OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Darnell v. Edwards

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 564
Darnell v. Edwards
Argued: and submitted April 25, 1917. --- Decided: June 11, 1917
Messrs. Roger Montgomery and William P. Metcalf for appellant.
Messrs. James N. Flowers, J. B. Harris, James Stone, George H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. R. Woods, and J. M. Kuykendall, for appellees.
Mr. Justice Pitney 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
# Darnell & Son Company v. Memphis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
208 U.S. 113
Darnell & Son Company v. Memphis
Argued: December 16, 1907. --- Decided: January 20, 1908
Messrs. Dent Minor, C. H. Trimble, C. W. Metcalf, H. B. Anderson, and Metcalf, Minor, & Metcalf for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 113 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Marion G. Evans, William H. Carroll, and Thomas H. Jackson for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 114 intentionally omitted]
Mr. 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
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/Senate/Counting of Electoral Ballots/Arizona Objection Debate/King Speech

​Mr. King. Mr. President, Winston Churchill once said that he could do a 2-hour speech extemporaneously, but a 10-minute speech took immense preparation. I don’t know what he would have said about a 4-minute speech.
We are a 240-year anomaly in world history. We think that what we have here in this country is the way it has always been.
It is a very unusual form of government. The normal form of government throughout world history is dictators, kings, czars, pharaohs, warlords, tyrants. And we thought 20 years ago the march of history was toward democracy, but it is in retreat in Hungary and Turkey—goodness knows, in Russia.
Democracy as we have practiced it is fragile. It is fragile, and it rests upon trust. It rests upon trust in facts. It rests upon trust in courts, in public officials, and, yes, in elections.
I don’t sympathize or justify or in any way—in any way—support—that is putting it mildly—what happened here today, but I understand it. I understand it because I saw those people interviewed today, and they said: We are here because this election has been stolen.
And the reason they said that is that their leader has been telling them that every day for 2 months.
We cannot afford to pull bricks out from the foundation of trust that underlies our entire system. And I agree with Governor Romney that the answer to this problem is to tell people the truth—is to tell them what happened.
It is easy to confront your opponents. It is hard to confront your friends.
It is hard to tell your supporters something they don’t want to hear, but that is our obligation. That is why the word “leader” is applied to people in jobs like ours. It is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be something that we take on as a sacred obligation, and if people believe something that isn’t true, it is our obligation to tell them: No, I am sorry, it isn’t, just as Senator Portman just said, as Mike Lee just said: I am sorry we can’t do this here. We don’t want to do this here. This is a power reserved to the States, not to the Congress.
And I agree with the majority leader. I think this is one of the most important votes any of us will ever take.
On December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln came to this building. He came to this building in the darkest days of the Civil War. He was trying to awaken the Congress to the crisis that we were facing, and he didn’t feel that they were fully and effectively engaged. He ended his speech that day with words that I think have an eerie relevance tonight. Here is what Abraham Lincoln said:
Fellow-[Americans], we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us.
And here are his final words:
The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.
The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/Senate/Counting of Electoral Ballots/Arizona Objection Debate/Kaine Speech

​Mr. Kaine. Mr. President and my colleagues, I applaud the comments of my colleague from Georgia deeply.
My first job after school was in Macon, GA, working for a Federal judge, Lanier Anderson. I learned a lot about integrity and a lot about law from him. I also learned some sad lessons, that in the history of Georgia—and, indeed, Virginia and many States—so many people, especially people of color, had been disenfranchised over the course of our history. Our late friend, John Lewis, a Congressman from Georgia, was savagely beaten on Bloody Sunday just for marching for voting rights. That act of violence inspired this body, the U.S. Senate, to come together in March of 1965 and work to pass, in a bipartisan fashion, the Voting Rights Act.
We should be coming together today—after acts of violence—as a U.S. Senate, to affirm the votes of all who cast ballots in November. Instead, we are contemplating an unprecedented objection that would be a massive disenfranchisement of American voters.
The Georgia result was very clear: a 12,000-vote margin, 2 certifications by Republican officials, 4 separate recounts and canvases, 7 lawsuits, as in the other States. If we object to results like this, the message is so clear. We are saying to States: No matter how secure and accurate your elections are, we will gladly overthrow them if we don’t like who you voted for. But, more importantly, what we will be saying—really, what we will be doing—is as the body that acted together to guarantee Americans the right to vote, we will become the agent of one of the most massive disenfranchisements in the history of this country.
So I urge all of my colleagues: Please oppose these objections.
Thank you.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/Senate/Counting of Electoral Ballots/Arizona Objection Debate/Kelly Speech

