OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Were I a King

The poem was published by Grosart in Miscellanies of the Fuller Worthies' Library, Vol. IV (1872), and in a variant form by J. Thomas Looney in The Poems of Edward de Vere (1921). The "answer" to the verses is ascribed to Sir Philip Sidney.
Were I a king I might command content; Were I obscure unknown should be my cares, And were I dead no thoughts should me torment, Nor words, nor wrongs, nor love, nor hate, nor fears A doubtful choice of three things one to crave, A kingdom or a cottage or a grave.
(Vere)
[Sidney's Answer: Wert thou a King yet not command content, Since empire none thy mind could yet suffice, Wert thou obscure still cares would thee torment; But wert thou dead, all care and sorrow dies; An easy choice of these things which to crave, No kingdom nor a cottage but a grave.]
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
# Wendell Phillips (O'Reilly)

* related authors: Wendell Phillips.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This epitaph was written in memory of O'Reilly's friend, the abolitionist Wendell Phillips.
* "Wendell Phillips" in In Bohemia, by John Boyle O'Reilly (1890).
* "Wendell Phillips" in Pieces People Ask For, (ed.) by George Melville Baker (1909).
# Whose are the little beds, I asked

* "The Sleeping Flowers" in Poems: Second Series (1891)
* ""Whose are the little beds," I asked" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# Whose Pink career may have a close

Whose Pink career may have a close Portentous as our own, who knows? To imitate these Neighbors fleet In awe and innocence, were meet.
# Waite v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 508
Waite v. United States
Argued: Jan. 30, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1931
Messrs. O. Ellery Edwards, of New York City, and Hyman M. Goldstein and Joseph W. Cox, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Charles B. Rugg. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R. I., Bradley B. Gilman, of Worcester, Mass., Percy M. Cox and W. Marvin Smith, both of Washington, D. C., and H. Brian Holland, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the United States.
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
# Waiting (Burroughs)

* "Waiting" by John Burroughs in Littell's Living Age, 131 (1686) (1876)
* "Waiting" in Famous Single Poems (1924)
# Waite v. Santa Cruz

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
184 U.S. 302
Waite v. Santa Cruz
Argued: April 24, 25, 1901. --- Decided: February 24, 1902
Messrs. John F. Dillon, Harry Hubbard, John M. Dillon, W. H. Chickering, and M. C. Sloss, for petitioner.
Messrs. James G. Maguire, Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., John Garber, and Carl E. Lindsay for respondent.
Mr. Justice Harlan 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
# Waite v. Macy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 606
Waite v. Macy
Argued: March 28, 1918. --- Decided: April 22, 1918
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren, for appellants.
Mr. Joseph H. Choate, J., of New York City, for appellees.
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
# Waite v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 508
Waite v. United States
Argued: Jan. 30, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1931
This is a suit under the Act of July 1, 1918, c. 114, 40 Stat. 704, 705, U.S.C.ode, title 35, § 68 (35 USCA § 68), to recover for the unlicensed use of a patented invention. The liability of the United States is established by the findings of the Court of Claims and is not disputed. Neither is there any dispute that the profits that the plaintiff would have made are a proper measure of the damages suffered. The Court of Claims, however, ruled that interest should not be allowed upon the amount so fixed, and a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court upon that question. 282 U.S. 817, 51 S.C.t. 21, 75 L. Ed. -.
The Government, without formally confessing error, states its belief that interest should have been allowed. The statute grants 'recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use.' We are of opinion that interest should be allowed in order to make the compensation 'entire.' In addition to the purpose of the word adverted to in Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 343, 48 S.C.t. 194, 72 L. Ed. 303, we cannot doubt that it was intended to accomplish complete justice as between the plaintiff and the United States. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 299, 43 S.C.t. 354, 67 L. Ed. 664; Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. United States, 265 U.S. 106, 44 S.C.t. 471, 68 L. Ed. 934; Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 215, 47 S.C.t. 581, 71 L. Ed. 1006; Phelps v. United States, 274 U.S. 341, 47 S.C.t. 611, 71 L. Ed. 1083.
Judgment reversed.

