OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 26

Chap. XXVI.—An Act to equalize the duties on vessels of the Republic of Columbia [Colombia] and their cargoes.
Duties imposed on vessels of Colombia, &c., to be the same as those payable on vessels of the United States, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no other or higher rate of duties shall be imposed or collected on vessels of the Republic of Columbia [Colombia,] and their cargoes, consisting of articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of said republic, than are, or may be, payable on vessels of the United States with their cargoes composed as aforesaid.
Secretary of the treasury to return all duties assessed since Jan. 29, 1826, on vessels of Colombia, and their cargoes being the growth, &c., of said republic.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to return all duties which have been assessed since the twenty-ninth January, eighteen hundred and twenty-six, on vessels of the Republic of Columbia [Colombia,] and their cargoes composed of articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of the said republic, beyond the amount which would have been payable on vessels of the United States and cargoes, composed as aforesaid, imported therein; and that the same allowances of drawback on exportation, in vessels of the Republic of Columbia, [Colombia,] be made as on the like exportations, in vessels of the United States.
This act to continue in force during the time that the equality for which it provides be reciprocated in the ports of Colombia, &c.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force during the time that the equality for which it provides shall, in all respects, be reciprocated in the ports of the Republic of Columbia [Colombia;] and if, at any time hereafter, the said equality shall not be reciprocated in the ports of the said republic, the President may, and he is hereby authorized to, issue his proclamation, declaring that fact, whereupon this act shall cease and determine.
Approved, April 20, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 27

Chap. XXVII.—An Act appropriating a sum of money for the repair of the post-roads between Jackson and Columbus in the state of Mississippi.
Appropriation for the repair of the post-road between Jackson and Columbus, Miss.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of fifteen thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated, for the repair of the post-road in the Indian country, between Jackson and Columbus, in the state of Mississippi, to be expended under the direction of the Postmaster General; and that the said sum of money be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, April 20, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 31

Chap. XXXI.—An Act to authorize the President of the United States to run and mark a line dividing the territory of Florida from the state of Georgia.
The President of the United States to cause to be run and marked, the line dividing the territory of Florida from the state of Georgia. A commissioner to be appointed. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States of America be, and he is hereby, authorized, in conjunction with the constituted authorities of the state of Georgia, to cause to be run and distinctly marked the line dividing the territory of Florida, from the state of Georgia, from the junction of the rivers Chatahoochie and Flint, to the head of St. Mary’s river: and for that purpose he is hereby authorized to appoint a commissioner, or surveyor, or both, as in his opinion may be necessary: Provided, That the line so to be run and marked, shall be run straight from the junction of said rivers Chatahoochie and Flint, to the point designated as the head of St. Mary’s river, by the commissioners appointed under the third article of the treaty of friendship, limits, and navigation, between the United States of America and the King of Spain, made at San. Lorenzo el Real, on the seven and twentieth day of October, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five:Compensation. And provided, also, That the compensation to be allowed to the person or persons, so to be appointed by the President of the United States, shall not exceed in amount the compensation allowed by the government of Georgia to the persons appointed on its part, for the same object.
Two fair drafts or maps to be made and certified, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the person or persons, so to be appointed by the President of the United States, with such as have been or shall be appointed for the same purpose, on the part of the state of Georgia, after they, in conjunction, shall have run and distinctly marked said line, shall make two fair drafts, or maps thereof, both of ​which shall be certified by them, and one of which shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State for the United States, and the other delivered to the governor of Georgia.
Appropriation.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, for the purpose of carrying this act into execution, the sum of five thousand dollars be, and hereby is, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, May 4, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 32

Chap. XXXII.—An Act to extend the lines of certain land districts in the state of Missouri.
Boundaries of the districts.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the western boundary of the land district of Cape Girardeau, and of the western district in the state of Missouri, be and the same is hereby, extended to the western boundary of the state of Missouri.
Approved, May 4, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 30

Chap. XXX.—An Act to exempt the professors, tutors, stewards, and students of the different seminaries of learning in the District of Columbia, from militia duty.
Presidents, professors, &c., exempt from militia duty, except in case of war.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the president, professors, tutors, stewards, and students of the different seminaries of learning in the District of Columbia be, and they hereby are, declared to be exempt from the performance of militia duty, except in case of war.
Approved, May 4, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 33

Chap. XXXIII.—An Act making appropriations for carrying into effect the appointment of a Mission at the Congress of Panama.
Sums appropriated for carrying into effect the appointment of a mission to Panama, viz.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, for carrying into effect the appointment of a mission at the Congress of Panama; that is to say:
For the outfits of two envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, eighteen thousand dollars.
For the salaries for the same at the rate of nine thousand dollars per year, eighteen thousand dollars: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to pay to either of the said envoys more than nine thousand dollars for his salary in any one year, in the capacity of public minister abroad.
For the secretary to said mission.For the secretary of the mission at Panama, at the rate of two thousand dollars per annum, two thousand dollars.
For contingent expenses.For the contingent expenses of the said mission, two thousand dollars.
Approved, May 4, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 3

