OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Myths and Legends of British North America/Redbird and Blackbird (Ojibwa)

REDBIRD AND BLACKBIRD
Ojibwa
ONCE there were two men named Redbird and Blackbird. They had a house on the shore of the lake, and they lived on wild potatoes. They spent all their time digging for wild potatoes, and that was all the food they ever had.
One day Blackbird said to Redbird, "There are great fields of wild rice across the lake. We ought to go and gather it." So the very next day they crossed the lake and found themselves among large fields of wild rice. They began gathering the rice, then they saw people near by. They went to the people and said, "How do you do?"
The people said, "We have never seen you before." Blackbird said, "No. We live on the other side of the lake. We live on the wild potatoes we find there." The people said, "Well, you did right in coming over here. You ought to have good food."
Then Blackbird and Redbird shook hands all around and went home.
Now these people talked about the wild potatoes. Just about that time, Redbird said to Blackbird, "Those ​people are planning to attack us, for our wild potatoes. What shall you do?" Blackbird said at once what he would do. Then Redbird said what he would do. The very next day those people came. Redbird heard their voices. At once he began to grow smaller and smaller until he was only a single feather lying on the ground. When Blackbird heard their voices, he hit himself against the house, and soon there was only an awl standing there.
The people came and searched everywhere. They said, "No, we can't find those men," so they went home.
Blackbird and Redbird were a little afraid they would come back. So they changed themselves into birds. Redbird flew to the woods, but Blackbird went over the lake to live.
# Myths and Legends of British North America/Raven and Creation (Haida)

RAVEN AND CREATION
Haida
NOT long ago, there was no land to be seen. Then there was a little thing in the ocean. This was all open sea, and Raven sat upon this. He said, "Become dust!" It became earth. Then it increased and he divided it, and he put this earth into the water on each side of him. One earth he made small, but he made the one on the other side larger. Because he made one earth small, this island is small. So he finished this country. White men call it the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Again Raven started off. He came to where Eagle lived. And Eagle owned the fresh water. Before that there was none to be seen. Raven wanted to drink the water, but Eagle did not want to give it to him. A long time Raven wanted to drink this water. Then he drank it secretly, unseen by Eagle. Then he made off with it.
Then Raven spit it out. He spit out water upon all lands. He spit out Quilan first, therefore that is the elder brother of all the streams on Masset Inlet. ​When the water was almost gone from his mouth he came back to Masset. That is why the water here at Masset is red.
This is the way the story was told in the days of the grandfathers. But some of the story-tellers say that when Raven had taken all the fresh water from the Owner-of-the-Water, he carried it in his bill. He let a drop fall and it became the Chilcat River. When he spit it out, all the water flowed away and the ground became dry. Then he spit out more, and the ground also dried up after the water flowed away. Raven saw that. Then he let still more drop, and as soon as he let it drop he bent it together. He made a circle out of it; then it stopped running off. Because Raven bent the water together, all the streams keep on running, although they run every day.
# Mitchell v. United States (33 U.S. 307)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 307
Mitchell v. United States
ON appeal from the superior court of East Florida.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL said:

## 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
# Mitchell v. United States (313 U.S. 80)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 80
Mitchell v. United States (313 U.S. 80)
Argued: and Submitted March 13, 1941. --- Decided: April 28, 1941
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Messrs. Richard E. Westbrooks and Arthur W. Mitchell, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 81 intentionally omitted]
Mr. J. Stanley Payne, of Washington, D.C., for appellee, Interstate Commerce Com'n.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 82-85 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Wallace T. Hughes, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees, Frank O. Lowden et al., Trustees of the Estate of the Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. et al.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 86-87 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Francis B. Biddle, Sol. Gen., and Warner W. Gardner and Frank Coleman, both of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
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
# Mitchell v. United States (267 U.S. 341)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 341
Mitchell v. United States (267 U.S. 341)
Argued: Jan. 15, 1925. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
Messrs. Horace S. Whitman and Wm. L. Marbury, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, and the Attorney General, for the United States.
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
# Mitchell v. United States (33 U.S. 307)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 307
Mitchell v. United States
A pamphlet has been sent to the judges touching the questions in controversy in this cause. The court desire it to be understood, that the practice of the court is not to receive or examine such papers, unless they have been presented in court, and shown to the opposite counsel.
It was afterwards, on the same day, stated to the court by Mr White of Florida, counsel for the appellant, that the counsel on neither side had any knowledge of the pamphlet's having been sent to the court; nor did they in any manner countenance the same. The pamphlet was sent to the judges by an agent of the appellant, who was not in any manner aware of the irregularity of the proceeding.