## 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
# Vansant v. Gas-Light Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 213
Vansant v. Gas-Light Company
No citation has been issued in this cause. A citation only becomes unnecessary when the appeal is allowed in open court during the term at which the decree is rendered. This implies some action of the court while in open session, and, to be regular, should be entered on the minutes. Here, although an appeal bond was approved by the Chief Justice of the court and filed with the clerk during the term, it does not appear to have been done while the court was actually in session. So far as the record shows, it was the act of the Chief Justice alone out of court. The entry on the order-book is simply a direction to the clerk, by the solicitor of the appellant, to enter an appeal. It in no way indicates any action whatever either in or by the court.
Appeal dismissed.

## 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
# Vanstophorst v. Maryland (2 U.S. 401)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 401 (1791)
Supreme Court of the United States
2 U.S. 401
Vanstophorst et al. v. the State of Maryland
Argued: . . . --- Decided: August 3, 1791
​ The Attorney General (Randolph) moved, on behalf of the plaintiffs, that a commission should issue to examine witnesses in Holland; to which the opposite counsel assented, although the commissioners were not named.
But, by the Court:—We will not award the commission, ’till commissioners are named.
This being done, the motion was granted.
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
# Vansant v. Gas-Light Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 213
Vansant v. Gas-Light Company
MOTION to dismiss for want of citation an appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
This was a bill in chancery brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by John Vansant, and William A. Duncan, trustee for Susan A. Duncan, against the Electro-Magnetic Gas-Light Company and others. The defendants answered; and the cause coming on to be heard upon the pleadings and proofs, a final decree was rendered at the special term, which was affirmed at the general term of that court. The following entry then appears upon the record:--
'JOHN VANSANT et al.
v.
THE ELECTRO-MAGNETIC GAS-LIGHT CO.
No. 3707.
Equity Doc. 13.
'DEC. 17, 1875.
'The clerk will enter an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decision in general term, passed Nov. 29, 1875.
'DURANT & HORNOR,
'For Plaintiffs and Appellees.
'Dec. 17, 1875. Appeal entered as directed.
'By the clerk.'
It was conceded that a bond had been approved by the Chief Justice of that court and filed with the clerk during the term.
Mr. J. Hubley Ashton and Mr. Nathaniel Wilson in support of the motion.
Mr. Thomas J. Durant, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 156
Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green
Argued: Oct. 22, 1946. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1946
See 329 U.S. 833, 67 S.Ct. 497.
[Syllabus from pages 156-158 intentionally omitted]
Mr.George W. Jaques, of New York City, for petitioner Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee.
Mr. Robert J. Bulkley, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner Vanhorn Bondholders Protective Committee.
Mr. Charles I. Dawson, of Louisville, Ky., for respondents Carl B. Early et al.
Mr. Jay Raymond Levinson, of New York City, for respondents, Green Committee et al.
Mr. Roger S. Foster, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Securities and Exchange Commission.
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
# Vantagepoint Venture Partners 1996 v. Examen, Inc.

* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE
871 A.2d 1108
VANTAGEPOINT VENTURE PARTNERS 1996, a Delaware limited partnership, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. EXAMEN, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
No. 127 Argued: April 13, 2005 --- Decided: May 5, 2005
J. Travis Laster, Esquire, Brock E. Czeschin, Esquire, Philippe Y. Blanchard, Esquire, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant.
Martin P. Tully, Esquire, David J. Teklits, Esquire, and Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Esquire, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.
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
# Varia

