OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Southern Star/1928/The Late Mr. Sean Hayes

Southern Star, Saturday, January 28, 1928; Page: 4
The Late Mr. Sean Hayes
The announcement of the death of Mr. Sean Hayes, which too place at his late residence, Seafield Road, Clontarf, Dublin, on 24th inst., came as a surprise and shock to his numerous Carbery relatives, friends, and admirers. Deceased belonged to a very old, highly respected and widely connected West Cork family. He was a son of the late Mr. Denis Hayes, Cregg, Rosscarbery, and nephew of Rev. P. O'Donovan, P.P., Caheragh. He was for a period Manager of the "Southern Star"." He took part in the Dublin Rising of Easter Week, 1916, and, in consequence, he was interned. Subsequently, he was twice returned to An Dail, as representative of West Cork, and, if our memory be not at fault, it was he seconded the motion that the Treaty be accepted. Later on, he was Governor of Newbridge prison, and when peace was restored he was appointed to a position in the G.P.O. Stores, Dublin. Of a quiet and unassuming disposition, a cultured gentleman and a genuine patriot, he was held in the highest esteem—we may say truly—affection by all that ever came into contact with him. He was a rare man, and may God be good to him. His remains were laid to rest on Thursday in Glasnevin amid the illustrious dead—a fitting burial-place for one of the true and tried.
This work was published in 1928 and is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or less since publication.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Southern Star

Weekly newspaper of Skibbereen, Cork, Ireland.
Content exists for this periodical, though at this stage it is not specifically organised beyond a basic hierarchy.
# Southern Wisconsin Railway Company v. City of Madison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 457
Southern Wisconsin Railway Company v. City of Madison
Argued: March 6 and 7, 1916. --- Decided: March 20, 1916
Messrs. Burr W. Jones and E. J. B. Schubring for plaintiff in error.
Mr. William Ryan for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 458 intentionally omitted]
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
# Southern Utilities Company v. City of Palatka/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 232
Southern Utilities Company v. City of Palatka
Argued: April 27, 1925. --- Decided: May 11, 1925
The City of Palatka brought this bill to restrain the petitioner, the Southern Utilities Company, from charging more than ten cents per kilowatt, metre measurement, for commercial electric lighting in the city. It alleged a contract in the grant of the petitioner's franchise by which the petitioner was bound not to charge more than that sum. The defendant pleaded that in present circumstances the rate prescribed in the ordinance granting the franchise was unreasonably low and that to enforce it would deprive defendant of its property without due process of law contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The plea was overruled and defendant having declined to plead further a decree was entered for the plaintiff by the Circuit Court for Putnam County which subsequently was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 86 Fla. 583, 99 So. 236.
The Supreme Court held that the City had power to grant the franchise and to make the contract and that it had no power of its own motion to withdraw, but it concedes the unfettered power of the legislature to regulate the rates. On that ground the defendant contends that there is a lack of mutuality and therefore that it is free and cannot be held to rates that in the absence of contract it would be unconstitutional to impose. The argument cannot prevail. Without considering whether an agreement by the Company in consideration of the grant of the franchise might not bind the Company in some cases, even if it left the city free, it is perfectly plain that the fact that the contract might be overruled by a higher power does not destroy its binding effect between the parties when it is left undisturbed. Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Decatur, 262 U.S. 432, 438, 43 S.C.t. 613, 67 L. Ed. 1065; Opelika v. Opelika Sewer Co., 265 U.S. 215, 218, 44 S.C.t. 517, 67 L. Ed. 983. Such a notion logically carried out would impart new and hitherto unsuspected results to the power to amend the Constitution or to exercise eminent domain. There is nothing in this decision inconsistent with Southern Iowa Electric Co. v. Chariton, 255 U.S. 539, 41 S.C.t. 400, 65 L. Ed. 764, San Antonio v. San Antonio Public Service Co., 255 U.S. 547, 41 S.C.t. 428, 65 L. Ed. 777, and Ortega Co. v. Triay, 260 U.S. 103, 43 S.C.t. 44, 67 L. Ed. 153.
Decree affirmed.

