OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Stagolee (Hurt)

First recorded by Hurt in 1928 for OKeh records, and released in 1928 on OKeh (8654). Copyrights not renewed. Transcribed from the original recording, from the album Avalon Blues: The Complete 1928 OKeh Recordings (Columbia/Legacy). Hurt later recorded a version for the Library of Congress in 1964, which included one extra verse. That verse is shown in italics.
"O police officer, how can it be? You can arrest everybody, but cruel Stagolee." That bad man, O cruel Stagolee
Billy Lyons told Stagolee "Please don't take my life. I got two little babes and a darling, loving wife." That bad man, O cruel Stagolee
"What do I care 'bout your two little babes, and your darling, loving wife? You done stole my Stetson hat, and I'm bound to take your life." That bad man, O cruel Stagolee
Boom boom, boom boom, went a .44 The winter spy, Billy Lyons fell down on the floor. That bad man, O cruel Stagolee
"Gentlemens of the jury, whatch-you think of that? Stagolee killed Billy Lyons, 'bout a five-dollar Stetson hat." That bad man, O cruel Stagolee
Standing on the gallows, Stagolee did curse. The Judge said, "Lets kill him, before he kills some of us." He's a bad man, O cruel Stagolee
Standing on the gallows, head held up high, At twelve o'clock they killed him, they's all glad to see him die. That bad man, O cruel Stagolee

## References

* Hurt, "Mississippi" John. "Stagolee". Avalon Blues: The Complete 1928 OKeh Recordings, 7, Columbia/Legacy, CD, 1995
* Hurt, "Mississippi" John. "Stagolee". D.C. Blues: The Library of Congress Recordings, Vol. 1, 14, JSP, CD, 1998
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1966, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 57 years or less. 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
# Stagolee (Journal of American Folk-Lore)

Two variations appeared in the 1911 edition of The Journal of American-Folk Lore. The first is a variant found in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee; the second is found in Georgia. From the article “Folk-Song and Folk-Poetry as Found in the Secular Songs of the Southern Negroes,” on p. 288 (first variation) and pp. 288–289 (second variation).

## First variation

Stagolee, Stagolee, what's dat in yo' grip? Nothin' but my Sunday clothes, I'm goin' to take a trip, O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Stagolee, Stagolee, where you been so long? I been out on de battle fiel' shootin' an' havin' fun, O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Stagolee was a bully man, an' ev'y body knowed, When dey seed Stagolee comin', to give Stagolee de road, O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Stagolee started out, he give his wife his han', "Good-by, darlin', I'm goin' to kill a man." O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Stagolee killed a man an' laid him on de flo', What's dat he kill him wid? Dat same ole fohty-fo'. O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Stagolee killed a man an' laid him on his side, What's dat he kill him wid? Dat same ole fohty-five. O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Out of house an' down de street Stagolee did run, In his hand he held a great big smokin' gun. O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Stagolee, Stagolee, I'll tell you what I'll do, If you'll git me out'n dis trouble I'll do as much for you. O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Ain't it a pity, ain't it a shame? Stagolee was shot, but he don't want no name. O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Stagolee, Stagolee, look what you done done, Killed de best ole citerzen; now you'll hav' to be hung. O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.
Stagolee cried to de jury an' to de judge: Please don't take my life, I have only three little children an' one little lovin' wife, O dat man, bad man, Stagolee done come.

## Second variation

I got up one mornin' jes' 'bout four o'clock; Stagolee an' big bully done have one finish' fight: What 'bout? All 'bout dat raw-hide Stetson hat.
Stagolee shot Bully; Bully fell down on de flo', Bully cry out: "Dat fohty-fo' hurts me so." Stagolee done killed dat Bully now.
Sent for de wagon, wagon didn't come, Loaded down wid pistols an' all dat gatlin' gun, Stagolee done kill dat Bully now.
Some giv' a nickel, some giv' a dime, I didn't give a red copper cent, 'cause he's no friend o' mine, Stagolee done kill dat Bully now.
Carried po' Bully to cemetary, people standin' 'round, When preacher say Amen, lay po' body down, Stagolee done kill dat Bully now.
Fohty dollah coffin, eighty dollah hack, Carried po' man to cemetary but failed to bring him back, Ev'y body been dodgin‚' Stagolee.

## Licensing

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Stahmann v. Vidal

United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 61
Stahmann v. Vidal
Argued: Oct. 12-13, 1938. --- Decided: Nov 7, 1938
Mr. Thornton Hardie, of El Paso, Tex., for petitioners.
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Golden W. Bell, Asst. Sol. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
336 U.S. 368
Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po
Argued: March 14, 1949. ---
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Hawaii.
No. 52:
Mr. Thomas W. Flynn, Jr., of Honolulu. T.H., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 369 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. N. Wai Yuen Char, of Honolulu, T.H., and A. L. Wirin, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
No. 474:
Mr. C. Nils Tavares, of Honolulu, T.H., for petitioners.
Messrs. A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrano, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# Stainback v. Rae

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
55 U.S. 532
Stainback v. Rae
Mr. Justice Curtis did not sit in this cause, having been of counsel in the court below.

