OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Untermyer v. Anderson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 440
Untermyer v. Anderson
Argued: Feb. 24, 27, 1928. --- Decided: April 9, 1928
Mr. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from page 441 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General, and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 442-443 intentionally omitted]
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
# Untangling the Web

* related portals: United States National Security Agency.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
(b) (3)-P. L. 86-36
by Center for Digital Content
Last Updated: February 28, 2007
(b) (3)-P. L. 86-36
(b) (3)-P. L. 86-36 :
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Table of Contents
Notes
Notes
31228
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
# Unsworn Statement from Mohamed Ben Moujane 's CSRT

* related portals: Guantanamo.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Transcribed from page 90 of 90 of
On March 3rd, 2006 the Department of Defense had originally released a version of this file that contained a Classified Summary on page 90. See CSRT Classified Summary of Mohamed Ben Moujane
Unclassified
Summarized Unsworn Statement on Behalf of Detainee
    The detainee did not make an unsworn statement on his behalf.
    The detainee refused to answer any questions when asked.
Authentication
I certify the material contained in this transcript is a true and accurate summary of the testimony given during the proceedings.
Col USAF Tribunal President
ISN #160 Enclosure (3) Page 1 of 1
Unclassified / FOUO
# Wants

WE women want to many things; And first we call for happiness, -- The careless boon the hour brings, The smile, the song, and the caress.
And when the fancy fades, we cry, Nay, give us one on whom to spend Our heart's desire! When Love goes by With folded wings, we seek a friend.
And then our children come, to prove Our hearts but slumbered, and can wake; And when they go, we're fain to love Some other woman's for their sake.
But when both love and friendship fail, We cry for duty, work to do; Some end to gain beyond the pale Of self, some height to journey to.
And then, before our task is done, With sudden weariness oppressed, We leave the shining goal unwon And only ask for rest.
# Wanzer v. Tupper/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
49 U.S. 234
Wanzer v. Tupper
In this case, the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi decided, that the holder of an inland bill of exchange drawn and accepted in that state was not entitled to recover against the indorser, unless the bill had been regularly protested for non-payment. This decision was made before the case of Bailey v. Dozier, reported in 6 How., 23, came before this court. In that case the court held, upon full consideration of the question, that, under the statute of Mississippi, the holder of an inland bill of exchange was entitled to recover of an indorser the amount due on the bill, with interest, upon giving the customary proof of default and notice; and that the protest was necessary only for the purpose of enabling him to recover the five per cent. damages given by the act. The case of Bailey v. Dozier must govern this, and the judgment in the Circuit Court is therefore reversed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Circuit Court, with directions to award a venire facias de novo.

## 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
# Waples v. Hays

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
108 U.S. 6
Waples v. Hays
[Syllabus from page 6 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of Case from pages 6-7 intentionally omitted]
Charles W. Hornor and Rufus Waples, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel on pages 7-8 intentionally omitted]
B. F. Jonas and R. T. Merrick, for defendants in error.
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
# Wanzer v. Truly

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Daniel
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 584
Wanzer v. Truly
THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Coxe, for the appellants, and by Mr. Brent and Mr. May, for the appellees.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL 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
# Wap at the Widow

"This good old tune, we are informed, belonged to a song so indelicate that Ramsay remodelled it, retaining the wit of the original words, and rejecting all offensive expressions. Stenhouse tells us that it was printed by Thomson in his Orpheus Caledonius, in 1725. This, however, is another of his mis-statements, as it did not appear till the second volume was published in 1733." —John Glen, Early Scottish Melodies (1900)
* "The Widow" in Auld Robin Gray (1790)
* "Wap at the Widow" in The Book of Scottish Song (ed.) by Alexander Whitelaw (1843)
# Wanzer v. Tupper

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
49 U.S. 234
Wanzer v. Tupper
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.
It was an action brought by Wanzer upon a bill of exchange drawn by him upon Silverbury & Co., accepted by drawees, and indorsed by Tupper & Rollins to Wanzer.
The cause was tried in the Circuit Court in November, 1846, when the court refused to permit the bill, although admitted to be an inland bill of exchange, to be given in evidence to the jury, because there was no valid protest thereof.
It is unnecessary to state any further facts in the case.
It was argued in this court by Mr. Coxe, for the plaintiff in error, no counsel appearing for the defendants.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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
# What Will He Do With It? (Belford)/Book 1/Chapter 18