## 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
# Southern Steamship Company v. National Labor Relations Board

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
316 U.S. 31
Southern Steamship Company v. National Labor Relations Board
Argued: Feb. 9, 10, 1942. --- Decided: April 6, 1942
Messrs. Joseph W. Henderson and Randolph W. Childs, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. Robert B. Watts, of Washington, D.C., for respondent N.L.R.B.
Mr.Wm. L. Standard, of New York City, for respondent, National Maritime Union of America.
Mr. Justice BYRNES 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
# Southern Surety Company v. Oklahoma

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 582
Southern Surety Company v. Oklahoma
Argued: December 9, 1915. --- Decided: June 12, 1916
Mr. C. S. Arnold for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. R. E. Wood, Smith C. Matson, and Mr. S. P. Freeling, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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
# Southern Utilities Company v. City of Palatka

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 232
Southern Utilities Company v. City of Palatka
Argued: April 27, 1925. --- Decided: May 11, 1925
Messrs. Wm. L. Ransom, of New York City, J. T. G. Crawford, of Jacksonville, Fla., and W. B. Crawford, of Orlando, Fla., for petitioner.
Mr. P. H. Odom, of Jacksonville, Fla., for respondent.
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
# St. Nicholas/Volume 32/Number 1/Advertisements/Back

    Pear’s Soap 17
    St. Nicholas Stamp Bag 18
    Stamps, etc. 19
    Postum 20
    Northern Pacific 21
    Santa Fe: California Limited 22
    Santa Fe: Grand Canyon 23
    St. Nicholas League Advertising Competition 24
    Horlick’s Malted Milk 25
    Prudential 27
    Jello, etc. 28
    Lowney’s Breakfast Cocoa 29
    Outing 30
    A. E. Little & Co. 31
    Ivory Soap 33
    Libby’s 34
    Miscellaneous cover
# St. Nicholas/Volume 32/Number 1

With Colored Illustrations——Begins in this Number
FOR - YOUNG - FOLKS
CONDUCTED BY
MARY - MAPES - DODGE
MACMILLAN AND Co - L’T’D, ST. MARTIN’S ST - LONDON
THE - CENTURY - CO - UNION - SQUARE - NEW - YORK
COPYRIGHT, 1904, BY THE CENTURY CO. ENTERED AT THE POST-OFFICE AT NEW YORK AS SECOND-CLASS MAIL MATTER.
Weaving the Magic Cloak.
ST. NICHOLAS
(The entire contents of this Magazine are covered by the general copyright, and articles must not be reprinted without special permission.)
CONTENTS OF ST. NICHOLAS FOR NOVEMBER, 1904.
Subscription price, $3.00 a year; single number, 25 cents. The half-yearly parts of ST. NICHOLAS end with the October and April numbers respectively, and the red cloth covers are ready with the issue of these numbers; price 50 cents, by mail, post-paid; the two covers for the complete volume. $1.00. We bind and furnish covers for 75 cents per part, or $1.50 for the complete volume. In sending the numbers to us, they should be distinctly marked with owner’s name, and 54 cents (27 cents per part) should be included in remittance, to cover postage on the volume if it is to be returned by mail. Bound volumes are not exchanged for numbers.
| FRANK H. SCOTT, Presi. CHAS F. CHICHESTER, Treas. WILLIAM W. ELLSWORTH, Secy. | THE CENTURY CO. Union Square, New York, N. Y. |
    Front 2-16
    Back 17-34
# St. Nicholas/Volume 32/Number 1/Advertisements

    Swifts cover
    St. Nicholas 1905 2
    Century Co. Books 6
    November Century 7
    Mary Mapes Dodge 8
    G. W. Dillingham Co. 9
    Books 10
    McClure, Phillips & Co. 11
    Harper’s New Juvenile Books 12
    Miscellaneous 14
    Lee & Shepard’s 15
    Miscellaneous 16
    Pear’s Soap 17
    St. Nicholas Stamp Bag 18
    Stamps, etc. 19
    Postum 20
    Northern Pacific 21
    Santa Fe: California Limited 22
    Santa Fe: Grand Canyon 23
    St. Nicholas League Advertising Competition 24
    Horlick’s Malted Milk 25
    Prudential 27
    Jello, etc. 28
    Lowney’s Breakfast Cocoa 29
    Outing 30
    A. E. Little & Co. 31
    Ivory Soap 33
    Libby’s 34
    Miscellaneous cover
# St. Nicholas/Volume 32/Number 1/Advertisements/Back/A. E. Little and Co

