OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Swiss Constitution/Part 1

The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (German: Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, French: Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse, Italian: Constituzione federale della Confederazione Svizzera, Romansh: Constituziun federala da la Confederaziun svizra) is at the highest level of Switzerland's judicial system. It regulates laws, regulations, and decrees of the federation, the cantons, and communities. Cantonal constitutions may not contradict the federal constitution. Amendments to the constitution require the assent of a majority of the people and of the cantons. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Preamble

In the name of God Almighty!
We, the Swiss People and Cantons, whereas, we are mindful of our responsibility towards creation; resolve to renew our alliance to strengthen liberty and democracy, independence and peace in solidarity and openness towards the world; are determined to live our diversity in unity respecting one another; are conscious of our common achievements and our responsibility towards future generations; and know that only those remain free who use their freedom, and that the strength of a people is measured by the welfare of the weakest of its members; now, therefore, we adopt the following Constitution:

## Title 1: General Provisions
### Art. 1 Swiss Confederation

The Swiss People and the Cantons of Zurich, Berne, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Obwald and Nidwald, Glarus, Zug, Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel City and Basel Land, Schaffhausen, Appenzell Outer Rhodes and Appenzell Inner Rhodes, St. Gall, Grisons, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, Geneva, and Jura, form the Swiss Confederation.

### Art. 2 Purpose

* The Swiss Confederation shall protect the liberty and the rights of the people, and shall ensure the independence and security of the country.
* It shall promote the common welfare, the sustainable development, the inner cohesion, and the cultural diversity of the country.
* It shall ensure equal opportunities for all citizens to the extent possible.
* It shall strive to secure the long-term preservation of natural resources, and to promote a just and peaceful international order.

### Art. 3 Cantons

The Cantons are sovereign insofar as their sovereignty is not limited by the Federal Constitution; they shall exercise all rights which are not transferred to the Confederation.

### Art. 4 National Languages

The national languages are German, French, Italian, and Romansh.

### Art. 5 Rule of Law

* The state’s activities shall be based on and limited by the Rule of Law.
* State activity must be in the public interest and proportional to the goals pursued.
* State organs and private persons must act in good faith.
* The Confederation and the Cantons shall respect international law.

### Art. 6 Individual and Social Responsibility

All persons are responsible for themselves, and shall make use of their abilities to contribute to achieving the goals of state and society.
# Swinson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 529
Swinson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railway Company
Argued: Feb. 6, 7, 1935. --- Decided: March 11, 1935
Messrs. Ernest A. Michel and Tom Davis, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.
Mr. Warren Newcome, of St. Paul, Minn., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Swiss Constitution

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Swiss Constitution."
* related portals: Constitutional documents, Switzerland.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (German: Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, French: Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse, Italian: Constituzione federale della Confederazione Svizzera, Romansh: Constituziun federala da la Confederaziun svizra) is at the highest level of Switzerland's judicial system. It regulates laws, regulations, and decrees of the federation, the cantons, and communities. Cantonal constitutions may not contradict the federal constitution. Amendments to the constitution require the assent of a majority of the people and of the cantons.
* Swiss Federal Constitution of 1874
* Swiss Constitution of 1998
# Swindler v. Lockhart

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Marshall
United States Supreme Court
495 U.S. 911
Swindler v. Lockhart
[912]
[913]
[914]
No. 89-6484
May 29, 1990
The petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

## 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
# Swinging the Lead

Said the soldier to the Surgeon, "I've got noises in me head And a kind o' filled up feeling after every time I'm fed; I can sleep all night on picket, but I can't sleep in my bed". And the Surgeon said, "That's Lead!"
Said the soldier to the Surgeon, "Do you think they'll send me back? For I really ain't adapted to be carrying a pack Though I've humped a case of whisky half a mile upon my back". And the Surgeon said, "That's Lead!"
"And my legs have swelled up cruel, I can hardly walk at all, Bur when the Taubes come over you should see me start to crawl; When we're sprinting for the dugout, I can easy beat 'em all". And the Surgeon said, "That's Lead!"
So they sent him to the trenches where he landed safe and sound, And he drew his ammunition, just about two fifty round: "Oh Sergeant, what's this heavy stuff I've got to hump around?" And the Sergeant said, "That's Lead!"
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
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
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Dodo

The Dodo
The Dodo used
to walk around,
And take the sun and air. The sun yet warms his native ground—
The Dodo is not there!
The voice which used to squawk and squeak Is now for ever dumb—
Yet may you see his bones and beak All in the Mu-se-um.
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Dromedary

The Dromedary
The Dromedary is a cheerful bird:
I cannot say the same about the Kurd.
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Lion

The Lion
The Lion, the Lion, he dwells in the waste, He has a big head and a very small waist;
But his shoulders are stark, and his jaws they are grim, And a good little child will not play with him.
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Polar Bear

The Polar Bear
The Polar Bear is unaware
Of cold that cuts me through: For why? He has a coat of hair. I wish I had one too!
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Camelopard

