OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Getting Married/The Old Maid's Right to Motherhood

Now the right to bear children without taking a husband could not be confined to women who are superfluous in the monogamic reckoning. There is the practical difficulty that although in our population there are about a million monogamically superfluous women, yet it is quite impossible to say of any given unmarried woman that she is one of the superfluous. And there is the difficulty of principle. The right to bear a child, perhaps the most sacred of all women's rights, is not one that should have any conditions attached to it except in the interests of race welfare. There are many women of admirable character, strong, capable, independent, who dislike the domestic habits of men; have no natural turn for mothering and coddling them; and find the concession of conjugal rights to any person under any conditions intolerable by their self-respect. Yet the general sense of the community recognizes in these very women the fittest people to have charge of children, and trusts them, as school mistresses and matrons of institutions, more than women of any other type when it is possible to procure them for such work. Why should the taking of a husband be imposed on these women as the price of their right to maternity? I am quite unable to answer that question. I see a good deal of first-rate maternal ability and sagacity spending itself on bees and poultry and village schools and cottage hospitals; and I find myself repeatedly asking myself why this valuable strain in the national breed should be sterilized. Unfortunately, the very women whom we should tempt to become mothers for the good of the race are the very last people to press their services on their country in that way. Plato long ago pointed out the importance of being governed by men with sufficient sense of responsibility and comprehension of public duties to be very reluctant to undertake the work of governing; and yet we have taken his instruction so little to heart that we are at present suffering acutely from government by gentlemen who will stoop to all the mean shifts of electioneering and incur all its heavy expenses for the sake of a seat in Parliament. But what our sentimentalists have not yet been told is that exactly the same thing applies to maternity as to government. The best mothers are not those who are so enslaved by their primitive instincts that they will bear children no matter how hard the conditions are, but precisely those who place a very high price on their services, and are quite prepared to become old maids if the price is refused, and even to feel relieved at their escape. Our democratic and matrimonial institutions may have their merits: at all events they are mostly reforms of something worse; but they put a premium on want of self-respect in certain very important matters; and the consequence is that we are very badly governed and are, on the whole, an ugly, mean, ill-bred race.
# Getting Married/The Revolt Against Marriage

There is no subject on which more dangerous nonsense is talked and thought than marriage. If the mischief stopped at talking and thinking it would be bad enough; but it goes further, into disastrous anarchical action. Because our marriage law is inhuman and unreasonable to the point of downright abomination, the bolder and more rebellious spirits form illicit unions, defiantly sending cards round to their friends announcing what they have done. Young women come to me and ask me whether I think they ought to consent to marry the man they have decided to live with; and they are perplexed and astonished when I, who am supposed (heaven knows why!) to have the most advanced views attainable on the subject, urge them on no account to compromize themselves without the security of an authentic wedding ring. They cite the example of George Eliot, who formed an illicit union with Lewes. They quote a saying attributed to Nietzsche, that a married philosopher is ridiculous, though the men of their choice are not philosophers. When they finally give up the idea of reforming our marriage institutions by private enterprise and personal righteousness, and consent to be led to the Registry or even to the altar, they insist on first arriving at an explicit understanding that both parties are to be perfectly free to sip every flower and change every hour, as their fancy may dictate, in spite of the legal bond. I do not observe that their unions prove less monogamic than other people's: rather the contrary, in fact; consequently, I do not know whether they make less fuss than ordinary people when either party claims the benefit of the treaty; but the existence of the treaty shews the same anarchical notion that the law can be set aside by any two private persons by the simple process of promising one another to ignore it.
# Getting Married/The Science and Art of Politics

Political Science means nothing else than the devizing of the best ways of fulfilling the will of the world; and, I repeat, it is skilled work. Once the way is discovered, the methods laid down, and the machinery provided, the work of the statesman is done, and that of the official begins. To illustrate, there is no need for the police officer who governs the street traffic to be or to know any better than the people who obey the wave of his hand. All concerted action involves subordination and the appointment of directors at whose signal the others will act. There is no more need for them to be superior to the rest than for the keystone of an arch to be of harder stone than the coping. But when it comes to devizing the directions which are to be obeyed: that is, to making new institutions and scraping old ones, then you need aristocracy in the sense of government by the best. A military state organized so as to carry out exactly the impulses of the average soldier would not last a year. The result of trying to make the Church of England reflect the notions of the average churchgoer has reduced it to a cipher except for the purposes of a petulantly irreligious social and political club. Democracy as to the thing to be done may be inevitable (hence the vital need for a democracy of supermen); but democracy as to the way to do it is like letting the passengers drive the train: it can only end in collision and wreck. As a matter of act, we obtain reforms (such as they are), not by allowing the electorate to draft statutes, but by persuading it that a certain minister and his cabinet are gifted with sufficient political sagacity to find out how to produce the desired result. And the usual penalty of taking advantage of this power to reform our institutions is defeat by a vehement "swing of the pendulum" at the next election. Therein lies the peril and the glory of democratic statesmanship. A statesman who confines himself to popular legislation--or, for the matter of that, a playwright who confines himself to popular plays--is like a blind man's dog who goes wherever the blind man pulls him, on the ground that both of them want to go to the same place.
# Glenn Knapp v. Alexander-Edgar Lumber Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
237 U.S. 162
Glenn Knapp v. Alexander-Edgar Lumber Company
Argued: January 18, 1915. --- Decided: April 5, 1915
Messrs. H. H. Grace, George B. Hudnall, and C. R. Fridley for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. C. B. Bird, M. B. Rosenberry, A. L. Kreutzer, and J. J. Okoneski for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Pitney 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
# Glencoe (L. E. L.)