​Mr. Kelly. Mr. President. In America, we have fair elections and peaceful transitions of power. In America, democracy prevails over chaos. And in America, those who commit violent acts against our government are held accountable. These are the values that I served to defend in the U.S. Navy and that I have sworn an oath to uphold in the Senate, and they have not failed us.
Our democracy was tested today—first, by a baseless objection to Arizona’s electoral votes, despite the fact that Arizona’s elections were fairly administered and certified by a Republican Governor, a Democratic Secretary of state, and public servants at every level of government and representing both political parties; and then again when individuals, spurred on by the President, stormed the Capitol in an unpatriotic attempt to overturn our election. They will fail. Tonight we will count Arizona’s electoral votes and those of every other State.
For centuries, our democracy has thrived because after elections we have come together to find common ground and solve our challenges, and that is the work we begin tonight. My focus will continue to be on representing Arizonans by working with Republicans and Democrats and the incoming administration to beat this virus and rebuild our economy.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/Senate/Counting of Electoral Ballots/Arizona Objection Debate/Lankford Speech (1)

​Mr. Lankford. Mr. President, in America, we settle our differences in elections. What happens if you don’t trust the election count or you are concerned that so many courts denied or dismissed cases within hours after they were given thousands of pages of evidence?
The reason we have a Congress to settle our Nation’s divisions and the rules of the Senate make sure that every opinion in the Nation is heard is so issues like this can be addressed.
The constitutional crisis in our country right now is that millions of Americans are being told to sit down and shut up. Their opinions matter.
During the electoral challenge on January 6, 2005, Senator Ted Kennedy stood on this floor and said this. He said:
I commend the many thousands of citizens in Massachusetts and other States who insisted that treating today’s electoral vote count in Congress as a meaningless ritual would be an insult to our democracy unless we register our own protest against the obviously-flawed voting process that took place in so many States. We are hopeful that this major issue that goes to the heart of our democracy is now firmly implanted on the agenda for effective action by … Congress.
I agree. The U.S. Constitution does not allow me to assign different electors to a State, nor should it. The U.S. Constitution does not give the option to the Vice President of the United States to just unilaterally decide which States are in and out, and it should not. Each State decides its electors through its people.
A small group of Senators, including myself, have demanded that we not ignore the questions that millions of people are asking in our Nation, so we have proposed a constitutional solution. Pause the count. Get more facts to the States before January the 20th. We proposed a 15-member commission, just like what was done after the failed election of 1876. We are encouraging people to spend 10 days going through all the issues so States can have one ​last opportunity to address any challenges. Then the States, as the Constitution directs, would make the final decision on their electors.
I have some colleagues who have said that a 10-day commission is not enough time, so they have counterproposed just ignoring the lingering questions.
We need to do something.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/Senate/Counting of Electoral Ballots/Arizona Objection Debate/Lankford Speech (2)

​Mr. Lankford. Mr. Vice President, you said things more eloquently than how we say it in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, we say something like: Why in God’s name would someone think attacking law enforcement and occupying the United States Capitol is the best way to show that you are right? Why would you do that?
Rioters and thugs don’t run the Capitol. We are the United States of America. We disagree on a lot of things, and we have a lot of spirited debate in this room, but we talk it out, and we honor each other, even in our disagreements. That person, that person, and that person is not my enemy. That is my fellow American. And while we disagree on things, and disagree strongly at times, we do not encourage what happened today—ever.
Now, I want to join my fellow Senators in saying thank you to the Capitol Hill Police, the law enforcement, the National Guard, the Secret Service who stood in harm’s way. While we were here debating, they were pushing back. And I was literally interrupted midsentence speaking here because we were all unaware of what was happening right outside this room because of their faithfulness and because of what they have done. I want to thank them.
Ronald Reagan once said: Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.
The peaceful people in my State of Oklahoma want their questions answered, but they don’t want this, what happened today. They want to do the right thing, and they also want to do it the right way. They want to honor the constitutional process, but they also want to have debate about election security because they want to make sure it is right, which is why it is an important issue that still needs to be resolved.
Transparency in government just doesn’t seem like a bad idea. Obviously, the Commission that we have asked for is not going to happen at this point, and I understand that. And we are headed tonight toward the certification of Joe Biden to be the President of the United States, and we will work together in this body to be able to set a peaceful example in the days ahead.
I yield the floor.
# Declaration between Great Britain and France with regard to the Kingdom of Siam and other matters/Baron de Courcel to the Marquess of Salisbury

