OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Workhouses and women's work/end matter

   1. Resolved, that the Report be received.
   2. That it is desirable to obtain a more efficient superintendence over the internal management of Workhouses than now exists in the great majority of these establishments.
   3. That the inmates of Workhouses ought to be far more carefully classified than at present, as to sex, age, and character, and that children especially should always be entirely separated from adult paupers.
   4. That industrial training and occupation should be more extensively introduced.
   5. That a system of inspection by unpaid, and especially Lady Visitors, sanctioned by the Guardians, would be calculated to improve the internal condition of Workhouses.
   6. That for the furtherance of the views expressed above, the Committee of this department will sanction the establishment of a Workhouse Visiting Society.
# Wilbur Wright letter (June 8, 1903)

| Dan Cleeve |
| Manufacturer of | Wright Cycle Company |
| Bicycles | 1127 West Third Street |
The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
A few days ago I returned to your editor of publications the proof of the address reprinted from the Western Engineer's Journal which he had kindly sent me for final correction. Since returning the proof I have concluded that it would be just as well to omit the foot note on last page. It was not a part of the original paper and as it concerns the equipment of other persons chiefly there is some question as to the propriety of inserting it now. If the change would entail inconvenience, let it stand as it is.
With great respect,
Wilbur Wright
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
# Wilbur Wright letter (May 30, 1899)

Established in 1892
Wright Cycle Company
1127 West Third Street.
Dayton, Ohio. May 30, 1899
The Smithsonian Institution,
             Washington
       Dear Sirs:
I have been interested in the problem of mechanical and human flight ever since as a boy I constructed a number of bats of various sizes after the style of Cayley's and Penaud's machines. My observations since have only convinced me more firmly that human flight is possible and practicable. It is only a question of knowledge and skill just as in all acrobatic feats. Birds are the most perfectly trained gymnasts in the world and are specially well fitted for their work, and it may be that man will never equal them, but no one who has watched a bird chasing an insect or another bird can doubt that feats are performed which require three or four times the effort required in ordinary flight. I believe that simple flight at least is possible to man and that the experiments and investigations of a large number of independent workers will result in the accumulation of information and knowledge and skill which will finally lead to accomplished flight.
The works on the subject to which I have had access ​are Marey's and Jamieson's books published by Appleton's and various magazines and cyclopaedic articles. I am about to begin a systematic study of the subject in preparation for practical work to which I expect to devote what time I can spare from my regular business. I wish to obtain such papers as the Smithsonian Institution has published on this subject, and if possible a list of other works in print in the English language. I am an enthusiast, but not a crank in the sense that I have some pet theories as to the proper construction of a flying machine. I wish to avail myself of all that is already known and then if possible add my mite to help on the future workers who will attain final success. I do not know the terms on which you send out your publications but if you will inform me of the cost I will remit the price.
Yours truly
/s/ Wilbur Wright
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
# Wilbur v. Almy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 180
Wilbur v. Almy

## 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
# Wilbur Wright letter (October 20, 1902)

​Kitty Hawk, Oct. 20th
Prof. S. P. Langley, L.L.D.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir:
Your telegram reached us today after being somewhat delayed by the fact that the telegraph office is nearly five miles from our camp. We have arranged to break camp at the end of this week and shall probably do no gliding after Friday, as it will take one day, at least, to pack and store machines & goods. As it would be exceedingly doubtful, owing to miserable transportation facilities, whether you could ​reach here before that time, and as there would be the additional risk of bad weather for the single day that you might possibly be with us, we did not think it advisable to telegraph you to come on.
We shall if possible arrange to stop a day in Washington on our way home.
With kind regards.
Yours truly
/s/ Wilbur Wright
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
# Wilbur Wright letter (April 17, 1903)

Established in 1892
Wright Cycle Company
1127 West Third Street
Dayton, Ohio.April 17, 1903.
The Smithsonian Institution
       Washington, D.C.
Answering the letter of Mr. Hodge dated April 11, will say that I have no objection to the republication of the address entitled "Some aeronautical experiments", and I presume the society in whose journal it was first printed would likewise consent.
The plates used in illustrating it are the property of the Western Society of Engineers and it is entirely probable that their loan could be obtained by writing the secretary, Mr. J. H. Warden, Monadnock Building, Chicago. The Scientific American of New York also has a few plates some of which are rather better than those used in the Journal. I enclosed a set of prints from which new plates may be made if deemed advisable. Within a few days, I will send two copies of the address as you requested, with any notes or corrections that our later experience may suggest.
Yours truly,
Wilbur Wright
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
# Wilbur Wright letter (June 14, 1899)

letter to Smithsonian Institution
Established in 1892
Wright Cycle Company
1127 West Third Street.
Dayton Ohio. June 14,1899.
Sec Smithsonian Institution
          Washington D.C.
Dear Sir:
I have to thank you for your letter of June 2 in which you kindly enclosed
a list of selected books taking on aerial navigation
I also wish to thank you for pamphlets # 903, 93, 1134 and 1135 from the Smithsonian Reports.
I enclose one dollar currency for which you may send me
"Experiments in areodynamics" Langley
Yours truly
Wilbur Wright
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
# Wilbur v. Kerr

