OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Beethoven (Rolland)/To Fraulein Gerardi

Layout 2
II.
To Fraulein Gerardi.
Dear Chr.(1798?)
You let me hear something yesterday about a portrait of myself. I wish you to proceed somewhat carefully in the matter. I fear if we return it through F., the disagreeable B. or the arch-fool Joseph might interfere, and then the matter might be meant as a mean trick played on me, and that would be really most annoying. I should have to avenge myself, and the whole populasse does not deserve it. Try to get hold of the thing as well as you can. I assure you that after this I should put a notice in the newspaper ​, requesting all painters not to take my portrait without my consent, were I afraid of falling into perplexity over my own countenance. As to the matter of taking off my hat, it is altogether stupid, and at the same time too impolite for me to retaliate. Pray explain to him the truth about the walk.
Adieu. The devil take you.
# Beethoven (Rolland)/To Sir George Smart in London

Layout 2
X.
To Sir G. Smart in London.
March 6, 1827.
I do not doubt that you, dear Sir, have received through Herr Moscheles my letter of the 22nd of February; but as I have found by chance among my papers, S.'s address, I do not hesitate to write direct to you and recall my request again to your mind.
Up to now I cannot look forward to an end of my terrible illness; on the contrary, my sufferings, and with it, my cares, have still increased. On the 29th of February I underwent my fourth operation, and it may be, perhaps, my fate to undergo a fifth or even more. If this continues, ​my illness will surely last till the middle of summer, and what will then become of me? How shall I then manage to live till I have recovered strength enough to gain my own living by my pen? In short, I will not trouble you further with my complaints, and refer only to my letter of the 22nd of February, asking you to use all your influence to induce the Philharmonic Society to carry out their former resolution concerning the concert for my benefit.
# Beethoven (Rolland)/To I. Moscheles in London 1

Layout 2
XI.
To I. Moscheles in London.
Vienna, March 14, 1827.
My dear Moscheles.
Some days ago I found out through Herr Lewinger that you inquired in a letter to him of the 10th of February regarding the state of my illness, of which so many different rumours have been spread about. Although I have no doubts whatever that my letter of the 24th of February has arrived, which will explain everything you desire to know, I can but thank you for your sympathy with my sad lot, and beseech you to be solicitous about the request which you know of from my first letter, and I am quite convinced that, in union with Sir Smart and other of my friends, you will succeed in bringing about a favourable result for me at the Philharmonic ​Society. I have once more written to Sir Smart about it.
On the 27th of February I underwent the fourth operation, and there are visible symptoms that I shall have to suffer a fifth. What does it tend to, and what will become of me if it continues for some time longer? A hard lot, indeed, has fallen upon me! However, I submit to the will of fate, and only pray to God so to ordain it in His divine will, that I may be protected from want as long as I have to endure death in life. This will give me strength to bear my lot, however terrible it may be, with humble submission to the will of the Most High.
Therefore, my dear Moscheles, I entrust once more my affair to you, and remain with greatest respect ever
Your friend,
L. van Beethoven.
Hummel is here and has called on me several times.
# Beethoven (Rolland)/To I. Moscheles in London 2

Layout 2
XII.
To I. Moscheles in London.
Vienna, March 18, 1827.
With what emotion I read your letter of the 1st March is not to described in words. This magnanimity of the Philharmonic Society, with which they anticipated my request, has touched ​my inmost heart. I, therefore, ask you, dear Moscheles, to be the organ through which I can express my most heartfelt thanks to the Philharmonic Society for their sympathy and help. Tell these worthy men that if God restores me to health, I shall try practically to show my gratitude by works, and that I leave it to the Society to choose what I shall write for them. A whole sketched Symphony (the 10th) is in my desk, also a new Overture, or even something else. As regards the concert which the Philharmonic Society has resolved on giving for my benefit, I beg the Society not to give up this intention. In short, I shall try to fulfil any wish expressed by the Society, and never have I undertaken a work with such ardour as will now be displayed. May it only please God to restore me soon again to health, and then I shall prove to these magnanimous Englishmen that I know how to value their sympathy to me in my sad condition.
I was compelled to accept the whole sum of 1,000 fl., since I was then in the disagreeable position of having to draw out invested money.
Your noble behaviour I shall never forget, and I shall soon render my thanks in particular to Sir Smart and Herr Stump. The metronomised Ninth Symphony please hand to the Philharmonic Society. Enclosed find the markings.
Your most devoted friend,
Beethoven.
# Board of Commissioners of Jackson County Kan v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
308 U.S. 343
Board of Commissioners of Jackson County Kan v. United States
Argued: Oct. 16, 1939. --- Decided: Dec 18, 1939
Messrs. O. B. Eidson and Thomas M. Lillard, both of Topeka, Kan., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 344-345 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Raymond T. Nagle, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 346 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Board of Commisioners of Gunnison County, Colorado v. E. H. Rollins & Sons