## 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
# State v. Buzzard

Appellee Buzzard was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon. The trial court dismissed that charge on the ground that the law violated his right to bear arms under the second amendment to the federal constitution. The State appealed the dismissal.
The dismissal was reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18 (1842). The court had three members when it decided the Buzzard case. Chief Justice Ringo and Justice Dickinson each wrote an opinion agreeing with the State that the concealed-weapon law did not violate the constitutional right to bear arms. Id. at 18, 29. The trial court's dismissal of Buzzard's charge was therefore reversed and the State was allowed to go forward with Buzzard's prosecution. Justice Lacy wrote an opinion in which he argued that the law was unconstitutional. Id. at 33.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
4 Ark. 18
The State v. Buzzard
Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court
* Court Documents
* Opinions in Seriatim
* Separate Opinions Ringo Dickinson Lacy
THIS was an indictment under the statute against carrying concealed weapons, tried in the Chicot Circuit Court, in November, A. D. 1839, before the Hon. EUCLID L. JOHNSON, one of the Circuit Judges. The indictment was quashed on the motion of Buzzard, on the ground that the law was unconstitutional; and the State appealed.
Clendenin, Atto. Gen., for the State.
Pike, contra.
After advisement, the following opinions were delivered:
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# State v. Epperson/Concurrence Ward

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Decision per curiam
* Concurring Opinion Ward
​PAUL WARD, Justice, concurring. I agree with the first sentence in the majority opinion.
To my mind, the rest of the opinion beclouds the clear announcement made in the first sentence.
# State v. Epperson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Decision per curiam
* Concurring Opinion Ward
​PER CURIAM. Upon the principal issue, that of constitutionality, the court holds that Initiated Measure No. 1 of 1928, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1627 and § 80-1628 (Repl. 1960), is a valid exercise of the state's power to specify the curriculum in its public schools. The court expresses no opinion on the question whether the Act prohibits any explanation of the theory of evolution or merely prohibits teaching that the theory is true; the answer not being necessary to a decision in the case, and the issue not having been raised.
The decree is reversed and the cause dismissed.
WARD, J., concurs. BROWN, J., dissents.
# State v. Epperson

In State v. Epperson, 242 Ark. 922 (1967), the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a state law that banned the teaching of evolution in public schools. The court's decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
Supreme Court of Arkansas
242 Ark. 922
State v. Susan Epperson and N. H. Blanchard
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court
No. 5-4127. --- Delivered: June 5, 1967. Rehearing denied: July 26, 1967.
* Court Documents
* Per Curiam Decision
* Concurring Opinion Ward
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court, Murray O. Reed, Chancellor; reversed and dismissed.
Bruce Bennett, Attorney General; Fletcher Jackson, Asst. Atty. General, for appellant.
Warren & Bullion, for appellee.
[PER CURIAM decision of the court. Concurring opinion by Justice PAUL WARD. Justice ROBERT H. DUDLEY dissents without opinion.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Statute of Mortmain

A statute issued in 1279 aimed at preserving the kingdom's revenues by preventing land from passing into the possession of the Church.
English-language translations of Statute of Mortmain include:
* "Statute of Mortmain" by Ernest Flagg Henderson (1892).
* "Mortmain Act 1279" (unsourced)
# State Documents on Federal Relations/27

27. Resolutions of Virginia against the Bank.
January 22, 1811.
The following resolutions were disregarded by Senator Richard Brent, of Virginia, thereupon the General Assembly adopted a Report elaborately presenting an historical argument in favor of the doctrine of instructions and called upon Senator Brent to resign. Acts of Virginia, 1811–12, 143–152. Texts of following resolutions, Acts of Virginia, 1810–11, 121; also, Amer. State Papers, Finance, II, 467; Annals, 1810–11, 201.
The General Assembly of Virginia view with the most serious concern the late attempts which have been made to obtain from Congress a renewal of the charter incorporating the Bank of the United States. This assembly are deeply impressed with the conviction that the original grant of that charter was unconstitutional; that congress have no power whatever to renew it; and that the exercise of such a power would be not only unconstitutional, but a dangerous encroachment on the sovereignty of the states—Therefore,
Resolved, That the senators of this state in the Congress of the United States be instructed, and our representatives most earnestly requested, in the execution of their duties as faithful representatives of their country, to use their best efforts in opposing by every means in their power the renewal of the charter of the bank of the United States.
# State Documents on Federal Relations/3

3. Extracts from the Message of Governor Edward Telfair, Dated November 4, 1793.
Notwithstanding certain amendments have taken place in the Federal Constitution, it still rests with the State Legislatures to ​act thereon as circumstances may dictate. A process from the Supreme Court of the United States, at the instance of Chisholm, Executor of Farquhar, has been served on me and the Attorney General. I declined entering any appearance, as this would have introduced a precedent replete with danger to the Republic, and would have involved this state in complicated difficulties abstracted from the infractions it would have made on her retained sovereignty. The singular predicament to which she has been reduced by savage inroads has caused an emission of paper upwards of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds since the close of the late war, a considerable part of which is yet outstanding, and which in good faith and upon constitutional principles is the debt of the United States. I say were action admissible under such grievous circumstances, an annihilation of her political existence must follow. To guard against civil discord as well as the impending danger, permit me most ardently to request your most serious attention to the measure of recommending to the Legislatures of the several States that they effect a remedy in the premises by an amendment to the constitution; and that to give further weight to this matter the delegation of this state in Congress be required to urge that body to propose such an amendment to the said several Legislatures. * * *
# State Documents on Federal Relations/28