Dr. Kerr botched a vasectomy operation on Mr. Wilbur. When Mrs. Wilbur became pregnant, the couple sued for damages from the "wrongful birth" caused by the doctor's negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the doctor and ruled that the husband and wife could not recover those damages. The supreme court affirmed, holding that it is contrary to public policy to allow damages associated with the unplanned child. Dudley, J., dissented and was joined by Adkisson, C.J.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
275 Ark. 239
Virgil WILBUR & Wilma WILBUR, His Wife v. Robert L. KERR, M.D. et al.
Appeal from Baxter Circuit Court
No. 81-174. --- Delivered: Mar. 8, 1982.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Dudley
Appeal from Baxter Circuit Court, Robert W. McCorkindale, II, Judge; affirmed.
Bailey & Paden, P.A., for appellants.
Sidney P. Davis, of Davis, Cox & Wright, for appellees.
[Opinion of the court by Justice DARRELL HICKMAN. Dissenting opinion by Justice ROBERT H. DUDLEY, joined by Chief Justice RICHARD B. ADKISSON.]
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
# Wright v. Morgan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
191 U.S. 55
Wright v. Morgan
Argued: October 13, 14, 1903. --- Decided: October 26, 1903
Messrs. Frederick A. Williams, Halstead L. Ritter, Clay B. Whitford, Greeley W. Whitford, and Henry E. May for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Clayton C. Dorsey and Willard Teller for defendants 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
# Wright v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
195 U.S. 219
Wright v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Company
Argued: October 25, 1904. --- Decided: November 14, 1904
Messrs. Boykin Wright and John C. Hart for petitioner.
Messrs. Joseph B. Cumming, Alexander C. King, Bryan Cumming, and King Spalding, & Little for respondents.
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
# Wright v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 687
Wright v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
Argued: January 29, 1915. --- Decided: March 22, 1915
Messrs. Samuel H. Sibley, John C. Hart, and Mr. T. S. Felder, Attorney General of Georgia for petitioner.
Messrs. Alexander C. King and Joseph B. Cumming for respondents and cross petitioners.
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
# Wong Sun v. United States

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), is a United States Supreme Court decision excluding the presentation of verbal evidence and recovered narcotics where they were both fruits of an illegal entry. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 471
Wong Sun v. United States
Argued: Oct. 8 and 9, 1962. --- Decided: Jan 14, 1963
Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
J. William Doolittle, Asst. to Sol. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Wong Sun v. United States/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
* Dissenting Opinion Clark
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 471
Wong Sun v. United States
Argued: Oct. 8 and 9, 1962. --- Decided: Jan 14, 1963
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
While I join the Court's opinion I do so because nothing the Court holds is inconsistent with my belief that there having been time to get a warrant, probable cause alone could not have justified the arrest of petitioner Toy without a warrant.
I adhere to the views I expressed in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 273, 80 S.Ct. 725, 737, 4 L.Ed.2d 697. What I said in the Jones case had been earlier stated by Mr. Justice Jackson, writing for the Court in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (another narcotics case):
'The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people's homes secure only in the discretion of police officers.' Pp. 13-14, 68 S.Ct. p. 369. And see Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 615-616, 81 S.Ct. 776, 779, 5 L.Ed.2d 828.
The Court finds it unnecessary to reach that constitutional question. I mention it only to reiterate that the Johnson case represents the law and is in no way eroded by what we fail to decide today.
Mr. Justice CLARK, with whom Mr. Justice HARLAN, Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice WHITE join, 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
# Wong Doo v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 239
Wong Doo v. United States
Argued: April 10, 1924. --- Decided: May 26, 1924
Messrs. Wm. J. Dawley, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Jackson H. Ralston and George W. Holt, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. George Ross Hull, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# Wright. v. Sill

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
67 U.S. 544
Wright. v. Sill
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
This case was submitted to the Court upon the record, without any argument, written or oral.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE.