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
173 U.S. 255
Board of Commisioners of Gunnison County, Colorado v. E. H. Rollins & Sons
John F. Dillon and E. F. Richardson, for respondent.
T. C. Brown and C. S. Thomas, for petitioner.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (305 U.S. 507)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 507
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (305 U.S. 507)
Argued: Dec. 7, 8, 1938. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1939
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Mr. Edwin H. Burgess, of New York City, for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 507-511 intentionally omitted]
Mr. J. Stanley Payne, of Washington, D.C., for appellees The United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 511-513 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John J. Hickey, of Washington, D.C., for appellee Warehousemen's Protective Committee.
Mr. A. Lane Cricher, of Washington, D.C., for appellee American Warehousemen's Ass'n, Merchandise Division.
Mr. Henry E. Foley, of Boston, Mass., for appellee Boston Port Authority.
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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (345 U.S. 146)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 146
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (345 U.S. 146)
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 7, 1953. --- Decided: March 16, 1953
Mr. Robert H. Bierma, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellees U.S. and I.C.C.
Mr. Frank A. Leffingwell, Dallas, Tex., for Texas Citrus and Vegetable Growers and Shippers.
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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (386 U.S. 372)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Brennan

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 372
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (386 U.S. 372)
Argued: Jan. 9 and 10, 1967. --- Decided: March 27, 1967
[Syllabus from pages 372-373 intentionally omitted]
Howard J. Trienens, Chicago, Ill., Lloyd N. Cutler, Washington, D.C., Edward W. Bourne, Harry G. Silleck, Jr., New York City, Leon Keyserling and Gordon P. MacDougall, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall for the U.S.
Robert W. Ginnane, Hugh B. Cox, Washington, D.C., Joseph Auerbach, Boston, Mass., Walter J. Myskowski, Washington, D.C., Samuel Kanell, Hartford, Conn., David Berman, Boston, Mass., and John H. Chafee, Providence, R.I., for appellees.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (304 U.S. 58)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 58
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (304 U.S. 58)
Argued: and Submitted March 30, 1938. --- Decided: April 25, 1938
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Mr. Leo P. Day, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Mr. J. Stanley Payne, of Washington, D.C., for appellees the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. J. V. Norman, of Washington, D.C., for appellee Alabama Iron & Steel Shippers Conference.
Messrs. Wm. H. Swiggart, of Nashville, Tenn., Charles Clark, of Washington, D.C., and Elmer A. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees C.W.O. & T.P. Ry Co. et al.
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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (304 U.S. 58)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 58
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (304 U.S. 58)
Argued: and Submitted March 30, 1938. --- Decided: April 25, 1938
Appellants, nineteen railroads operating within what is known as Central Territory-Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan-by their bill filed in the District Court Northern District of Illinois July 22, 1936, challenged the validity of two Interstate Commerce Commission orders affecting the rate structure on coke moving into that territory from southern points. Questions in respect of these rates have often been before the Commission. The court made findings of fact upon the evidence and dismissed the bill without opinion.
The first challenged order, dated March 11, 1935, followed an earlier suspension of certain proposed schedules and an investigation. It cancelled these schedules and determined what thereafter would be maximum reasonable rates upon a mileage basis. Subsequently, the proceedings having been reopened, this order was modified and reaffirmed. In the circumstances we think the court below properly declined to pass upon its validity.
The second challenged order, April 30, 1936, followed one entered April 15, 1936, which upon petition and replies reopened the proceedings for reconsideration on the record as it then stood. The later order affirmed former findings that the schedules suspended by the one of March 11, 1935, had not been justified, and prescribed future maximum rates upon a mileage basis. These were lower (some ten per cent) than those authorized prior to 1935.
Here counsel specially insist this second order exceeded the jurisdiction of the Commission since it undertook to determine rates concerning which there had been no proper notice or opportunity for hearing. But this contention rests upon an assumed construction of the order not obviously correct. The Commission has not so construed it nor has that body been asked so to do or for any further action in respect of it. Another construction brings the order clearly within the jurisdiction assumed by the Commission. In the circumstances appellants cannot prevail on this point.
Appellants further urge that the order is contrary to the weight of the evidence, not supported by substantial evidence, disregards ordinary standards for determining reasonableness of rates, is not supported by necessary findings, and represents a mere attempt to equalize geographical and transportation disadvantages, fortune and opportunities. The findings by the court below we think are adequately supported by the record. They negative these claims and leave no sufficient basis for our interference with the action there taken.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.