Chap. III.—An Act for altering the time of holding the district court in the northern district of New York.
Act of April 3, 1818, ch. 32. In the district court for the northern district of N. Y., said court is to hold its sessions on the third Tuesday of January.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, from and after the next term of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, the term directed by law to be held at Albany on the last Tuesday in January, shall, instead thereof, be held at Albany on the third Tuesday in January in each year, thereafter.
Approved, February 1, 1826.
# United States v. Pacheco (69 U.S. 587)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
69 U.S. 587
United States v. Tomas Pacheco
No. 130. Argued: February 9, 1865 --- Decided: February 20, 1865
APPEAL from the decree of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, confirming the survey and location of a grant made by the Mexican Government of California to Pacheco and another, March 23d, 1844, for three leagues of land, situated on the east side of the Bay of San Francisco.
The decree of the District Court confirming the claim of the grantees under the grant, described the land as 'known by the name of Potrero de los Cerritos, and bounded on the side of the Mission of San Jos e by the Sanjon de los Alisos (Ravine of the Willows), on the north by the creek of the Alameda (Arroyo de la Alameda), and on the west by the bay, containing about three square leagues.' The ravine and the creek here referred to as boundaries connect with each other, and with the bay inclose a tract of greater quantity than the three leagues confirmed. On the side of the bay there is salt or marsh land of about two leagues in extent. The whole of this land is covered by the monthly tides, at the new and full moon, and a part of it is covered by the daily tides.
The decree of the District Court was affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, a survey was made of the quantity confirmed, under the act of June 14th, 1860, and approved by the District Court. The survey embraced the greater part of the marsh land which is covered by the monthly tides, and excluded that part or the greater portion of it which is covered by the daily tides. From the decree of approval the United States took the present appeal in the interest of settlers on the upland, and the question before the court was as to the correctness of the survey.
The Government contended that the boundary designated as the bay, should be so run as to include all the marsh land; in other words, that by the bay as a boundary in this case was meant the line of low-water mark; and assuming that the boundaries given in the decree do not close, also contended that a fourth line must be determined by the quantity confirmed, and so drawn as to exactly include it. The respondents insisted that they had the right to locate the quantity granted to them anywhere within the exterior boundaries named in the decree of confirmation, subject only to the condition, that the location be made in one body and in a compact form; which condition was followed in the present case.
The grant referred to a map; but that included both marsh land and upland, and did not indicate that one should be taken before the other.
Mr. Wills, for the United States; Mr. Crane, contra.
Mr. Justice FIELD 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
# United States v. Pacific Railroad Railroad Pacific Railroad Railroad

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 227
United States v. Pacific Railroad Railroad Pacific Railroad Railroad
E. M. Watson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States in both cases.
John F. Dillon and James Coleman, for the railroad company in both cases.
FIELD, 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
# United States v. Pacheco

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Pacheco."
* 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.
* United States v. Pacheco (63 U.S. 225), ( 16 L.Ed. 336 ), ( 22 How. 225 )
* United States v. Pacheco (69 U.S. 587), ( 17 L.Ed. 865 ), ( 2 Wall. 587 )
# United States v. Pacheco (63 U.S. 225)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 225
United States v. Rosa Pacheco
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Stanton for the United States, no counsel appearing for the appellees.
Mr. Justice CATRON 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
# United States v. Pacific Coast Wholesalers' Association Freight Forwarders Institute

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 689
United States v. Pacific Coast Wholesalers' Association Freight Forwarders Institute
Argued: Jan. 10, 1950. --- Decided: Feb 6, 1950
Mr. J. Roger Wollenberg, Washington, D.C., for the United states.
Mr. Harry C. Ames, Washington, D.C., for Freight Forwarders Institute.
The Court declined to hear further argument.
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
# United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education
## Concurring Opinion

    Burger
Supreme Court of the United States
407 U.S. 484
United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 70-130. Argued: February 29 - March 1, 1972 --- Decided: June 22, 1972
A state statute authorized creation of a new school district for Scotland Neck, N.C., a city that was part of the larger Halifax County school district, then in the process of dismantling a dual school system. The District Court in this litigation instituted by the United States enjoined implementation of the statute as creating a refuge for white students and promoting school segregation in the county. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the statute's impact on dismantling the county dual system was minimal and that it should not be regarded as an alternative desegregation plan for the county since it was enacted by the legislature and not by the school board.
Held: Whether the action affecting dismantling of a dual school system is initiated by the legislature or by the school board is immaterial, North Carolina Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43; the criterion is whether the dismantling is furthered or hindered by carving a new school district from the larger district having the dual school system, and a proposal that would impede the dismantling process may be enjoined. Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, ante, p. 451. Pp. 488-491.
442 F. 2d 575, reversed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 491.
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioner in No. 70-130. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Norman, and Brian K. Landsberg. Adam Stein argued the cause for petitioners in No. 70-187. With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Norman J. Chachkin, J. LeVonne Chambers, James R. Walker, Jr., and Samuel S. Mitchell.
C. Kitchin Josey and William T. Joyner argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With them on the brief were Robert Morgan, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General.