CHAPTER XVIII.
There is one warning lesson in life which few of us have not received, and no book that I can call to memory has noted down with an adequate emphasis. It is this, "Beware of parting!" The true sadness is not in the pain of the parting, it is in the When and the How you are to meet again with the face about to vanish from your view! From the passionate farewell to the woman who has your heart in her keeping, to the cordial good-by exchanged with pleasant companions at a watering-place, a country-house, or the close of a festive day's blithe and careless excursion—a cord, stronger or weaker, is snapped asunder in every parting, and Time's busy fingers are not practised in re-splicing broken ties. Meet again you may: will it be in the same way?—with the same sympathies?—with the same sentiments? Will the souls, hurrying on in diverse paths, unite once more, as if the interval had been a dream? Rarely, rarely! Have you not, after even a year, even a month's absence, returned to the same place, found the same groups reassembled, and yet sighed to yourself, "But where is the charm that once breathed from the spot, and once smiled from the faces?" A poet has said—"Eternity itself can not restore the loss struck from the minute." Are you happy in the spot on which you tarry with the persons whose voices are now melodious to your ear?—beware of parting; or, if part you must, say not in insolent defiance to Time and Destiny—"What matters?—we shall soon meet again."
Alas, and alas! when we think of the lips which murmured, ​"Soon meet again," and remember how, in heart, soul, and thought, we stood forever divided the one from the other, when, once more face to face, we each inly exclaimed—"Met again!"
The air that we breathe makes the medium through which sound is conveyed; be the instrument unchanged, be the force which is applied to it the same, still, the air that thou seest not, the air to thy ear gives the music.
Ring a bell underneath an exhausted receiver, thou wilt scarce hear the sound; give a bell due vibration by free air in warm daylight, or sink it down to the heart of the ocean, where the air, all compressed, fills the vessel around it, and the chime, heard afar, starts thy soul, checks thy footstep—unto deep calls the deep—a voice from the ocean is borne to thy soul.
Where, then, the change, when thou sayest, "Lo, the same metal—why so faint-heard the ringing?" Ask the air that thou seest not, or above thee in the sky, or below thee in ocean. Art thou sure that the bell so faint-heard, is not struck underneath an exhausted receiver?
# What Will He Do With It? (Belford)/Book 1/Chapter 15

CHAPTER XV.
From the dusty height of a rumble-tumble affixed to Lady Selina Vipont's barouche, and by the animated side of Sir Jasper ​Stollhead, Vance caught sight of Lionel and Sophy at a corner of the spacious green near the Palace. He sighed; he envied them. He thought of the boat, the water, the honey-suckle arbor at the little inn—pleasures he had denied himself—pleasures all in his own way. They seemed still more alluring by contrast with the prospect before him; formal dinner at the Star and Garter, with titled Prymmes, Slowes, and Frosts, a couple of guineas a-head, including light wines, which he did not drink, and the expense of a chaise back by himself. But such are life and its social duties—such, above all, ambition and a career. Who, that would leave a name on his tombstone, can say to his own heart, "Perish, Stars and Garters; my existence shall pass from day to day in honey-suckle arbors?"
Sir Jasper Stollhead interrupted Vance's reverie by an impassioned sneeze—"Dreadful smell of hay!" said the legislator, with watery eyes. "Are you subject to the hay fever? I am! A—tisha—tisha—tisha (sneezing)—country frightfully unwholesome at this time of year. And to think that I ought now to be in the House—in my committee-room—no smell of hay there—most important committee."
Vance (rousing himself). "Ah!—on what?"
Sir Jasper (regretfully). "Sewers!"
# What Will He Do With It? (Belford)/Book 1/Chapter 13

