OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/16th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 110

Chap. CX.—An Act designating the ports within which only foreign armed vessels shall be permitted to enter.
After 1st July, 1820, foreign armed vessels to enter certain ports only, unless forced in by distress, dangers of the seas, or an enemy, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, after the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, it shall not be lawful for any foreign armed vessels to enter any harbour belonging to the United States, excepting only those of Portland, Boston, New London, New York, Philadelphia, Norfolk, Smithville, in North Carolina, Charleston, and Mobile; unless when such vessels shall be forced in by distress, by the dangers of he sea, or by being pursued by an enemy, and be unable to make any of the ports above mentioned; in which cases, the commanding officer shall immediately report his vessel to the collector of the district, stating the object or causes of his entering such harbour; shall take such position therein as shall be assigned him by such collector, and shall conform himself to such regulations as shall be signified to him by the said collector, under the authority and direction of the President of the United States.
The President may employ land and naval forces and militia, to enforce this act.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to employ such part of the land and naval forces of the United States, or the militia thereof, as he may deem necessary to enforce the provisions of the first section of this act; and the President shall also be authorized to employ such forces to prevent any foreign armed vessel from entering or remaining within any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, except such as shall lie in her direct course in entering from sea, or leaving, or proceed to sea, either of the harbours above mentioned.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue in force ​This act in force until 1st July, 1822.until the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, and no longer.
Approved, May 15, 1820.
# United States v. Huertas (33 U.S. 475)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 475
United States v. Huertas
The appellee had obtained a concession for ten thousand acres of land, from governor Kindelan, in March 1813. The petitioner, in his application to the governor, sets forth many and great services rendered to the government, in the course of which he had sustained considerable loss, in the last insurrection. He also states that he has ten children, and fourteen slaves.
Governor Kindelan, in his decree making the concession, states his own knowledge of the facts set forth in the petition, but grants the ten thousand acres, with the precise condition to use the same for the purpose of raising cattle, 'without having the faculty of alienating the said tract, without the knowledge of this government.'
On the 20th of July 1816, governor Coppinger granted a complete title to this land. His grant recites the decree made by governor Kindelan, and the boundaries of the land. This claim was laid before the board of commissioners, and recommended for confirmation. Don Antonio Huertas presented his petition to the court for the district of East Florida, by which tribunal his claim was adjudged valid. It was confirmed to him to the extent, and agreeably to the boundaries as in the grant, and the plat of the survey of said land, made by Andrew Burgevin, on the 19th of September 1818, and filed in the cause.
No exception can be taken to this decree, unless the survey made by Burgevin varies from the grant. The description in the survey corresponds, in many respects, with that in the grant; but does not pursue its calls with such regular precision as to prove, completely, their exact identity. But as this objection was not taken in the superior court for the district, where a survey could have been ordered, if deemed necessary; as the testimony in favour of identity greatly preponderates; and as the judge appears to have entertained no doubt that the survey represented truly the land granted: this court thinks the judgment ought not to be reversed on that aaccount. It is, accordingly, affirmed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the eastern district of Florida, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said superior court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, in all respects.

## 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. Hughes (52 U.S. 552)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 552
United States v. Hughes

## 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. Hughes (54 U.S. 4)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
54 U.S. 4
United States v. Hughes
THIS was a land case, arising under the acts of 1824 and 1844, and came up by appeal from the District Court of the United States for Louisiana.
The parties were the same as in the preceding case.
The petition in this case was filed in the District Court, for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on the 16th of June, 1846.
The petitioner, Hughes, claims under a grant alleged to have been made by Governor Gayoso to Andr e Martin, on the 10th of October, 1798, of a tract of land of twenty-eight arpents front, with a depth of one hundred arpents, situated on the west bank of the Atchafalaya, about one league above where the trace or road from Opelousas to Point Coup ee crosses the said river. The petitioner alleges further, that said Martin took immediate possession, &c., and that the board of commissioners made a favorable report on the claim in the year 1840, but that Congress never acted on it, and that he holds a title to one thousand arpents thereof, &c. He thereupon prays that his title may be decreed to be good.
The answer of the United States is a general denial of the allegations of the petition.
The evidence of the original title is the petition of Andr e Martin to the governor for the said tract of land, and the governor's decree thereon, signed by him in these words: 'Granted forever, that he may establish it,' and dated 'New Orleans, October 10th, 1798.'
Hughes claimed title under a deed from certain persons who represented themselves to be the heirs of Martin, dated 14th of July, 1848.
The District Court decided in favor of the petitioner, and the United States appealed.
It was argued by Mr. Crittenden, (Attorney-General,) for the United States, and by Messrs. Janin and Taylor for the appellee.
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
# United States v. Huertas