Baron de Courcel to the Marquess of Salisbury.
(Translation.)
The two Governments of France and Great Britain having agreed to settle various questions which have recently been the subject of discussion between them, I am happy to be able to announce to you the concurrence of the Government of the French Republic in the arrangements set forth in the accompanying Declaration which I have been authorized to sign with your Lordship.
My Government feel confident that the conclusion of these negotiations, in bearing witness to the good understanding ​etsablished between France and England, will serve to exercise a beneficent influence over the people subject to the authority of the two countries dwelling in the neighbourhood of their respective possessions. It will testify in particular to their joint solicitude for the security and stability of the Kingdom of Siam. The assurances exchanged by the two Governments, in fact, imply on the part of each of them the desire to maintain with that kingdom the most friendly relations, as well as the intention to respect existing Conventions.
I doubt not that your Lordship shares my view in this regard, and I avail myself of this opportunity, &c.
(Signed)ALPH. DE COURCEL.
# Declaration between Great Britain and France with regard to the Kingdom of Siam and other matters/The Marquess of Salisbury to Baron de Courcel

The Marquess of Salisbury to Baron de Courcel.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of this day's date, in which you announce that your Government accept the arrangements agreed upon between us for the settlement of various questions which have recently been the subject of discussion between our two Governments, and that you are authorized to sign the Declaration in which these arrangements are set forth.
I have received this announcement with much satisfaction, and shall be ready to sign the Declaration with you at once.
You state that your Government feel confident that the conclusion of these negotiations, by giving evidence of the good understanding established between Great Britain and France, will be calculated to exercise a salutary influence over the populations subject to the authority of the two countries or dwelling in the neighbourhood of their respective possessions.
You add that the Declaration will, in particular, give evidence of the joint solicitude of the two Governments for the security and stability of the Kingdom of Siam, and that the assurances which they have exchanged imply the desire on the part of each of them to maintain with that kingdom the most friendly relations, and to respect existing Conventions.
I have pleasure in receiving and taking note of this statement of the views and intentions of your Government, and, in offering you the same assurances on the part of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, I have, &c.
(Signed)SALISBURY.
# Deery v. Cray

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Deery v. Cray."
* 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.
* Deery v. Cray (72 U.S. 795)
* Deery v. Cray (77 U.S. 263)
# Deery v. Cray (72 U.S. 795)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
72 U.S. 795
Deery v. Cray

## 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
# Defamation Act

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Defamation Act."
* 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 Kingdom:
* Defamation Act 1952 (15 & 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2 c. 66), an UK Act of Parliament that updates defamation and libel law and provides for consequential defence.
* Defamation Act 1996 (c. 31), an UK Act of Parliament that further updates defamation and libel law, provides for summary disposal and relief of related lawsuits, and make court proceedings and certain statement free from defamation and libel lawsuits.
* Defamation Act 2013 (c. 26), an UK Act of Parliament that introduces the serious harm requirement for defamation lawsuits, provides for fresh defences, court procedures, and repeals the Slander of Women Act 1891.
Australia:
* Defamation Act 2001 (Australian Capital Territory)
* Defamation Act 2005 (New South Wales)
* Defamation Act 2005 (Queensland)
* Defamation Act 2005 (South Australia)
* Defamation Act 2005 (Tasmania)
* Defamation Act 2005 (Victoria)
* Defamation Act 2005 (Western Australia)
Ireland:
Malaysia and Singapore:
New Zealand:
# Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government/1872 Democratic Party Platform

Democratic Platform, Baltimore, July 9.
We, the Democratic electors of the United States, in convention assembled, do present the following principles, already adopted at Cincinnati, as essential to just government:
[Here followed the “Liberal Republican Platform”; which see above.]
# Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government/1876 Independent (Greenback) Party Platform

