OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 1699

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 5507th meeting, on 8 August 2006
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 1617 (2005) requesting increased cooperation between the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) (the “1267 Committee”),
Recalling also the cooperation agreement of 8 July 1997 between the United Nations and Interpol, and the exchange of letters of 8 December 2005 and 5 January 2006 supplementing the agreement,
Welcoming the constructive role that Interpol has played to help the 1267 Committee fulfil its mandate, inter alia, through the creation of the Interpol-United Nations Security Council Special Notices,
Noting that such cooperation with Interpol could also benefit the other sanctions committees established by the Security Council (the “Committees”), further noting that each committee might come up with its own conclusion in this regard,
Stressing that Security Council sanctions measures are often implemented under national law, including criminal law where applicable, and that enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and Interpol would enhance States’ enforcement of those laws,
Emphasizing the obligations placed upon all Member States to implement, in full, the mandatory measures adopted by the Security Council,
1. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps to increase cooperation between the United Nations and Interpol in order to provide the Committees with better tools, to fulfil their mandates more effectively, and to give Member States better optional tools to implement those measures adopted by the Security Council and monitored by the Committees, as well as similar measures that may be adopted by the Security Council in the future, particularly the freezing of assets, travel bans, and arms embargoes;
2. Encourages Member States to use the tools offered by Interpol, particularly the I-24/7 global police communications system, to reinforce the implementation of such measures and similar measures that may be adopted by the Security Council in the future;
3. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/6th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 7

Chap. VII.—An Act to establish the district of Bristol, and to annex the towns of Kittery and Berwick to the district of Portsmouth.
District of Bristol established.Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the thirty-first day of March next, the towns of Bristol, Warren and Barrington, in the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and all the shores and waters around the same, within the following ​limits, viz. a line beginning at the middle of the bay, between Mount Hope and Common Fence Point, running southwesterly through the middle of Bristol Ferry, and continuing such course until it strikes a point of equal distance from Rhode Island to Prudence Island, from thence northwardly on a straight line to the westernmost part of Nahant Point, and from thence to the western shore of Bullock’s Point, shall be a district, to be called the district of Bristol, of which the port of Bristol shall be the sole port of entry,Collector to reside at Bristol. 1799, ch. 22. and a collector for said district shall be appointed to reside at Bristol, and Warren and Barrington shall be ports of delivery only, and a surveyor shall be appointed to reside at each of the ports of Bristol and Warren; and the surveyor at Warren shall also be surveyor for the port of Barrington.
Vessels from beyond the Cape of Good Hope may enter at its ports.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That said port of Bristol shall also be a port of entry, for all ships or vessels arriving from the Cape of Good Hope, or places beyond the same.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That from and after the said thirty-first day of March next, the towns of Kittery and Berwick, in the state of Massachusetts, shall be annexed to the district of Portsmouth, in New Hampshire, as ports of delivery only: Provided,Kittery and Berwick annexed to Portsmouth. that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the master or commander of any ship or vessel, having merchandise on board, destined for either of the said places, from making entry at his option, with the collector of the district of York, and obtaining permits for the delivery thereof as heretofore.
Approved, February 25, 1801.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/6th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 9

Chap. IX.—An Act freeing from postage all letters and packets to John Adams.
Letters to John Adams to be free of postage. Act of March 3, 1801, ch. 35, sec. 3.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all letters and packets to John Adams, now President of the United States, after the expiration of his term of office and during his life, shall be carried by the mail, free of postage.
Approved, February 25, 1801.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/6th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 6

Chap. VI.—An Act making the Port of Biddeford and Pepperrelborough, and the Port of New Bedford, in Massachusetts, ports of entry for ships or vessels, arriving from the Cape of Good Hope, and from places beyond the same.
Biddeford and Pepperrelborough ports of entry. Vol. i. 639.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the port of Biddeford and Pepperrelborough, and the port of New Bedford, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, be, and they are hereby made, ports of entry for ships or vessels arriving from the Cape of Good Hope, and from places beyond the same.
Approved, February 18, 1801.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/6th Congress/2nd Session/Resolution 1

Resolution respecting certain property of the United States, in the possession of Thomas Claxton, James Mathers and Thomas Dunn, doorkeepers to Congress.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Thomas Claxton, James Mathers and Thomas Dunn, be permitted to occupy, free of rent, until otherwise directed by Congress, the houses now in their respective possession, the property of the United States, in the public square in the city of Washington on which the Capitol stands, together with a small piece of ground contiguous to each, for a garden, to be inclosed in such a manner as not to interfere with any of the public streets or avenues passing through the said square.
Approved, March 2, 1801.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/7th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 1