## 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
# Billy Budd/Chapter 16

Chapter 16
Yes, despite the Dansker's pithy insistence as to the Master-at-arms being at the bottom of these strange experiences of Billy on board the Indomitable, the young sailor was ready to ascribe them to almost anybody but the man who, to use Billy's own expression, "always had a pleasant word for him." This is to be wondered at. Yet not so much to be wondered at. In certain matters, some sailors even in mature life remain unsophisticated enough. But a young seafarer of the disposition of our athletic Foretopman, is much of a child-man. And yet a child's utter innocence is but its blank ignorance, and the innocence more or less wanes as intelligence waxes. But in Billy Budd intelligence, such as it was, had advanced, while yet his simplemindedness remained for the most part unaffected. Experience is a teacher indeed; yet did Billy's years make his experience small. Besides, he had none of that intuitive knowledge of the bad which in natures not good or incompletely so foreruns experience, and therefore may pertain, as in some instances it too clearly does pertain, even to youth.
And what could Billy know of man except of man as a mere sailor? And the old-fashioned sailor, the veritable man-before-the-mast, the sailor from boyhood up, he, tho' indeed of the same species as a landsman, is in some respects singularly distinct from him. The sailor is frankness, the landsman is finesse. Life is not a game with the sailor, demanding the long head; no intricate game of chess where few moves are made in straightforwardness, and ends are attained by indirection; an oblique, tedious, barren game hardly worth that poor candle burnt out in playing it.
Yes, as a class, sailors are in character a juvenile race. Even their deviations are marked by juvenility. And this more especially holding true with the sailors of Billy's time. Then, too, certain things which apply to all sailors, do more pointedly operate, here and there, upon the junior one. Every sailor, too, is accustomed to obey orders without debating them; his life afloat is externally ruled for him; he is not brought into that promiscuous commerce with mankind where unobstructed free agency on equal terms-- equal superficially, at least--soon teaches one that unless upon occasion he exercise a distrust keen in proportion to the fairness of the appearance, some foul turn may be served him. A ruled undemonstrative distrustfulness is so habitual, not with business-men so much, as with men who know their kind in less shallow relations than business, namely, certain men-of-the-world, that they come at last to employ it all but unconsciously; and some of them would very likely feel real surprise at being charged with it as one of their general characteristics.
# Bondies v. Sherwood

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 214
Bondies v. Sherwood
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the eastern district of Texas, sitting in admiralty.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
The District Court decreed that the libellants (Sherwood, McClelland, and McGinnis) should recover the sum of fifty per cent. salvage upon $5,150, which sum was adjudged to the libellants against said steamboat Kate, and against George Bondies, the owner thereof; the money to be raised by a sale of the steamboat, and, in case of a deficiency, execution was to issue against Bondies, to be levied and collected on the estate, real and personal, credits and effects, of the said Bondies, wherever the same may be found.
From this decree Bondies appealed to this court.
It was submitted upon a printed brief by Mr. Hale and Mr. Sherwood for the appellants, no counsel appearing for the appellees.
The counsel for the appellants, as the principal point in the case, contended that the libellants could not set up that the contract had been mutually abandoned, and their claim to be aggrieved by the refusal of Bondies to comply with its terms. They must rest upon their allegation of a rescission of the contract, of which there is no proof whatever.
Mr. Justice GRIER 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
# Bondurant Tutrix v. Watson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 278
Bondurant Tutrix v. Watson
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.
The writ of error in this case is as follows:--
'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
'State of Louisiana, ss:
'The Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Louis'a, to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, greeting:
'Because in the record and proceedings, as also in the rendition of the judgment of a plea, which is in our said Supreme Court, before us, between Frank Watson, plaintiff, and Mrs. Ella F. Bondurant, tutrix, &c., defendant, No. 6564 on the docket of this court, it is claimed by the said defendant that, being a citizen of the State of Mississippi, and the said Watson being a citizen of Louisiana, and in the said cause the rights, titles, and privileges of said defendant, Mrs. Bondurant, tutrix, &c., under the statutes and under the Constitution of the United States, are by her claimed, and that the decision and judgment of this honorable Supreme Court of Louisiana is against the said titles, rights, and privileges of said defendant, Mrs. Bondurant, specially set up under the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and because the said Mrs. Bondurant has filed her petition herein for a writ of error to the hon. Supreme Court of the United States at Washington, D. C., claiming that a manifest error hath happened, to the great damage of the said defendant, Mrs. E. F. Bondurant, executrix, tutrix, &c., as by said defendant's complaint appears: We being willing that error, if any hath been, should be duly corrected, and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in this behalf, do command you, if judgment be therein given, that then under your seal, distinctly and openly, you send the record and proceedings aforesaid, with all things concerning the same, to the Supreme Court of the United States, together with this writ, so that you have the same at Washington, on the second Monday of October next, in the said Supreme Court, to be then and there held, that the record and proceedings aforesaid being inspected, the said Supreme Court may cause further to be done therein to correct that error what of right, and according to the laws and customs of the United States, should be done.
'Witness the Honorable T. C. Manning, Chief Justice of the said Supreme Court of Louisiana, this fifteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven.
[SEAL.]
'ALF'D ROMAN,
'Clerk of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.'
Mr. Samuel R. Walker for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Edwin T. Merrick and Mr. George W. Race, 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
# Bondurant v. Watson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 281
Bondurant v. Watson
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Samuel R. Walker for the appellant.
Mr. Edwin T. Merrick and Mr. George W. Race, contra.
MR. JUSTICE WOODS 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
# Bone v. Commissioners of Marion County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 134
Bone v. Commissioners of Marion County
Argued: Nov. 11, 1919. --- Decided: Dec 15, 1919
Messrs. Clarence E. Mehlhope, of Chicago, Ill., and Arthur H. Ewald, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Mr. V. H. Lockwood, of Indianapolis, Ind., for respondents.
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