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Huertas."
* 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. Huertas (33 U.S. 475)
* United States v. Huertas (34 U.S. 171)
# United States v. Huertas (33 U.S. 475)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 475
United States v. Huertas
APPEAL from the superior court of East Florida.
This case was submitted by Mr Call, for the United States; and by Mr White, for the appellee.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL 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. Hughes

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Hughes."
* 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. Hughes (52 U.S. 552)
* United States v. Hughes (54 U.S. 4)
See also Hughes v. United States.
# United States v. Huertas (34 U.S. 171)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
34 U.S. 171
United States v. Huertas
APPEAL from the superior court of East Florida.(a)
(a) This case was decided at January term 1834, but the opinion of the court was not received by the Reporter until after the publication of the volume containing the Reports of that term.
This case was argued for the United States, by Mr Call; and by Mr Wilde and Mr White, for the appellee.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL 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. Huertas (34 U.S. 171)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
34 U.S. 171
United States v. Huertas
On the 15th of September 1817, Antonio Huertas, an inhabitant of East Florida, petitioned the governor of that province for fifteen thousand acres of land; on which the following decree was made.
'In attention to what this petitioner represents, and whereas the services he mentions are well known, I grant to him, in the name of his majesty, and of his royal justice, which I administer, the fifteen thousand acres of land which he solicits, in order that he may possess and enjoy them in absolute ownership; and in testimony, &c.'
The land solicited is described in the petition as lying on a stream running west of St John's river, and emptying itself into it at the distance of about twelve miles south of the Lake George, and the survey to begin at about four or five miles west of the river St John, so that the said stream will divide the tract into two parts.
In December 1820, an order was obtained for surveying the land in four tracts; one of two thousand five hundred acres, another of one thousand five hundred, a third of six hundred, and the fourth of ten thousand four hundred acres. These surveys were executed in April 1821, and full titles granted in the same month.
These several tracts adjoin each other, and appear to lie on the stream required in the petition, and directed by the decree. But the certificate of the surveyor omits to state that the land lies four or five miles west of the river St John.
The order of survey, and the full title granted for the land surveyed, could convey nothing not comprehended in the decree of the 15th of September 1817. That decree was for fifteen thousand acres of land lying in the place described in the petition.
The district court decided that the claim was valid, and confirmed it to the claimant 'to the extent, and agreeable to the boundaries, as in the grants for the said land, and the plats for the four surveys thereof made, by Don Andrew Burgevin, and dated the 5th day of April 1821, and filed herein, as set forth.'
This court concurs with the district court, so far as respects the validity of the claim, but disapproves of that part of it which confirms the title to the lands described in the surveys made in April 1821. Those surveys do not appear to this court to conform to the concession made in 1817, under which alone the petitioner can claim. The decree of the district court is affirmed, so far as it declares the claim of the petitioner to be valid; and is reversed, so far as it confirms his title to the lands described in the several plats of surveys referred to in the decree. And the cause is remanded to the district court, with directions to cause a survey to be made of the lands contained in the said concession, according to the terms thereof, and to decree the same to the claimant, so far as he has retained his title thereto.

## 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
# Weird Tales/Volume 2/Issue 2/Rare Animals Discovered on Dipsomania Isle

Rare Animals Discovered on Dipsomania Isle
Doctor Wilfred H. Osgood, big game hunter and chief curator of zoology of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, has just returned from an extensive expedition through South America, bringing with him 2,000 species of wild animal and bird life, some so rare that their names are still to be discovered.
Among the oddities of the collection are the pudu, South American for small deer; the huillin, a strange species of otter; the coypu, which is a large water rat; the huemul, another type of South American deer; the guanuoo, or wild camel; nandu, which means ostrich, and the viecacha, or another species of rat that resembles a rabbit.
The bulk of the collection, according to Dr. Osgood, was found on the isolated Island of Chiloe, which is about the size of Vancouver and les off the southern coast of Chile. It is populated by a tribe of Indians, numbering about 100,000, whose chief occupation, Dr. Osgood said, is getting drunk. They are badly in need of the Volstead act and it is said that their capacity for alcohol is unsurpassed anywhere in the world.
# United States v. Pleasants