Chapter Ⅰ.—An Act for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according to the second enumeration.
Apportionment of representatives. One member to every thirty-three thousand persons in each state. N. Hampshire 5. Mas’chus’ts 17. Vermont 4. Rhode Island 2. Connecticut 7. New York 17. New Jersey 6. Pennsyl’a 18. Delaware 1. Maryland 9. Virginia 22. N. Carolina 12. S. Carolina 8. Georgia 4. Kentucky 6. Tennessee 3.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and three, the House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected agreeably to a ratio of one member for every thirty-three thousand persons in each state, computed according to the rule prescribed by the constitution; that is to say: within the state of New Hampshire, five; within the state of Massachusetts, seventeen; within the state of Vermont, four; within the state of Rhode Island, two; within the state of Connecticut, seven; within the state of New York, seventeen; within the state of New Jersey, six; within the state of Pennsylvania, eighteen; within the state of Delaware, one; within the state of Maryland, nine; within the state of Virginia, twenty-two; within the state of North Carolina, twelve; within the state of South Carolina, eight; within the state of Georgia, four; within the state of Kentucky, six; and within the state of Tennessee, three members.
Approved, January 14, 1802.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/7th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 11

Chap. XI.—An Act for the accommodation of persons concerned in certain Fisheries therein mentioned.
Collector of the customs at Edenton to permit the landing of salt at fisheries and other places in his district. In other respects the usual regulations to be observed. Act of 1799, ch. 22, sec. 53, 56.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passing of this act, it shall be lawful for the collector of the customs for ​the district of Edenton to permit any vessel having on board salt only, after due report and entry, and security given for the duties, to proceed under the inspection of an officer of the customs to any fishery, or other landing place within the district, (to be designated in the permit) and there discharge the same; subject, however, in all other respects, to the regulations, restrictions, penalties and provisions established by an act passed the second day of March, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, intituled “An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage.”
Inspectors or other officers of the customs entitled to accommodations from the vessels.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That every inspector or other officer of the customs, while performing duty on board any such vessel, elsewhere than in the port to which such officer may properly belong, shall be entitled to receive from the master, or commander thereof, such provisions and other accommodations (free from expense) as are usually supplied to passengers, or as the state and condition of the vessel will admit.
And to pecuniary compensations if more than fifteen days be spent therein.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if by reason of the delivery of any cargo of salt, in manner aforesaid, more than fifteen working days (computing from the date of entry) shall, in the whole, be spent therein, the wages or compensation of such inspector, or other officer of the customs who may be employed on board any vessel, in respect to which such term may be so exceeded, shall, for every day of such excess, be paid by the master or owner; and until paid, it shall not be lawful for the collector to grant a clearance, or to permit such vessel to depart from the district.
Approved, March 16, 1802.
# United States v. Sealy, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    II
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 350
United States v. Sealy, Inc.
Argued: April 20, 1967. --- Decided: June 12, 1967
Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Richard W. McLaren, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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. Seatrain Lines

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 424
United States v. Seatrain Lines
Argued: Dec. 9, 1946. --- Decided: Jan 6, 1947
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware.
Mr.Edward M. Reidy, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. Wilbur LaRoe, Jr., of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
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
# United States v. Seattle-First National Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
321 U.S. 583
United States v. Seattle-First National Bank
Argued: Feb. 7, 8, 1944. --- Decided: March 27, 1944
Mr. Valentine Brookes, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Arnold L. Graves, of Spokane, Wash., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 78
United States v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company
Argued: Oct. 19, 1959. --- Decided: Nov 9, 1959
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Eppa Hunton, IV, Richmond, Va., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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. Morrison (179 U.S. 456)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
179 U.S. 456
United States v. Morrison
Argued: December 12, 1899. --- Decided: December 17, 1900
Messrs. Assistant Attorney General Henry M. Hoyt and Solicitor General John K. Richards for petitioner.
Mr. Albert Comstock for respondents.
Mr. Justice McKenna 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. Morrison (240 U.S. 192)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 192
United States v. Morrison (240 U.S. 192)
Argued: December 16, 1915. --- Decided: February 21, 1916
Mr. Richard Sleight for appellees W. J. and Finley Morrison.
Messrs. Mark Norris and Oscar E. Waer for appellee, Sligh Furniture Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 193-194 intentionally omitted]
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel, Attorney General Gregory, and Messrs. Andrieus A. Jones and S. W. Williams for appellant.
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. Morrison