## 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
# Mitchell v. United States (368 U.S. 439)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 439
Mitchell v. United States (368 U.S. 439)
Argued: Jan. 22, 1962. ---
John Bodner, Jr., for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.
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
# Mitchell v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Mitchell v. United States."
* 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.
* Mitchell v. United States (33 U.S. 307)
* Mitchell v. United States (88 U.S. 350)
* Mitchell v. United States (96 U.S. 162)
* Mitchell v. United States (267 U.S. 341)
* Mitchell v. United States (313 U.S. 80)
* Mitchell v. United States (368 U.S. 439)
* Mitchell v. United States (386 U.S. 972)
See also United States v. Mitchell.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book III/Chapter 15

Chapter 15.—20. Accordingly, if Marcion consecrated the sacrament of baptism with the words of the gospel, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," the sacrament was complete, although his faith expressed under the same words, seeing that he held opinions not taught by the Catholic truth, was not complete, but stained with the falsity of fables. For under these same words, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not Marcion only, or Valentinus, or Arius, or Eunomius, but the carnal babes of the Church themselves (to whom the apostle said, "I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal"), if they could be individually asked for an accurate exposition of their opinions, would probably show a diversity of opinions as numerous as the persons who held them, "for the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." Can it, however, be said on this account that they do not receive the complete sacrament? or that, if they shall advance, and correct the vanity of their carnal opinions, they must seek again what they had received? Each man receives after the fashion of his own faith; yet how much does he obtain under the guidance of that mercy of God, in the confident assurance of which the same apostle says, "If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you"? Yet the snares of heretics and schismatics prove for this reason only too pernicious to the carnally-minded, because their very progress is intercepted when their vain opinions are confirmed in opposition to the Catholic truth, and the perversity of their dissension is strengthened against the Catholic peace. Yet if the sacraments are the same, they are everywhere complete, even when they are wrongly understood, and perverted to be instruments of discord, just as the very writings of the gospel, if they are only the same, are everywhere complete, even though quoted with a boundless variety of false opinions. For as to what Jeremiah says:—"Why do those who grieve me prevail against me? My wound is stubborn, whence shall I be healed? In its origin it became unto me as lying water, having no certainty,"—if the term "water" were never used figuratively and in the allegorical language of prophecy except to signify baptism, we should have trouble in discovering what these words of Jeremiah meant; but as it is, when "waters" are expressly used in the Apocalypse to signify "peoples," I do not see why, by "lying water having no certainty," I should not understand, a "lying people, whom I cannot trust."

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xxviii. 19.
* ↑ Cp. Concilium Arelatense, A.D. 314, can. 8. "De Afris, quod propria lege utuntur ut rebaptizent; placuit ut si ad ecclesiam aliquis de hæresi venerit, interrogent eum symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur, ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc Trinitatem, baptizetur."
* ↑ Phil. iii. 15.
* ↑ Jer. xv. 18, cp. LXX.
* ↑ Rev. xvii. 15.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book III/Chapter 1

Chapter 1.—1. I think that it may now be considered clear to every one, that the authority of the blessed Cyprian for the maintenance of the bond of peace, and the avoiding of any violation of that most wholesome charity which preserves unity in the Church, may be urged on our side rather than on the side of the Donatists. For if they have chosen to act upon his example in rebaptizing Catholics, because he thought that heretics ought to be baptized on joining the Catholic Church, shall not we rather follow his example, whereby he laid down a manifest rule that one ought in no wise, by the establishment of a separate communion, to secede from the Catholic communion, that is, from the body of Christians dispersed throughout the world, even on the admission of evil and sacrilegious men, since he was unwilling even to remove from the right of communion those whom he considered to have received sacrilegious men without baptism into the Catholic communion, saying, "Judging no one, nor depriving any of the right of communion if he differ from us?"