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 357
United States v. Pleasants
Argued: Dec. 5, 1938. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1939
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Paul A. Freund, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Frederick Schwertner, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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. Plyler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 15
United States v. Plyler
Argued: October 19, 1911. --- Decided: October 30, 1911
Solicitor General Lehmann for plaintiff in error.
No counsel for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Justice Holmes:

## 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. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 310
United States v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Company
Argued: March 11, 1926. --- Decided: May 24, 1926
Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and A. A. McLaughlin, of Des Moines, Iowa, for the United States.
Mr. Harvey D. Jacob, of Washington, D. C. (Mr. Frank M. Swacker, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Pittsburgh & W. V. Ry. Co. et al.
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. Plowman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
216 U.S. 372
United States v. Plowman
Argued: January 20 and 21, 1910. --- Decided: February 21, 1910
Assistant Attorney General Harr for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
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
# United States v. Plesha

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 202
United States v. Plesha
Argued: Nov. 8, 1956. --- Decided: Jan 14, 1957
Mr. Lester S. Jayson, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Lawrence A. Schei, Sacramento, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Warner v. Kewanee Machinery & Conveyor Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
398 U.S. 906
Warner v. Kewanee Machinery & Conveyor Company
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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
# Warner v. Goltra

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 155
Warner v. Goltra
No. 4 Argued: Oct. 8, 1934. --- Decided: Nov 5, 1934
Messrs. Walter P. Armstrong, of Memphis, Tenn., Samuel W. Fordyce, of St. Louis, Mo., Henry J. Richardson, of Washington, D.C., and C. Powell Fordyce, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.
Mr. Joseph T. Davis, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.
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
# United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company."
* 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. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (242 U.S. 208)
* United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (266 U.S. 191)
* United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (323 U.S. 612)
See also Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. United States.
# United States v. Pennolin Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 308
United States v. Pennolin Company
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL 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
# United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Company

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 158
United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Company
Argued: April 30, 1964. --- Decided: June 22, 1964
[Syllabus from pages 158-159 intentionally omitted]
Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox for appellant.
H. Francis DeLone, Philadelphia, Pa., and Albert R. Connelly, New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 308
United States v. Pennolin Company
Edwin M. Zimmerman for appellant.
Albert R. Connelly and H. Francis DeLone for appellees.
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. Penn-Olin Chemical Company/Dissent Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Harlan
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 158
United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Company
Argued: April 30, 1964. --- Decided: June 22, 1964
Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.
I can see no purpose to be served by this remand except to give the Government an opportunity to retrieve an antitrust case which it has lost, and properly so. Believing that this Court should not lend itself to such a course, I would affirm the judgment of the District 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. Penn Foundry & Manufacturing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 198
United States v. Penn Foundry & Manufacturing Company
Argued: Jan. 7-10, 1949. --- Decided: May 31, 1949
Mr. Melvin Richter, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. David G. Bress, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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
# Warsaw Message/July 12, 1843

* Page 1
* Page 2
* Page 3
* Page 4
# Warsaw Message/June 10, 1843

* Page 1
* Page 2
* Page 3
* Page 4
# Warsaw Message/January 7, 1843

* Page 1
* Page 2
* Page 3
* Page 4
# Warsaw Message/June 28, 1843

* Page 1
* Page 2
* Page 3
* Page 4
# United States v. Ross (239 U.S. 530)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 530
United States v. Ross (239 U.S. 530)
Argued: December 10, 1915. --- Decided: January 10, 1916
Assistant Attorney General Thompson and Mr. George M. Anderson for appellant.
Messrs. Charles F. Consaul and I. M. Moyers for appellee.
Mr. Justice Hughes 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. Rowell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 662
United States v. Rowell
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg, for the United States.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
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. Ross

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Ross."
* 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. Ross (92 U.S. 281)
* United States v. Ross (239 U.S. 530)