The Camelopard
The Camelopard, it is said By travellers (who never lie),
He cannot stretch out straight in bed Because he is so high. The clouds surround his lofty head, His hornlets touch the sky. How shall I hunt this quadruped? I cannot tell! Not I!
(A picture of how people try And fail to hit that head so high.)
I'll buy a little parachute (A common parachute with wings), I'll fill it of arrowroot And other necessary things,
And I will slay this fearful brute With stones and sticks and guns and slings.
(A picture of
how people shoot With comfort from a parachute.)
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Hippopotamus

The Hippopotamus
I shoot the Hippopotamus
with bullets made of platinum,
Because if I use leaden ones
his hide is sure to flatten 'em.
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Learned Fish

The Learned Fish
This learned Fish has not sufficient brains To go into the water when it rains.
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Elephant

s
The Elephant
When people call this beast to mind,
They marvel more and more At such a
LITTLE tail behind,
So LARGE a trunk before.
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Frog

The Frog
Be kind and tender to the Frog,
And do not call him names,
As 'Slimy skin,' or 'Polly-wog,' Or likewise 'Ugly James,' Or 'Gap-a-grin,' or 'Toad-gone-wrong,' Or 'Bill Bandy-knees':
The Frog is justly sensitive
To epithets like these.
No animal will more repay A treatment kind and fair; At least
so lonely people say Who keep a frog (and, by the way, They are extremely rare).
Oh! My!
# The Bad Child's Book Of Beasts/The Marmozet

The Marmozet
The species Man and Marmozet Are intimately linked;
The Marmozet survives as yet, But Men are all extinct.
# Such is Life

SUCH IS LIFE
BEING CERTAIN EXTRACTS FROM THE DIARY
OF
TOM COLLINS
Sydney, MCMIII—The Bulletin Newspaper Company, Limited,
Publishers
INTRODUCTION
CONTRARY to usage, these memoirs are published, not "in compliance with the entreaties of friends," but in direct opposition thereto. It has been pointed out to me that the prizes of civilisation—Municipal dignity, Churchwardenship, the Honorary Bench, and so forth—do not wait upon avowed comradeship with people who can by no management of hyperbole be called respectable. But there is a grim, fakeer-like pleasure in any renunciation of desirable things, when the line of least resistance leads in a contrary direction; and, in my own case, the impulse of reminiscence, fatally governed by an inveterate truthfulness, is wayward enough to overbear all hope of local pre-eminence, as well as all sense of literary propriety. Hence these pages.
TOM COLLINS
CONTENTS.
Page.
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
CHAPTER VI
CHAPTER VII
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
# Succession to the Crown Act

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Succession to the Crown Act."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (c. 20), an UK Act that implements the Perth Agreement by changed the laws of succession of the British throne, and required sovereign consent for certain royal marriages.
* Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (Qld), a Queensland Act that implements the said Agreement.
* Succession to the Crown Act 2015 (Cth), an Australian Act that implements the said Agreement.
* Succession to the Crown Act 2015 (WA), a Western Australian Act that implements the said Agreement.

## See also

* Succession to the Crown (Request) Act
* Succession to the Throne Act
* Royal Succession Act 2013 (2013 No 149, N.Z.)
# Stowe v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
86 U.S. 13
Stowe v. United States
We think that the claim was rightly dismissed on the ground of the conclusiveness of the settlement with White. Stowe, by his own action, is estopped from disputing the validity of the settlement. If it be conceded that the power of attorney was not an effective instrument for any purpose, because not executed in conformity with law, the concession cannot operate to the advantage of Stowe, because he acted in such a way after the suit was brought as to preclude him from assuming the position he took in his amended petition. This action has induced the accounting officers of the government to treat White as the only party in interest, and if loss is suffered on this account, it should not be borne by the defendants. Stowe, in suffering the suit to proceed, and co-operating with White's attorney in its prosecution, cannot be heard to say that the statements contained in the petition are not true. It would be wrong to allow him to stand by and see the suit settled on the basis of the truth of those statements, and then to turn round and take a new position because the partial interest which he held in the claim was left unprotected by the settlement. If there be cause of complaint against any one for the failure to protect this interest, it is not against the defendants whose officers conducted and completed the negotiation, on the faith that White, as declared in the petition, was the real owner of the claim, and that the suit was prosecuted for his benefit. In assisting to carry on this suit, Stowe adopted the proceeding on which it was based, and in effect notified the defendants that they could safely settle the cause of action with the attorney of record. Besides, in taking charge of it after the settlement and asking leave to amend the petition, he recognized the authority of the counsel who instituted it; and it is very clear, that the amendment which he was permitted to file, could not affect rights acquired while the suit as originally framed was pending.
JUDGMENT 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
# Strader v. Graham

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Strader v. Graham."
* 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.
* Strader v. Graham (51 U.S. 82)
* Strader v. Graham (59 U.S. 602)
# Stowe v. Harvey

