, Page 8
* Deciding the Draw — Wednesday, February 10, 1886, Page 1
* Steinitz Wins Again — Thursday, February 11, 1886, Page 8
* The Country's Plight—What Can Be Done About It? — Sunday, November 29, 1931, Page 1B
# Striking and Picturesque Delineations of the Grand, Beautiful, Wonderful, and Interesting Scenery Around Loch-Earn/Dedication

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE.
May it please your Lordship,
With overpowering sentiments of the most profound humility, I prostrate myself at your noble feet, while I oﬀer, to your Lordship’s high consideration, those very feeble attempts to describe the indescribable and ineﬀable beauties of your Lordship’s delicious estate of Edinample. With tumid emotions of heart-distending pride, and with fervescent feelings of gratitude, I beg leave to acknowledge the honour I have to serve so noble a master, and the many advantages which I, in common with your Lordship’s other menials, enjoy from the exuberance of your princely liberality. That your Lordship may long shine with refulgent brilliancy in the exalted station to which Providence has raised you, and that your noble family, like a bright constellation, may diﬀuse a splendour glory through the high sphere of their attraction, is the fervent prayer of,
Your Lordship’s most humble,
And most devoted Servant,
ANGUS M‘DIARMID.
* Cartran near Lochearn-Head,
* May, 1815.
# Stringer v. Lessee of Young

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
28 U.S. 320
Stringer v. Lessee of Young

## 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
# Stringfellow v. Cain

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 610
Stringfellow v. Cain
ERROR to and appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. George W. Biddle and Mr. J. L. Rawlins for Stringfellow.
Mr. Robert N. Baskin, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Stringfellow v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company

United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 322
Stringfellow v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company
Argued: Nov. 14, 1933. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1933
Mr. Wm. C. mcLean, of Tampa, Fla., for Stringfellow.
Messrs. McKinney Barton and James R. Bussey, both of St. Petersburg, Fla., for Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Striking and Picturesque Delineations of the Grand, Beautiful, Wonderful, and Interesting Scenery Around Loch-Earn

LOCH-EARN.
STRIKING AND PICTURESQUE
DELINEATIONS
OF THE
GRAND, BEAUTIFUL, WONDERFUL, AND INTERESTING SCENERY
AROUND
LOCH-EARN.
By ANGUS M‘DIARMID, GROUND-OFFICER ON THE EARL OF BREADALBANE’S ESTATE OF EDINAMPLE.
Superas se tollens in auras, In astra surgens.
EDINBURGH:
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY JOHN MOIR.
1815.
# Stories of the Seen and Unseen (William Blackwood and Sons, 1902)/Old Lady Mary

   Little Mary was standing smiling, the prettiest object of all, the climax of the gentle luxury and pleasantness, to receive her godmother, who had been her providence all her life. But what a pity! oh, what a pity, that she had not died that night!
OLD LADY MARY.
TO
AN OLD LADY
EVER YOUNG,
HARRIET STEWART,
NOW GONE WHERE YOUTH AND AGE
ARE NO DISTINCTION.

### OLD LADY MARY.

* I. 75
* II. 92
* III. 96
* IV. 104
* V. 112
* VI. 121
* VII. 132
* VIII. 143
* IX. 162
* X. 166
* XI. 169
* XII. 172
* XIII. 177
* XIV. 177
* XV. 178
# Stories of the Seen and Unseen (William Blackwood and Sons, 1902)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Edition: Edinburgh & London, William Blackwood and Sons, 1902.
Stories of the
Seen and the Unseen
By MRS OLIPHANT
WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS EDINBURGH AND LONDON MCMII

### CONTENTS

* page
* The Open Door 1
* Old Lady Mary 73
* The Portrait 181
* The Library Window 247
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
# Stories of the Seen and Unseen (William Blackwood and Sons, 1902)/Old Lady Mary/Chapter 15

pp. 178–180.

### XV.

They all gathered to see the wanderer coming back. She was not as she had been when she went away. Her face, which had been so easy, was worn with trouble; her eyes were deep with things unspeakable. Pity and knowledge were in the lines, which time had not made. It was a great event in that place to see one come back who did not come by the common way. She was received by the great officer who had given her permission to go, and her companions who had received her at the first all came forward, wondering, to hear what she had to say; because it only occurs to those wanderers who have gone back to earth of their own will, to return when they have accomplished what they wished, or it is judged above that there is nothing possible more. Accordingly, the question was on all their lips, "You have set the wrong right—you have done what you desired?"
"Oh," she said, stretching out her hands, "how well one is in one's own place! how blessed to be at home! I have seen the trouble and sorrow in the earth till my heart is sore, and sometimes I have been near to die."
"But that is impossible," said the man who had loved her.
"If it had not been impossible, I should have died," she said. "I have stood among people who loved me, and they have not seen me nor known me, nor heard my cry. I have been outcast from all life, for I belonged to none. I have longed for you all, and my heart has failed me. Oh how lonely it is in the world, when you are a wanderer, and can be known of none——"
"You were warned," said he who was in authority, "that it was more bitter than death."
"What is death?" she said; and no one made any reply. Neither did any one venture to ask her again whether she had been successful in her mission. But at last, when the warmth of her appointed home had melted the ice about her heart, she smiled once more and spoke.
"The little children knew me; they were not afraid of me; they held out their arms. And God's dear and innocent creatures——" She wept a few tears, which were sweet after the ice-tears she had shed upon the earth. And then some one, more bold than the rest, asked again, "And did you accomplish what you wished?"
She had come to herself by this time, and the dark lines were melting from her face. "I am forgiven," she said, with a low cry of happiness. "She whom I wronged, loves me and blessed me; and we saw each other face to face. I know nothing more."
"There is no more," said all together. For everything is included in pardon and love.
# Stories of the Seen and Unseen (William Blackwood and Sons, 1902)/Old Lady Mary/Chapter 13