## Footnotes

* ↑ See above, II. ii. 3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book III/Chapter 11

Chapter 11.—16. But Cyprian was right in not being moved by what Jubaianus wrote, that "the followers of Novatian rebaptize those who come to them from the Catholic Church." For, in the first place, it does not follow that whatever heretics have done in a perverse spirit of mimicry, Catholics are therefore to abstain from doing, because the heretics do the same. And again, the reasons are different for which heretics and the Catholic Church ought respectively to abstain from rebaptizing. For it would not be right for heretics to do so, even if it were fitting in the Catholic Church; because their argument is, that among the Catholics is wanting that which they themselves received whilst still within the pale, and took away with them when they departed. Whereas the reason why the Catholic Church should not administer again the baptism which was given among heretics, is that it may not seem to decide that a power which is Christ’s alone belongs to its members, or to pronounce that to be wanting in the heretics which they have received within her pale, and certainly could not lose by straying outside. For thus much Cyprian himself, with all the rest, established, that if any should return from heresy to the Church, they should be received back, not by baptism, but by the discipline of penitence; whence it is clear that they cannot be held to lose by their secession what is not restored to them when they return. Nor ought it for a moment to be said that, as their heresy is their own, as their error is their own, as the sacrilege of disunion is their own, so also the baptism is their own, which is really Christ’s. Accordingly, while the evils which are their own are corrected when they return, so in that which is not theirs His presence should be recognised, from whom it is.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The Novatian bishop, Acesius, was invited by Constantine to attend the Council of Nicaea. Soc., H.E.I. 10.
* ↑ Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 2.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book III/Chapter 12

Chapter 12.—17. But the blessed Cyprian shows that it was no new or sudden thing that he decided, because the practice had already begun under Agrippinus. "Many years," he says, "and much time has passed away since, under Agrippinus of honored memory, a large assembly of bishops determined this point." Accordingly, under Agrippinus, at any rate, the thing was new. But I cannot understand what Cyprian means by saying, "And thenceforward to the present day, so many thousand heretics in our provinces, having been converted to our Church, showed no hesitation or dislike, but rather with full consent of reason and will, have embraced the opportunity of the grace of the laver of life and the baptism unto salvation," unless indeed he says, "thenceforward to the present day," because from the time when they were baptized in the Church, in accordance with the Council of Agrippinus, no question of excommunication had arisen in the case of any of the rebaptized. Yet if the custom of baptizing those who came over from heretics remained in force from the time of Agrippinus to that of Cyprian, why should new Councils have been held by Cyprian on this point? Why does he say to this same Jubaianus that he is not doing anything new or sudden, but only what had been established by Agrippinus? For why should Jubaianus be disturbed by the question of novelty, so as to require to be satisfied by the authority of Agrippinus, if this was the continuous practice of the Church from Agrippinus till Cyprian? Why, lastly, did so many of his colleagues urge that reason and truth must be preferred to custom, instead of saying that those who wished to act otherwise were acting contrary to truth and custom alike?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book III

Book III.
Augustin undertakes the refutation of the arguments which might be derived from the epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus, to give color to the view that the baptism of Christ could not be conferred by heretics.

## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book III/Chapter 10

Chapter 10.—13. Therefore Cyprian writes to Jubaianus as follows, "concerning the baptism of heretics, who, being placed without, and set down out of the Church," seem to him to "claim to themselves a matter over which they have neither right nor power. Which we," he says, "cannot account valid or lawful, since it is clear that among them it is unlawful." Neither, indeed, do we deny that a man who is baptized among heretics, or in any schism outside the Church, derives no profit from it so far as he is partner in the perverseness of the heretics and schismatics; nor do we hold that those who baptize, although they confer the real true sacrament of baptism, are yet acting rightly, in gathering adherents outside the Church, and entertaining opinions contrary to the Church. But it is one thing to be without a sacrament, another thing to be in possession of it wrongly, and to usurp it unlawfully. Therefore they do not cease to be sacraments of Christ and the Church, merely because they are unlawfully used, not only by heretics, but by all kinds of wicked and impious persons. These, indeed, ought to be corrected and punished, but the sacraments should be acknowledged and revered.
14. Cyprian, indeed, says that on this subject not one, but two or more Councils were held; always, however, in Africa. For indeed in one he mentions that seventy-one bishops had been assembled,—to all whose authority we do not hesitate, with all due deference to Cyprian, to prefer the authority, supported by many more bishops, of the whole Church spread throughout the whole world, of which Cyprian himself rejoiced that he was an inseparable member.
15. Nor is the water "profane and adulterous" over which the name of God is invoked, even though it be invoked by profane and adulterous persons; because neither the creature itself of water, nor the name invoked, is adulterous. But the baptism of Christ, consecrated by the words of the gospel, is necessarily holy, however polluted and unclean its ministers may be; because its inherent sanctity cannot be polluted, and the divine excellence abides in its sacrament, whether to the salvation of those who use it aright, or to the destruction of those who use it wrong. Would you indeed maintain that, while the light of the sun or of a candle, diffused through unclean places, contracts no foulness in itself therefrom, yet the baptism of Christ can be defiled by the sins of any man, whatsoever he may be? For if we turn our thoughts to the visible materials themselves, which are to us the medium of the sacraments, every one must know that they admit of corruption. But if we think on that which they convey to us, who can fail to see that it is incorruptible, however much the men through whose ministry it is conveyed are either being rewarded or punished for the character of their lives?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ctpr. Ep. lxxiii. 1.
* ↑ Ctpr. Ep. lxxiii. 1.
* ↑ Ctpr. Ep. lxxiii. 1.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book III/Chapter 13

Chapter 13.—18. But as regards the remission of sins, whether it is granted through baptism at the hands of the heretics, I have already expressed my opinion on this point in a former book; but I will shortly recapitulate it here. If remission of sins is there conferred by the sacredness of baptism, the sins return again through obstinate perseverance in heresy or schism; and therefore such men must needs return to the peace of the Catholic Church, that they may cease to be heretics and schismatics, and deserve that those sins which had returned on them should be cleansed away by love working in the bond of unity. But if, although among heretics and schismatics it be still the same baptism of Christ, it yet cannot work remission of sins owing to this same foulness of discord and wickedness of dissent, then the same baptism begins to be of avail for the remission of sins when they come to the peace of the Church,—[not] that what has been already truly remitted should not be retained; nor that heretical baptism should be repudiated as belonging to a different religion, or as being different from our own, so that a second baptism should be administered; but that the very same baptism, which was working death by reason of discord outside the Church, may work salvation by reason of the peace within. It was, in fact, the same savor of which the apostle says, "We are a sweet savor of Christ in every place;" and yet, says he, "both in them that are saved and in them that perish. To the one we are the savor of life unto life; and to the other the savor of death unto death." And although he used these words with reference to another subject, I have applied them to this, that men may understand that what is good may not only work life to those who use it aright, but also death to those who use it wrong.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Above, Book I. c. xi. sqq.
* ↑ Non ut jam vere dimissa non retineantur. One of the negatives here appears to be superfluous, and the former is omitted in Amerbach’s edition, and in many of the Mss., which continue the sentence, "non ut ille baptismus," instead of "neque ut ille," etc. If the latter negative were omitted, the sense would be improved, and "neque" would appropriately remain.
* ↑ 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16.