28. Extracts from the Letter of Governor Strong of Massachusetts to Secretary of War Eustis.
August 5, 1812.
The following extracts, together with the Opinion of the Judges, present briefly the reasons for the refusal of Governor Strong to honor the call for the militia. The Governor's views are set forth more fully in his Speech to the General Court, October 14, 1812. (Resolves of Mass., 1812–15, 75, 78; also extract in Dwight, 241–243.) The Federalist House in their Answer, expressed their "unqualified approbation of the Governor's course." (Ibid., 82, 83.) The Republican Senate, in their Answer, dissented from the opinions of the Governor, and declared that "the jealousy with which your Excellency regards the authority of the National Administration might suggest an apprehension for the safety of the Union." (Ibid., 86–88.)
* * * As an opinion generally prevailed, that the Governor had no authority to call the militia into actual service, unless one of the exigencies contemplated by the constitution exists, I thought it expedient to call the council together, and, having laid before them your letter, and those I have received from General Dearborn, I requested their advice on the subject of them.
The Council advised "that they were unable from a view of the Constitution of the United States, and the letters aforesaid, to ​perceive that any exigency exists which can render it advisable to comply with the said requisition. But, as upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions, the Governor and Council have authority to require the opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, it is advisable to request the opinion of the Supreme Court upon the following questions, viz.:
"1st. Whether the commanders in chief of the militia of the several states have a right to determine, whether any of the exigencies contemplated by the constitution of the United States exist; so as to require them to place the militia, or any part of it, in the service of the United States, at the request of the President, to be commanded by him pursuant to acts of Congress?"
"2nd. Whether, when either of the exigencies exist, authorizing the employing the militia in the service of the United States, the militia thus employed, can be lawfully commanded by any officer, but of the militia, except by the President of the United States?"
I enclose a copy of the answer given by the judges to these questions. * * * I am fully disposed to afford all the aid to the measures of the national government which the constitution requires of me, but, I presume it will not be expected, or desired, that I shall fail in the duty which I owe to the people of this state, who have confided their interests to my care.
[Senate Doc. 13 Cong. 3 sess. Report of Com. on Military Affairs, Feb. 28, 1815, 34–38.]
# State Documents on Federal Relations/31

31. Rhode Island and the Militia Question.
October 6, 1812.
The following extract from the message of Governor William Jones to the General Assembly, October 6, 18112, gives the opinion of the Council of War upon the call for the militia made by the Federal authorities. For text see Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island General Assembly, October, 1812, 3–5; also ​in Niles, III, 179, 180. The action of the Governor and Council was approved at the same session, Acts and Resolves, 34. The Correspondence of the Governor and the Federal authorities and other documents for the period 1812–14, is in Amer. State Papers, Military Affairs, I, 608, 621, 622; Report of Com. on Military Affairs, Feb. 28, 1815, 13 Cong., 3 sess., Senate Doc., 80–85. For subsequent action of the State, see post, No. 38.
[Upon the receipt of a letter from General Dearborn, on July 21, requesting him to order certain of the militia into the service of the United States, Governor Jones says,] I was induced to convene a council of war, and take their opinion of the measures most proper to adopt under these circumstances: * * * On the question whether the militia of this State can be withdrawn from the authority thereof, except in particular cases provided for by the constitution of the United States, they are unanimously of opinion, that they could not. On the second question, viz., when the militia are called for by the President of the United States, who is to be the judge whether those exigencies provided for by the constitution of the United States, exist or not? They were also unanimously of opinion that the executive of the State must, and of right ought to be judge. * * *
It is very much to be regretted that there should exist a difference of opinion between the President of the United States and the government of the individual States in any case, and particularly so as it respects the disposing of the detailed militia, when the nation is involved in war. Satisfied, however, that the principle adopted, and the course this State has pursued on that subject is not only perfectly in agreement with the letter, but with the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, I conceive an adherence thereunto indispensable; but should this General Assembly think the course erroneous, there is now an opportunity to correct it.
# State Documents on Federal Relations/32

Extract from Governor Chittenden's Speech. October 23, 1813.
The importance of the subject of the militia will not fail to claim your deliberate consideration. I have always considered this force peculiarly adapted and exclusively assigned for the ​service and protection of the respective States; excepting in cases provided for by the national constitution, viz., to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. It never could have been contemplated by the framers of our excellent constitution, who, it appears, in the most cautious manner, guarded the sovereignty of the States, or by the States, who adopted it, that the whole body of the militia were, by any kind of magic, at once to be transformed into a regular army for the purpose of foreign conquest; and it is to be regretted, that a construction should have been given to the constitution, so peculiarly burdensome and oppressive to that important class of our fellow citizens.