OUTDOORS AND INDOORS
* There is a harmless rightful pleasure in the consciousness of being fittingly dressed, from top to toe. ∷∷∷∷∷
* For outdoors, there are “Sorosis” shoes that defy the fall and winter weather. For indoors, there are dainty evening shoes and slippers, as pretty and aristocratic as the costumes of the fairest society dames demand. ∷∷∷∷∷
A. E. LITTLE & CO. ∴ LYNN, MASS.
# Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework

* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (16 June 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (17 June 2024 version 1)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (17 June 2024 version 2)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (19 June 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (20 June 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (21 June 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (24 June 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (25 June 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (26 June 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (28 June 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (10 July 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (12 July 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (5 August 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (10 September 2024 version)
* Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework (26 September 2024 version)
# The American Democrat/On the Liberty of the Press

ON THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
What is called the liberty of the press, is very generally misconceived. In despotic, or narrow governments, persons, styled censors, are appointed to examine the columns of journals, before the latter are issued, with power to suppress all offensive or injurious articles. This, of course, is putting the press under the control of government, and the press is not a free press, since it cannot publish what its editors please. By the liberty of the press, we are to understand, only, an exemption from this restraint, or a condition of things which enables the citizen to publish what he please, as he can utter what he may please with his tongue.
All men, in a civilized country, however, are responsible for what they say, or publish. If a man speak slander against another, he is liable to the individual injuried, in damages. If a man publish a libel, he incurs the same liability. Some persons suppose that the press possesses privileges, in this respect, that are not accorded to individuals; but the reverse is the fact, as a man may utter with impunity, that which he cannot publish with impunity. The distinction arises from the greater circulation, and the greater power to injure, of a published libel, than of a spoken slander. The editor of a journal, therefore, does not possess the same immunities as an editor, that he ​possesses as a private citizen. Without such a distinction the community would possess a set of men in its bosom, who would enjoy a power to tyrannize over it, with impunity, through its means of publicity.
The liberty of the press, in principle, resembles the liberty to bear arms. In the one case, the constitution guaranties a right to publish; in the other, a right to keep a musket; but he who injures his neighbor with his publications may be punished, as he who injures his neighbor with his musket may be punished.
The constitution of the United States does not guaranty even the right to publish, except as against the laws of congress, as has been previously stated; the real liberty of the press depending altogether on the provisions of the several state governments, in common with most of the other liberties and rights of the citizen.
# The American Democrat/On the Disadvantages of a Monarchy

ON THE DISADVANTAGES OF A MONARCHY.
A monarchy is liable to those abuses which follow favoritism, the servants of the prince avenging themselves for their homage to one, by oppressing the many.
A monarchy is the most expensive of all forms of government, the regal state requiring a costly parade, and he who depends on his own power to rule, must strengthen that power by bribing the active and enterprising whom he cannot intimidate. Thus the favorites of an absolute prince, in connection with the charges of himself and family, frequently cost the state as much as its necessary expenditures.
It is the policy of a monarchy to repress thought, a knowledge of human rights being always dangerous to absolute, or exclusive power. Thus the people of monarchies are divided into the extremes of society, the intermediate and happiest classes being usually small, and inclined to favor their superiors from apprehension of the brutal ignorance of those below them.
Monarchies are subjected to the wars and to the policies of family alliances, the feelings and passions of the prince exercising a malign influence on the affairs of the state.
In monarchies the people are required to maintain a military force sufficient to support the throne, the system always exacting that the subject should pay the troops that are kept on foot to hold him in subjection.
​Truth is trammelled in a monarchy, the system dreading collision with a power so dangerous to all factitious and one-sided theories.
Monarchies, especially those in which the crown possesses a real and predominant power, discourage sincerity and frankness of character, substituting appearances for virtue, and flattery and deception for wholesome facts.
Women often exercise an improper influence, and this from an impure motive, in monarchies, history tracing even wars to the passions of an offended mistress.
The public money is diverted from legitimate objects, to those which support the personal views, passions, caprices, or enmities of the prince.
Monarchies are subject to all those abuses, which depend on an irresponsible administration of power, and an absence of publicity; abuses that oppress the majority for the benefit of a few, and which induce subserviency of character, frauds, flatteries and other similar vices.
If, in this age, monarchies exhibit these results of the system in milder forms, than in other centuries, it is owing to the increasing influence of the people, who may control systems, though in a less degree, indirectly as well as directly.
# Special 301 Report/2011