* Glencoe, in The Literary Gazette 1823.
* The Vow of the Peacock and Other Poems/Glencoe, in The Vow of the Peacock and Other Poems, 1835.
# Glenn v. Field Packing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 177
Glenn v. Field Packing Company
Argued: Nov. 15, 1933. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1933
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky.
Mr. S. H. Brown, of Frankfort, Ky., for appellants.
Mr. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
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
# Glenn v. Fant/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 123
Glenn v. Fant
This motion is denied. While the stipulation binds the parties to submit the cause without oral argument, there is nothing which requires this to be done at any particular time. Its terms will be fulfilled if the submission is made when the case is reached in its order. As no reference is made to rule 20, we cannot apply that rule to the case on the suggestion of one of the parties against the protest of the other.

## 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
# Glenn v. Field Packing Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 177
Glenn v. Field Packing Company
Argued: Nov. 15, 1933. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1933
This suit was brought by respondent, Field Packing Company, against the state tax commission of Kentucky and its members to restrain the enforcement of that part of chapter 158 of the Acts of the 1932 Session of the General Assembly of Kentucky which imposed a tax of 10 cents per pound on all oleomargarine sold within the state. The statute was assailed as being in violation of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the state and of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The District Court, composed of three judges (28 U.S.C. § 380 (28 USCA § 380)) granted an interlocutory injunction and on final hearing entered a decree making the injunction permanent.
The District Court held that the statute, although in the form of a taxing law, was in reality a prohibition of the sale of oleomargarine in Kentucky and hence was invalid under the state constitution. The question presented under the Federal Constitution was not decided. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191, 29 S.Ct. 451, 53 L.Ed. 753; Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 243, 244, 53 S.Ct. 586, 77 L.Ed. 1148.
Upon the facts found, the decision appears to be supported by principles laid down by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, but, so far as the application of the state Constitution is concerned, the ultimate determination of the validity of the statute necessarily rests with that court. Further, a change in circumstances may create a situation different from that to which the opinion below was addressed.
In order to prevent the possibility that the decree may operate injuriously in the future, the decree will be modified by providing that the members of the state tax commission, or that commission, may apply at any time to the court below, by bill or otherwise, as they may be advised, for a further order or decree, in case it shall appear that the statute has been sustained by the state court as valid under the state Constitution, or that by reason of a change in circumstances the statute may be regarded as imposing a valid tax. See Minnesota Rate Case, 230 U.S. 352, at page 473. 33 S.Ct. 729, 57 L.Ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18.
Decree modified as stated in the opinion and, as modified, 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
# Glencoe (Landon)

* Glencoe from the Literary Gazette, 12th July 1823.
* Glencoe from The Vow of the Peacock and Other Poems, 1835.
# Glenn v. Fant

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 123
Glenn v. Fant
Chas. Marshall, Henry Wise Garnett, and Conway Robinson, Jr., for the motion.
M. F. Morris, contra.
WAITE, 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
# Gregg v. Georgia/Concurrence Blackmun

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions White Burger Blackmun
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan Marshall
Mr. Justice Blackmun, concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment. See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 405-414 (1972) (Blackmun, J., dissenting), and id., at 375 (Burger, C.J., dissenting); id., at 414 Powell, J., dissenting); id., at 465 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
# Gregg v. Georgia/Concurrence Burger

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions White Burger Blackmun
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan Marshall
Statement of The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Rehnquist:
We concur in the judgment and join the opinion of Mr. Justice White, agreeing with its analysis that Georgia's system of capital punishment comports with [p. 227] the Court's holding in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
# Gregg v. Forsyth (69 U.S. 56)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
69 U.S. 56
Gregg v. Forsyth
FORSYTH had brought ejectment against Gregg in the Circuit Court for Illinois, and obtained judgment for the land sued for. On writ of error taken by Gregg, this court reversed that judgment and remitted the case with directions to issue a venire de novo. Between the time, however, that the Circuit Court gave its judgment of recovery, and that when this court gave its of reversal, Forsyth had been put in possession of the premises by a habere facias, and had collected, moreover, the costs of the suit.
As soon as the mandate of this court reversing the judgment was sent down to the court below, but before it had been filed or a rule entered in pursuance of its directions, Gregg moved the court for a writ of restitution. This motion the court refused to grant. Whereupon, a writ of error-the present writ-was brought.
Mr. Justice NELSON 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
# Gregg v. Forsyth (69 U.S. 56)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
69 U.S. 56
Gregg v. Forsyth
Upon the facts of this case, it will be seen that at the time the motion was made in the court below, the cause was not then pending in the court. Although the mandate had been sent down to the circuit from this court it had not been filed there, nor had the rule been entered in pursuance of its directions reversing the judgment. The court had not, therefore, obtained possession of the cause, and this was, doubtless, the reason for refusing the motion for restitution. The plaintiffs in error were entitled to restitution both of the premises and costs on the reversal of the judgment, and the modern practice is to apply to the court on the coming down of the mandate from the appellate tribunal and the entry of the judgment of reversal for a writ of restitution, setting forth the facts entitling the party to the remedy and giving notice of the motion to the adverse party. The earlier and more formal remedy was by scire facias.
It seems that the writ of restitution may be granted though a new venire has been directed. In Smith's Lessee v. Trabue's Heirs, this court held, that a writ of error would not lie to an order of the Circuit Court awarding a writ of restitution on motion, and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. The writ in the present case must be dismissed for the same reason. The order is not considered a final judgment within the meaning of the Judiciary Act.
DISMISSAL ACCORDINGLY.