CHAPTER XIII.
The next day, perhaps with the idea of removing all scruple from Sophy's mind, Waife had already gone after his investment when the friends arrived. Sophy at first was dull and dispirited, but by degrees she brightened up; and when, the sitting over and the picture done (save such final touches as Vance reserved for solitary study), she was permitted to gaze at her own effigy, she burst into exclamations of frank delight. "Am I like that? is it possible? Oh, how beautiful! Mr. Merle, Mr. Merle, Mr. Merle!" and running out of the room before Vance could stop her, she returned with the Cobbler, followed, too, by a thin, gaunt girl, whom he pompously called his housekeeper, but who, in sober truth, was servant-of-all-work. Wife he had none—his horoscope, he said, having Saturn in square to the Seventh House, forbade him to venture upon matrimony. All gathered round the picture; all admired, and with justice—it was a chef-d'œuvre. Vance in his maturest day never painted more charmingly. The three pounds proved to be the best outlay of capital he had ever made. Pleased with his work, he was pleased even with that unsophisticated applause.
"You must have Mercury and Venus very strongly aspected," quoth the Cobbler; "and if you have the Dragon's Head in the Tenth House, you may count on being much talked of after you are dead."
"After I am dead!—sinister omen!" said Vance, ​discomposed. "I have no faith in artists who count on being talked of after they are dead. Never knew a dauber who did not! But stand back—time flies—tie up your hair—put on your bonnet, Titania. You have a shawl?—not tinsel, I hope!—quieter the better. . You stay and see to her, Lionel."
Said the gaunt servant-of-all-work to Mr. Merle—"I'd let the gentleman paint me, if he likes it—shall I tell him, master?"
"Go back to the bacon, foolish woman. Why, he gave £3 for her likeness, 'cause of her Benefics! But you'd have to give him three years' wages afore he'd look you straight in the face, 'cause you see, your Aspects are crooked. And," added the Cobbler, philosophizing, "when the Malefics are dead agin a girl's mug, man is so constituted by natur that he can't take to that mug unless it has a gold handle. Don't fret, 'tis not your fault: born under Scorpio—coarse-limbed—dull complexion—Head of the Dragon aspected of—In fortunes in all four angles!"
# Vinal v. West Virginia Oil Oil Land Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 215
Vinal v. West Virginia Oil Oil Land Company
John A. Hutchinson, for plaintiff in error.
N. Goff, Jr., for defendant in error.
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
# Vinal v. West Virginia Oil Oil Land Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 215
Vinal v. West Virginia Oil Oil Land Company
This judgment is affirmed. One partner cannot recover his share of a debt due to the partnership in an action at law, prosecuted in his own name alone, against the debtor. That is the only question presented by the bill of exceptions in this case. The refusal of the court below to grant a new trial is not reviewable here. 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
# Wiseman v. Barby

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 339
Wiseman, Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Oklahoma v. Barby et ux.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 871. Argued: N/A --- Decided: March 11, 1968
Certiorari granted; 380 F. 2d 121, reversed.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Harris Weinstein and Grant W. Wiprud for petitioner.
John K. Speck for respondents.
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
# Wiseman v. Barby/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 339
Wiseman v. Barby
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. P. G. Lake, Inc., 356 U.S. 260, 78 S.Ct. 691, 2 L.Ed.2d 743.
Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice WHITE are of the opinion that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted and the case set down for oral argument.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.

## 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
# Wiseman v. Massachusetts

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    II
United States Supreme Court
398 U.S. 960
Wiseman v. Massachusetts
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

## 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
# Wiseman v. Massachusetts/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion II
United States Supreme Court
398 U.S. 960
Wiseman v. Massachusetts
Denied.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN joins, dissenting.

## 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
# Watt v. Starke

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 247
Watt v. Starke
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. John A. Meredith for the appellant.
Mr. Robert Ould for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY 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
# Watts Watts Company v. Unione Austriaca Di Navigazione

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 9
Watts Watts Company v. Unione Austriaca Di Navigazione
Argued: April 17, 1918. --- Decided: Nov 4, 1918
Messrs. John M. Woolsey, J. Parker Kirlin, and Mark W. McClay, Jr., all of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 9-15 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Charles S. Haight, of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 15-19 intentionally omitted]
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
# Watters v. People of Michigan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 65
Watters v. People of Michigan
Argued: Nov. 19, 1918. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1918
Mr. Maurice B. Dean, of New York City, for plaintiff 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
# Watters v. People of Michigan/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 65
Watters v. People of Michigan
Argued: Nov. 19, 1918. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1918
The plaintiff in error was complained of for having engaged in peddling goods and having canvassed and taken orders from house to house for the sale of goods in the city of Munising, Michigan, without having received a license as required, by a city ordinance. It may be assumed that much the greater part of his business was interstate commerce and free from any obligation that the ordinance imposed. But in the course of his business he did sell two cans of toilet cream that were at rest in the state before the sale, and it is admitted that this transaction was not protected from state legislation. Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U.S. 504, 33 Sup. Ct. 299, 57 L. Ed. 615. On this ground the Supreme Court of the State sustained a conviction and fine. People v. Watters, 192 Mich. 462, 158 N. W. 865. The ordinance makes it unlawful to engage in peddling any goods or to canvass from house to house for the sale of property on subscription without a license, which may be had on payment of specified fees. The plaintiff in error agrues that the application of this law should be determined by the general course of business, not by an isolated transaction, and the argument has force. It depends, however, on the construction of the ordinance, and as the State Court has construed it to apply to and forbid the act proved, the judgment must be affirmed.
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
# Whether it is necessary?

Second & Revised Edition, 1920
Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?
Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are two high for thee" (Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge beside philosophical science is superfluous.
Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science - even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.
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