## 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
# Wright brothers letter (November 7, 1902)

Wright Cycle Company
1127 West Third Street
Dayton Ohio Nov, 7, 1902
Prof. S. P. Langley, L.L.D.
                   Washington, D.C.
       Dear Sir:
Your letter of Oct. 18th reached us as we were on the point of leaving our camp at the Kill Devil Hills. We had already answered our telegram, and announced our expectation of visiting Washington on our way home. This we were unable to do owing to an unlooked for delay in reaching a railroad, resulting from our having t taken passage on a sail-boat which reached our objective point two days later than we had expected after a very hard passage. Aswe had arranged to be home on November 1st, we were not able to make any stop enroute.
The only experiments made at Kitty Hawk wr were with a large gliding machine. If Mr. Chanute spoke of experiments with special curved surfaces it must have been in reference to some experements which we made last winter with special pressure testing machines of new design. The surfaces tested were planes, arcs, and odd shaped surfaces of various kinds to the number of about forty in all. No publication of our results has yet been made.
                                              Respectfully yours,
A personal signature appears here
# Wright v. Central Kentucky Natural Gas Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
297 U.S. 537
Wright v. Central Kentucky Natural Gas Company
Argued: March 4, 1936. --- Decided: March 16, 1936
Mr. Lon B. Rogers, of Lexington, Ky., for appellant.
Messrs. D. L. Hazelrigg, of Frankfort, Ky., and Henry T. Duncan, of Lexington, Ky., 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
# Wright v. Bales

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
67 U.S. 535
Wright v. Bales
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
On the 31st of May, 1859, Matthias B. Wright and John Conner brought trespass on the case in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, against Moses Bales, alleging in their declaration an infringement by defendant of a certain patent right to make and vend a draining plow of their invention. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Verdict for defendant, with costs. Plaintiff, in his exceptions, assigned, among other grounds of error, the refusal of the Court to allow Wright, one of the plaintiffs, to testify in the cause. Writ of error issued April 2d, 1860.
Mr. Lee and Mr. Fisher, of Ohio, for Plaintiff in Error.
By the law of Ohio, the parties to a cause are competent witnesses in it. State laws of evidence are rules of decision in civil trials at the common law before Courts of the United States. Civil Code of Ohio, § 310; Act of April 12, 1858, amending code; McNiel vs. Holbrook, (12 Peters, 84); Sims vs. Hundley, (6 How., 1); U.S. vs. Dunham, (Monthly Law Reporter, July, 1859); Smith vs. Carrington, (4 Cranch, 62).
No counsel appeared for Defendant in Error.
Mr. Justice WAYNE.

## 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
# Wright. v. Sill/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
67 U.S. 544
Wright. v. Sill
This is a suit in equity, brought here by appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
The questions presented are, whether the 60th section of the Act of the Legislature of Ohio, entitled 'An Act to incorporate the State Bank of Ohio and other Banking Companies,' passed February 24th, 1845, constitutes a contract upon the subject of taxation, which is binding upon the State; and, if so, whether that contract is impaired by the subsequent Act of the Legislature, passed April 5th, 1859, entitled 'An Act for the assessment and taxation of all the property in this State, and for levying taxes thereon according to its true value in money.'
These questions came before this Court the first time in the Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio vs. Knoop, (16 How., 369), and were resolved in the affirmative. They have since been repeatedly before the Court, and have, uniformly, been decided in the same way. Dodge vs. Woolsey, (18 How., 331); Mechanics' and Traders' Bank vs. Debolt, (18 How., 380); Jefferson Branch Bank vs. Skelley, (1 Black, 436); Franklin Branch Bank vs. The State of Ohio, (1 Black, 474).
Whatever differences of opinion may have existed in this Court originally in regard to these questions, or might now exist if they were open for reconsideration, it is sufficient to say that they are concluded by these adjudications. The argument upon both sides was exhausted in the earlier cases. It could subserve no useful purpose again to examine the subject.
The decree of the Court below is affirmed, with costs.

## 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
# Wright v. Blakeslee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 174
Wright v. Blakeslee
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. A. C. Miller for the plaintiff in error.
The Solicitor-General, contra.
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
# Wright v. Central of Georgia Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 674
Wright v. Central of Georgia Railway Company
Argued: January 28 and 29, 1915. --- Decided: March 22, 1915
Messrs. John C. Hart and Samuel H. Sibley for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 675 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. T. M. Cunningham, Jr., and A. R. Lawton for appellee.
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
# Wysong v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 608
Wysong v. California
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
# Wyoming v. United States (492 U.S. 406)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice O'CONNOR took no part in the 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
# Wyoming v. United States (255 U.S. 489)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 489
Wyoming v. United States (255 U.S. 489)
Argued: Oct. 6 and 7, 1920. --- Decided: March 28, 1921
Messrs. John W. Lacey and D. A. Preston, both of Cheyenne, Wyo., for appellants.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Nebeker, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 490-493 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# Wyoming v. United States (492 U.S. 406)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
492 U.S. 406
Wyoming v. United States
No. 88-309
See 492 U.S. 938, 110 S.Ct. 28.
On writ of
certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Case below: Wyo., 753 P.2d 76.
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