## 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
# Floating City (1904)/Chapter 30

CHAPTER XXX.
It was no longer possible to put off the duel. Only a few hours separated us from the moment when Fabian and Harry Drake must meet. What could be the reason of this haste? How was it that Harry Drake had not delayed the duel until he and his enemy had disembarked? Was it because this ship, freighted by a French company, seemed to him the most favourable ground for a meeting which must be a deadly struggle? Or rather, might not Drake have a secret interest in freeing himself of Fabian before the latter could set foot on the American continent, or suspect the presence of Ellen on board, which he must have thought was unknown to all save himself? Yes, it must have been for this reason.
"Little matter, after all," said the Captain; "far better to have it over."
"Shall I ask Dr. Pitferge to be present at the duel as a doctor?"
​"Yes, it would be well to do so."
Corsican left me to go to Fabian. At this moment the bell on deck began tolling, and when I inquired of a steersman the reason for this unusual occurrence, he told me that it was for the burial of the sailor who had died in the night, and that the sad ceremony was about to take place. The sky, until now so clear, became overcast, and dark clouds loomed threateningly in the south.
At the sound of the bell the passengers flocked to the starboard side. The bridges, paddle-boards, bulwarks, masts and shore-boats, hanging from their davits, were crowded with spectators, the officers, sailors, and stokers off duty, stood in ranks on deck.
At two o'clock a group of sailors appeared at the far end of the upper deck, they had left the hospital, and were passing the rudder-engine. The corpse, sewn in a piece of sail and stretched on a board, with a cannon ball at the feet, was carried by four men. The body, covered with the British flag, and followed by the dead man's comrades, slowly advanced into the midst of the spectators, who uncovered their heads as the procession passed.
On their arrival at the starboard paddle-wheel, the corpse was deposited on a landing of a staircase which terminated at the main deck.
THE PRAYER FOR THE DEAD.
Page 147.
​in full uniform. The Captain, holding a prayer-book in his hand, took his hat off, and for some minutes, during a profound silence, which not even the breeze interrupted, he solemnly read the prayer for the dead, every word of which was distinctly audible in the deathlike silence.
On a sign from the Captain the body, released by the bearers, sank into the sea. For one moment it floated on the surface, became upright, and then disappeared in a circle of foam.
At this moment the voice of the sailor on watch was heard crying "Land!"
# George McGruder v. The President Directors and Company of the Bank of Washington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
22 U.S. 598
George McGruder v. The President Directors and Company of the Bank of Washington
March 13th.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice JOHNSON.

## 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
# George Moore Ice Cream Company v. Rose

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 373
George Moore Ice Cream Company v. Rose
Argued: April 19, 20, 1933. --- Decided: May 8, 1933
Mr. J. C. Murphy, of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Paul D. Miller, of Washington, D.C. for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 374 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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
# George Lucas of the Movies Honored for Innovations in Workplace

Source: 1994 Congressional Record, Vol. 140, Page H26 www.gpo.gov Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994).
George Lucas of the Movies Honored for Innovations in Workplace
HON. LYNN WOOLSEY
OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 13, 1994
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the million of Americans who struggle everyday to balance the demands of work and family are our true unsung heroes.
That is why it is fitting that this morning, movie genius George Lucas, the man behind so many big screen heroes, was recognized by Working Mother magazine, and Secretary of Labor Robert Reich for his innovative efforts to create a family friendly workplace.
While Mr. Lucas is truly deserving of this honor, the real winners are the 800 persons employed by Mr. Lucas in Marin County, CA--the area that I am so proud to represent in Congress.
These families that work for George Lucas, are provided benefits such as child care, flex time, paid family, and medical leave, as well as health insurance for domestic partners and their dependents.
Mr. Speaker, Congress would do good to follow the lead of George Lucas by encouraging businesses to ease the burden on working families. On behalf of working parents across this Nation, I say to George Lucas, "Thank you, and may the work force be with you."
____________________
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