p. 177

### XIII.

"And She was standing there all the time," said Connie, crying and telling her little tale after Mary had been carried away,—"standing with her hand upon that cabinet, looking and looking, oh, as if she wanted to say something and couldn't. Why couldn't she, mamma? Oh, Mr Bowyer, why couldn't she, if she wanted so much? Why wouldn't God let her speak?"
# Stories of the Seen and Unseen (William Blackwood and Sons, 1902)/Old Lady Mary/Chapter 14

pp. 177–178.

### XIV.

Mary had a long illness, and hovered on the verge of death. She said a great deal in her wanderings about some one who had looked at her. "For a moment, a moment," she would cry; "only a moment! and I had so much to say." But as she got better, nothing was said to her about this face she had seen. And perhaps it was only the suggestion of some feverish dream. She was taken away, and was a long time getting up her strength; and in the meantime the Turners insisted that the drains should be thoroughly seen to, which were not all in a perfect state. And the Earl coming to see the place, took a fancy to it, and determined to keep it in his own hands. He was a friendly person, and his ideas of decoration were quite different from those of his grandmother. He gave away a great deal of her old furniture, and sold the rest.
Among the articles given away was the Italian cabinet, which the vicar had always had a fancy for; and naturally it had not been in the vicarage a day, before the boys insisted on finding out the way of opening the secret drawer. And there the paper was found, in the most natural way, without any trouble or mystery at all.
# State Of Alabama v. United States Davis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 535
STATE OF ALABAMA et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. DAVIS, Economic Stabilization Director,
Argued: April 24, 1945. --- Decided: June 11, 1945
See 66 S.Ct. 10.
Mr. J. E. Marks, of Lexington, Ky., for appellants, Commonwealth of Kentucky, and others.
Mr. Forman Smith, of Montgomery, Ala., for appellants, State of Alabama, and others.
Mr. Leon Jourolmon, Jr., of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellants, State of Tennessee and others.
Mr. Davis F. Cavers, of Washington, D.C., for Wm. H. Davis.
Mr. Allen Crenshaw, of Washington, D.C., for appellees United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Charles Clark, of Washington, D.C., for appellees Alabama Grest Southern Ry. Co., and others.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# State Of Alabama v. United States Davis/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 535
STATE OF ALABAMA et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. DAVIS, Economic Stabilization Director,
Argued: April 24, 1945. --- Decided: June 11, 1945
The States of Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky filed a bill in a federal district court seeking to set aside and enjoin enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Federal Economic Stabilization Director, acting through the Price Administrator, was granted the right to intervene. The Commission's order directed that intrastate railroad rates in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina, be raised to the level of interstate rates fixed by the Commission. The district court declined to enjoin enforcement of the order, 56 Fed.Supp. 478, and the case is here on direct appeal under Section 210 of the Judicial Code.
The issues here are substantially the same as in Nos. 560 and 561, 325 U.S. 507, 65 S.Ct. 1260, which involved the same order of the Commission as it applied to rates in the State of North Carolina. The Commission relied basically on the 1936 rate order, to which we referred in our opinion in the North Carolina case. Here also the Commissions of the three states had held hearings and determined that the intrastate rates were adequate in every respect to give the particular railroads involved a sufficient income to compensate them fully for their services and to enable the railroads adequately and efficiently to operate in the State. There was evidence before each of the state Commissions, as there was before the Interstate Commerce Commission, that the railroads were enjoying an unprecedented prosperity and reaping a tremendous harvest of profits from their railroad operations in the state. There was evidence from which the Interstate Commerce Commission could have found that the intrastate passenger rates involved were sufficient to pay each railroad a substantial profit for each mile it carried an intrastate passenger. The findings here possess the same infirmities as those in the North Carolina case. It follows that our judgment must be the same.
Because the order of the Commission was not based on adequate findings supported by evidence, the District Court should have declined to enforce the Commission's order. The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed.
Reversed.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice ROBERTS, Mr. Justice REED, and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER dissent for the reasons stated in the dissent to 65 S.Ct. 1260.

## Notes

* ↑ 258 I.C.C. 133. The state 1.65 cents per mile passenger coach rate was directed to be raised to 2.2 cents per mile. Round trip coach rates were ordered proportionately raised. Sleeping and parlor car intrastate fares in some of the States were also directed to be increased.
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
# State Of New York v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
326 U.S. 572
STATE OF NEW YORK et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Argued: Dec. 4, 1945. --- Decided: Jan 14, 1946
Mr. Orrin G. Judd, of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. Greek L. Rice, of Jackson, Miss., for State of Mississippi and other States as amici curiae, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Paul A. Freund, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE joined.

## 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
# State National Bank v. St. Louis Rail-Fastening Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 21
State National Bank v. St. Louis Rail-Fastening Company
Argued: --- --- Decided: May 23, 1887.
Statement of Case from pages 21-22 intentionally omitted]
H. S. Greene, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. Hunt and C. C. Brown, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case as above reported, 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
# State National Bank of Springfield v. Dodge

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 333
State National Bank of Springfield v. Dodge
Henry S. Greene, for plaintiff in error.
George Hunt, 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