Independent (Greenback) Platform, Indianapolis, Ind., May 17.
The Independent party is called into existence by the necessities of the people, whose industries are prostrated, whose labor is deprived of its just reward by a ruinous policy which the Republican and Democratic parties refuse to change; and, in view of the failure of these parties to furnish relief to the depressed industries of the country, thereby disappointing the just hopes and expectations of the suffering people, we declare our principles, and invite all independent and patriotic men to join our ranks in this movement for financial reform and industrial emancipation.
First. We demand the immediate and unconditional repeal of the specie resumption act of January 14, 1875, and the rescue of our industries from ruin and disaster resulting from its enforcement; and we call upon all patriotic men to organize in every congressional district of the country, with a view of electing representatives to Congress who will carry out the wishes of the people in this regard and stop the present suicidal and destructive policy of contraction.
Second. We believe that a United States note, issued directly by the government, and convertible, on demand, into United States obligations, bearing a rate of interest not exceeding one cent a day on each one hundred dollars, and exchangeable for United States notes at par, will afford the best circulating medium ever devised. Such United States notes should be full legal tenders for all purposes, except for the payment of such obligations as are, by existing contracts, especially made payable in coin; and we hold that it is the duty of the government to provide such a circulating medium, and insist, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, that “bank paper must be suppressed, and the circulation restored to the nation, to whom it belongs.”
Third. It is the paramount duty of the government, in all its legislation, to keep in view the full development of all legitimate business, agricultural, mining, manufacturing, and commercial.
Fourth. We most earnestly protest against any further issue of gold bonds for sale in foreign markets, by which we would be made, for a long period, “hewers of wood and drawers of water” to foreigners, especially as the American people would gladly and promptly take at par all bonds the government may need to sell, provided they are made payable at the option of the holder, and bearing interest at 3.65 per cent. per annum or even a lower rate.
Fifth. We further protest against the sale of government bonds for the purpose of purchasing silver to be used as a substitute for our more convenient and less fluctuating fractional currency, which, although well calculated to enrich owners of silver mines, yet in operation it will still further oppress, in taxation, an already overburdened people.
# Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government/1875 American National Party Platform

The American National Platform, adopted in mass meeting, Pittsburg, June 9.
We hold:
1. That ours is a Christian and not a heathen nation, and that the God of the Christian Scriptures is the author of civil government.
2. That God requires and man needs a Sabbath.
3. That the prohibition of the importation, manufacture, and sale of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, is the true policy on the temperance question.
4. The charters of all secret lodges granted by our federal and state legislatures should be withdrawn, and their oaths prohibited by law.
5. That the civil equality secured to all American citizens by articles 13th, 14th, and 15th of our amended constitution should be preserved inviolate.
6. That arbitration of differences with nations is the most direct and sure method of securing and perpetuating a permanent peace.
7. That to cultivate the intellect without improving the morals of men is to make mere adepts and experts: therefore, the Bible should be associated with books of science and literature in all our educational institutions.
8. That land and other monopolies should be discountenanced.
9. That the government should furnish the people with an ample and sound currency and a return to specie payment, as soon as practicable.
10. That maintenance of the public credit, protection to all loyal citizens, and justice to Indians are essential to the honor and safety of our nation.
11. And, finally, we demand for the American people the abolition of electoral colleges, and a direct vote for President and Vice-President of the United States.
[Their candidates were James B. Walker, Wheaton, Illinois, for President; and Donald Kirkpatrick, Syracuse, New York, for Vice-President.]
# Descriptive Zoopraxography/Kangaroo Jumping

Kangaroo Jumping
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{13}$ rotation advance
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{12}$ rotation advance
# Descriptive Zoopraxography/Monkeys Climbing a Cocoa Palm

Monkeys Climbing a Cocoa Palm
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{13}$ rotation advance
# Descriptive Zoopraxography/Pigeons Flying

Pigeons Flying
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{13}$ rotation advance
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{12}$ rotation advance
# Descriptive Zoopraxography/Lion Walking

Lion Walking
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{13}$ rotation advance
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{12}$ rotation advance
# Descriptive Zoopraxography/Village Blacksmiths

Village Blacksmiths
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{13}$ rotation advance
# Deserant v. Cerillos Coal Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 409
Deserant v. Cerillos Coal Railroad Company
Argued: April 27, 1900. --- Decided: May 28, 1900
Messrs. Neill B. Field and F. W. Clancy for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Robert Dunlap, E. D. Kenna, and R. E. Twitchell for defendant in error.
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
# Descriptive Zoopraxography/Horse Trotting

Horse Trotting
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{13}$ rotation advance
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{12}$ rotation advance
# Descriptive Zoopraxography/Mule, Bucking and Kicking

Mule, Bucking and Kicking
Animated with $^1$⁄$_{13}$ rotation advance