## Notes

* ↑ Together with No. 70-187, Cotton et al. v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
# United States v. Scophony Corporation of America

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 795
United States v. Scophony Corporation of America
Argued: Jan. 12, 13, 1948. --- Decided: April 26, 1948
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Mr. Sigmund Timberg, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Edwin Foster Blair, of New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE 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
# United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education/Concurrence Burger

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Burger
[p491] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, MR. JUSTICE POWELL, and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring in the result.
I agree that the creation of a separate school system in Scotland Neck would tend to undermine desegregation efforts in Halifax County, and I thus join in the result reached by the Court. However, since I dissented from the Court's decision in Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, ante, p. 471, I feel constrained to set forth briefly the reasons why I distinguish the cases.
First, the operation of a separate school system in Scotland Neck would preclude meaningful desegregation in the southeastern portion of Halifax County. If Scotland Neck were permitted to operate separate schools, more than 2,200 of the nearly 3,000 students in this sector would attend virtually all-Negro schools located just [p492] outside of the corporate limits of Scotland Neck. The schools located within Scotland Neck would be predominantly white. Further shifts could reasonably be anticipated. In a very real sense, the children residing in this relatively small area would continue to attend "Negro schools" and "white schools." The effect of the withdrawal would thus be dramatically different from the effect which could be anticipated in Emporia.
Second, Scotland Neck's action cannot be seen as the fulfillment of its destiny as an independent governmental entity. Scotland Neck had been a part of the county-wide school system for many years; special legislation had to be pushed through the North Carolina General Assembly to enable Scotland Neck to operate its own school system. The movement toward the creation of a separate school system in Scotland Neck was prompted solely by the likelihood of desegregation in the county, not by any change in the political status of the municipality. Scotland Neck was and is a part of Halifax County. The city of Emporia, by contrast, is totally independent from Greensville County; Emporia's only ties to the county are contractual. When Emporia became a city, a status derived pursuant to longstanding statutory procedures, it took on the legal responsibility of providing for the education of its children and was no longer entitled to avail itself of the county school facilities.
Third, the District Court found, and it is undisputed, that the Scotland Neck severance was substantially motivated by the desire to create a predominantly white system more acceptable to the white parents in Scotland Neck. In other words, the new system was designed to minimize the number of Negro children attending school with the white children residing in Scotland Neck. No similar finding was made by the District Court in Emporia, and the record shows that Emporia's decision was not based on the projected racial composition of the proposed new system.
# United States v. Scovil

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 218
United States v. Scovil
Argued: Nov. 16, 1954. --- Decided: Jan 10, 1955
Mr.
John R. Benney, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. J. D. Todd, Jr., Greenville, S.C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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
# United States v. Spaulding

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 498
United States v. Spaulding
No. 161 Argued: Nov. 15, 1934. --- Decided: Jan 7, 1935
The Attorney General and Mr. Will G. Beardslee, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Southwestern Cable Company/Concurrence White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion White
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 157
United States v. Southwestern Cable Company
Argued: March 12 and 13, 1968. --- Decided: June 10, 1968
Mr. Justice WHITE, concurring in the result.
My route to reversal of the Court of Appeals is somewhat different from the Court's. Section 2(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 152(a), says that '(t)he provisions of this chapter shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio * * *.' (Emphasis added.) I am inclined to believe that this section means that the Commission must generally base jurisdiction on other provisions of the Act. This position would not, however, require invalidation of the assertion of jurisdiction before us today. Section 301, 47 U.S.C. § 301, gives the Commission broad authority over broadcasting, and § 303, 47 U.S.C. § 303, confers authority to '(m)ake such regulations not inconsistent with law as it may deem necessary to prevent interference between stations and to carry out the provisions of this chapter' and also the authority to establish areas or zones to be served by any station. The Commission has ample power under these provisions to prevent a Los Angeles television broadcaster from interfering with broadcasting in San Diego. For example, the Commission could stop a Los Angeles television station from owning and operating a wire CATV system which carried the station's signals into San Diego. The Commission should also be able to prevent a third party from disrupting Commission-licensed broadcasting in the San Diego market.
Even if §§ 301 and 303 in themselves furnish insufficient basis for the Commission to enjoin extraneous interference with the San Diego broadcasting scheme it has authorized, § 2(a), supra, makes the provisions of the Act, including §§ 301 and 303, applicable to all wire and radio communication. Hence the Commission is authorized to regulate wire communications to implement the ends of §§ 301 and 303, and authorized as well to use its express authority over broadcasting to enforce its specific powers over common carriers by wire.

## 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