Issue 2011 of the Special 301 Report (N. 23).
2011 Special 301 Report
Ambassador Ronald Kirk
Office of the United States Trade Representative
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this report. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk gratefully acknowledges in particular the contributions of Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro; USTR General Counsel Timothy Reif; Chief of Staff Lisa Garcia; Assistant USTR for Public/Media Affairs Carol Guthrie, Special Assistant Stephen Ostrowski and all USTR staff who contributed to the drafting and review of this report. Thanks are extended to partner agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and State, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office.
In preparing the report, substantial information was solicited from U.S. Embassies around the world and from interested stakeholders. The draft of this report was circulated through the Special 301 Subcommittee of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
April 2011
​Table of Contents
# Special 301 Report/2011/Annex 2

​ANNEX 2. THE WIPO PERFORMANCES AND PHONOGRAMS TREATY (WPPT) AND THE WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATY (WCT)
The United States continues to work with other governments, in consultation with U.S. copyright industries and other affected sectors, to develop strategies to address global IPR issues. In 1996, the WIPO concluded two copyright treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Following their entry into force in 2002, these treaties have raised the standard of copyright protection around the world, particularly with regard to Internet based delivery of copyrighted content. The WIPO Internet Treaties have clarified exclusive rights and require signatories to provide effective legal remedies against the circumvention of certain technological measures that protect copyrighted content in online environments. A growing number of trading partners are implementing the WIPO Internet Treaties to create a legal environment conducive to investment and growth in Internet-related businesses, services, and technologies.
As of April 2011, there are 87 contracting parties of the WPPT and 88 contracting parties to the WCT. Other trading partners have implemented key provisions of these treaties in their national laws without formally ratifying them. The United States urges other governments to ratify and implement the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties.
# Special 301 Report/2012/Annex 1

ANNEX 1. STATUTORY BACKGROUND ON SPECIAL 301
Pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (enacted in 1994) ("Special 301"), under Special 301 provisions, USTR must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for IPR or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely on IPR protection. ("Countries" in this context include separate customs territories and the European Union). Countries that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant U.S. products must be designated as "Priority Foreign Countries." Priority Foreign Countries are potentially subject to an investigation under the Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. USTR may not designate a country as a Priority Foreign Country if it is entering into good faith negotiations or making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide adequate and effective protection of IPR.
USTR must decide whether to identify countries within 30 days after issuance of the annual National Trade Estimate Report. In addition, USTR may identify a trading partner as a Priority Foreign Country or remove such identification whenever warranted.
USTR has created a "Priority Watch List" and "Watch List" under Special 301 provisions. Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IPR. Countries placed on the Priority Watch List are the focus of increased bilateral attention concerning the problem areas.
Additionally, under Section 306, USTR monitors a trading partner's compliance with measures that are the basis for resolving an investigation under Section 301. USTR may apply sanctions if a country fails to satisfactorily implement such measures.
The Trade Policy Staff Committee, in particular the Special 301 Subcommittee, in advising USTR on the implementation of Special 301, obtains information from and holds consultations with the private sector, U.S. embassies, foreign governments, and the U.S. Congress, among other sources.
# Special 301 Report/2012/Annex 2

ANNEX 2. THE WIPO PERFORMANCES AND PHONOGRAMS TREATY (WPPT) AND THE WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATY (WCT)
The United States continues to work with other governments, in consultation with U.S. copyright industries and other affected sectors, to develop strategies to address global IPR issues. In 1996, the WIPO concluded two copyright treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Following their entry into force in 2002, these treaties have raised the standard of copyright protection around the world, particularly with regard to Internet based delivery of copyrighted content. The WIPO Internet Treaties have clarified certain exclusive rights and require signatories to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of certain technological measures as well as certain acts affecting rights management information. A growing number of trading partners are implementing the WIPO Internet Treaties to create a legal environment conducive to investment and growth in legitimate Internet-related businesses, services, and technologies.
As of April 2011, there are 89 contracting parties of the WPPT and the WCT. Other trading partners have implemented key provisions of these treaties in their national laws without formally ratifying them. The United States urges other governments to ratify and implement the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties.
The following trading partner became party to the WCT between December 2010 and March 2012:
| Morocco | Entry into Force: July 20, 2011 |
The following three trading partners became parties to the WPPT between December 2010 and March 2012:
| Morocco | Entry into Force: July 20, 2011 |
| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Entry into Force: February 12, 2011 |
| Tajikistan | Entry into Force: August 24, 2011 |