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Morrison."
* 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. Morrison (29 U.S. 124)
* United States v. Morrison (96 U.S. 232)
* United States v. Morrison (179 U.S. 456)
* United States v. Morrison (240 U.S. 192)
* United States v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598)
# United States v. Morris

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Morris."
* 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.
* United States v. Morris (23 U.S. 246)
* United States v. Morris (39 U.S. 464)
See also Morris v. United States.
# United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 651
United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Company
Argued: Feb. 25 and 26, 1964. --- Decided: April 6, 1964
Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for appellant.
Gregory A. Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced by Mr. Justice CLARK.

## 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. Elgin J. & E. Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 492
United States v. Elgin J. & E. Railway Company
Argued: April 8-9, 1936. --- Decided: May 25, 1936
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Golden W. Bell, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 493-495 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Nathan L. Miller, of New York City, Kemper K. Knapp, of Chicago, Ill., and Frank B. Kellogg, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 495-497 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
# United States v. Eliason

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
41 U.S. 291
United States v. Eliason

## 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. Ellicott

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
223 U.S. 524
United States v. Ellicott
Argued: December 7 and 8, 1911. --- Decided: February 26, 1912
Solicitor General Lehmann, the late Solicitor General Bowers, and Mr. Barton Corneau, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 525-527 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. James Piper, Francis K. Carey, and A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 527-531 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice White 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. Elder

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
177 U.S. 104
United States v. Elder
Argued: October 13, 16, 1899. --- Decided: March 26, 1900
The alleged Mexican grant which forms the subject of this controversy relates to a tract of land situate in the county of Taos, New Mexico, embraced in what is designated as the Cebolla grant. The asserted grant was presented in 1872 for confirmation to the surveyor general of New Mexico, under the act of July 2, 1854, by John T. Graham and William Blackmore, who averred that they possessed a perfect title to the land covered by the grant, by reason of mesne conveyances from the original grantees. This claim so presented was favorably reported to Congress, but it does not appear that any action was taken thereon. Upon a survey made by the direction of the General Land Office in November, 1877, the area embraced in the alleged grant was declared to consist of 17,159.57 acres. The controversy now here for review was commenced by proceedings instituted in the court of private land claims to obtain a confirmation of this alleged grant. The petition to that end was filed on February 18, 1893, on behalf of the present appellees, who asserted that they were the owners of the Cebolla tract by purchase from the heirs and assigns of the original grantees. The alleged grant was asserted to have been made on December 31, 1845, by Manuel Armijo, governor of New Mexico, and the papers claimed to evidence such grant, as translated, are reproduced in the margin.
It was averred in the petition with respect to the survey above referred to, that it was not made in accordance with the boundaries set forth in the grant, but was 'of a different portion of land, a part or all of which is included in the said grant.' The court of private land claims entered a decree (Murray, J., dissenting) defining the boundaries of the tract covered by the claim as allowed, and confirming title thereto in 'the heirs and assigns of said five original grantees and to their heirs and assigns.' The United States thereupon appealed to this court.
Messrs. Matthew G. Reynolds, William H. Pope, and Solicitor General Richards for appellant.
Mr. T. B. Catron for appellees.
Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, 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 Statutes at Large/Volume 2/12th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 127

Chap. CXXVII.—An Act to compensate for his services the President pro tempore of the Senate, acting as such when the office of Vice President of the United States shall be vacant.
President pro tempore of the Senate to have the same compensation as the speaker of the House of Representatives during the period of his services.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the president pro tempore of the Senate who has acted, or may hereafter act as such when the office of Vice President shall be vacant, shall receive, during the period of his services, the same compensation as is allowed by law to the speaker of the House of Representatives.
Approved, July 6, 1812.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/12th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 130

Chap. CXXX.—An Act supplementary to the act entitled “An act respecting alien enemies.”
Proviso in the act of July 6, 1798, ch. 66, sec. 1, not to extend to any treaty which has expired, or is not in force.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That nothing in the proviso contained in the act, entitled “An act respecting alien enemies,” approved on the sixth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, shall be extended or construed to extend to any treaty, or to any article of any treaty, which shall have expired, or which shall not be in force, at the time when the proclamation of the President shall issue.
Approved, July 6, 1812.