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 199
Stowe v. Harvey
Argued: April 27 and 28, 1916. --- Decided: May 8, 1916
Messrs. A. E. Shaw, Bert Schlesinger, Edwin H. Williams, and Edward M. Cleary for appellant.
Messrs. Charles S. Wheeler and John F. Bowie for appellee.
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
# Stowe v. Harvey/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 199
Stowe v. Harvey
Argued: April 27 and 28, 1916. --- Decided: May 8, 1916
J. Downey Harvey of San Francisco was adjudged a bankrupt November 17, 1911. Appellant, having become trustee of the estate, instituted this proceeding to set aside a transfer by the bankrupt to his wife-defendant in error-of certain stock in Shore Line Investment Company, because made without consideration and with intent to delay and defraud his creditors. The complaint alleges that the gift was made and stock transferred in November, 1909, when it is admitted Harvey was insolvent. Mrs. Harvey maintains that her husband gave the stock and actually delivered the properly indorsed certificate to her in 1905, during all of which year his solvency is conceded. The substantial controversy throughout has been upon the question of fact thus raised.
Having heard witnesses, the trial court held the transfer was made in 1909, and rendered a decree in favor of the trustee. The circuit court of appeals, after a careful review of the evidence, reached a contrary conclusion. 134 C. C. A. 635, 219 Fed. 17. We are now asked to reverse its decree and sustain the trial court.
Notwithstanding doubts necessarily engendered by some conflicting statements and questionable circumstances, upon consideration of the whole record we think the decision of the circuit court of appeals is correct.
Appellant also suggests (a) that the gift is void because Mrs. Harvey permitted her husband for more than four years to retain apparent title to the stock and hold himself out as its real owner; and (b) that there was no actual and continuous change of possession, as required by the state statute against fraudulent conveyances. In reply to these suggestions it seems only necessary to cite National Bank v. Western P. R. Co. 157 Cal. 573, 581, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 987, 108 Pac. 676, 21 Ann. Cas. 1391, which announces as settled doctrine in California that title to stock may be transferred by delivery of certificates, and corporate books are not for public information.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Mr. Justice McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# Strader v. Baldwin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
50 U.S. 261
Strader v. Baldwin
THIS case was brought up, from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, within and for the County of Hamilton, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.
The case arose in this way.
Baldwin was a clerk in the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati. In 1844, the trustees of the bank brought an action of assumpsit against him for $10,000. Baldwin pleaded, amongst other matters, that he had received a discharge under the bankrupt law passed by Congress. The plaintiffs filed a replication, that the debt was contracted whilst Baldwin was acting in a fiduciary capacity, and therefore not discharged from the debt. The defendant demurred to this replication, which demurrer was sustained by the Superior Court, and also by the Supreme Court of Ohio on error.
The plaintiffs then brought the case to this court, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.
It was argued by Mr. Walker, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Lincoln, for the defendant in error.
The question of jurisdiction was not argued by either counsel.
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
# Strader v. Baldwin/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
50 U.S. 261
Strader v. Baldwin
This case is brought here by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
As the power of this court to review the decisions of State tribunals is limited to certain specified cases and conditions, the first inquiry which necessarily presents itself is, whether we have jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs in error instituted this suit in the Superior Court of Cincinnati. The declaration has the common counts in assumpsit. The defendant appeared and pleaded his discharge under the act of Congress of the 19th of August, 1841, to 'establish a uniform system of bankruptcy, &c.' The plaintiffs denied the validity of this discharge, on the ground that the debt was incurred by defendant while acting as clerk or book-keeper in the Commercial Bank, and therefore 'acting in a fiduciary capacity.'
The Supreme Court of Ohio gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs prosecuted their writ of error to this court.
The twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, which is the only source of our authority in cases like the present, gives this court jurisdiction to 're examine' the judgment of a State court only where the decision 'is against the title, right, provilege, or exemption specially set up or claimed' under an act of Congress.
The plaintiffs in this case have set up act of Congress in their pleadings, under which they support their claim or title to recover. It is the defendant who has pleaded a privilege or exemption under a statute of the United States, and relies upon it as his only defence. If the decision of the State court had been against him, his right to have his case re examined by this court could not be doubted. But the decision has been in favor of the right set up under the statute, the validity of which was denied by the plaintiffs. We have no jurisdiction to entertain a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Ohio at their suggestion.
This case must, therefore, be dismissed, for want of jurisdiction.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, within and for the County of Hamilton, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, for the want of jurisdiction.

## 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
# Strader v. Graham (51 U.S. 82)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82 (1851), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the status of three slaves who went from Kentucky to Indiana and Ohio depended on Kentucky law rather than Ohio law. The original plaintiff was Christopher Graham, whose three slaves had traveled to Cincinnati, Ohio aboard a steamboat owned by Jacob Strader and James Gorman and piloted by John Armstrong. The slaves later escaped to Canada. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
51 U.S. 82
Strader v. Graham

## 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
# Sugg v. Thornton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
132 U.S. 524
Sugg v. Thornton
Sawnie Robertson and W. O. Davis, for plaintiffs in error.
Wm. Warner, O. H. Dean, and Jas. Hagerman, for defendant in error.
FULLER, C. 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