VARIA
By AGNES REPPLIER
BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
The Riverside Press, Cambridge
1898
COPYRIGHT, 1897, BY
AGNES REPPLIER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
CONTENTS
| | PAGE |
| The Eternal Feminine | 1 |
| The Deathless Diary | 30 |
| Guides: A Protest | 63 |
| Little Pharisees in Fiction | 85 |
| The Fête de Gayant | 109 |
| Cakes and Ale | 130 |
| Old Wine and New | 155 |
| The Royal Road of Fiction | 185 |
| From the Reader's Standpoint | 217 |
"Little Pharisees in Fiction" is reprinted by permission of the publishers from "Scribner's Magazine," and "From the Reader's Standpoint" from "The North American Review" (where it was called "The Contentiousness of Modern Novel Writers").
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1950, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 73 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Bond/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 301
United States v. Bond
This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of claims awarding to John Bond, the appellee, the sum of $72.27. The following facts were found by that court, upon which this judgment was rendered in favor of the claimant, and from which the present appeal is taken: 'Claimant enlisted in the United States marine corps at the marine barracks, Washington, D. C., October 29, 1879, as a private, was assigned to duty with the marine band at the time of his enlistment, and remained and performed duty with the band as a private from that time until May 1, 1881, when he was rated as a musician. Prior to this last-mentioned date he was at no time rated as a musician, although playing in the band. Between the date of enlistment and May 1, 1881, the organization known as the 'Marine Band' performed, under proper order, on the capitol grounds and on the president's grounds. Prior to May 1, 1881, claimant received no additional compensation for such service.'
Section 1613, Rev. St., reads as follows: 'The marines who compose the corps of musicians known as the 'Marine Band' shall be entitled to receive at the rate of four dollars a month each in addition to thei pay as non-commissioned officers, musicians, or privates of the marine corps, so long as they shall perform, by order of the secretary of the navy or other superior officer, on the capitol grounds or the president's grounds.' In the opinion of the court of claims it is said that 'the claimant was a 'private of the marine corps.' He was one of 'the marines who composed the organization known as the 'Marine Band.' He performed on the capitol grounds and on the president's grounds, under proper order, and, thus falling within the phraseology of the statute, he should have received the additional pay.'
In this statement we entirely concur, and see no reason to disturb the judgment of the court, which is accordingly affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Booth

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 683
United States v. Booth

## 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. Booth/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 683
United States v. Booth
The Attorney General for appellant.
Mr. George A. King for appellee.
Dismissed on motion of counsel for the appellant.

## 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. Boisdoré/Dissent Wayne

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions McLean Wayne
[p103] . . .
Mr. Justice WAYNE.
I dissent from the opinion of the majority of the court in the case, concurring with all the views expressed by my brother McLean, and dissenting from every position of fact or argument in the opinion of the court. In my opinion, the opinion of the court is a departure from all heretofore adjudged by the court in respect to the right of property secured by our treaties with France and Spain to the inhabitants of Louisiana, and Florida.
# United States v. Bolton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 341
United States v. Bolton
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The circumstances of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Black (Attorney General) and Mr. Reed for the United States, and by Mr. J. Mason Campbell and Mr. Walker for the appellee.
The record and arguments consisted of four large printed books, and a report of them would occupy a volume. A condensed view would be very apt to be unsatisfactory, and perhaps unjust; and therefore the points and arguments will be entirely passed over.
Mr. Justice CATRON 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. Bond

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 301
United States v. Bond
Atty. Gen. Garland, for appellant.
James E. Padgett, for appellee.
MILLER, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Women of distinction/Chapter 13

CHAPTER XIII.
EDMONIA LEWIS.
To develop along all the diverging and converging lines that take their beginning in the comprehensive word "education" it becomes necessary for us to sometimes turn aside, as others have done, from the ordinary school-room to the workshop, where we may train the eye and the hand to a skillful use of the implements of industry and thrift; and at the same time broaden and sharpen the intellect in original thought and description by the use of the chisel and the brush.
The Afro-American sculptress is an infallible proof of the possibilities of the race along this line. Think of her as of humble birth, and left a helpless girl without the guiding: counsel and tender care of a mother.
Although without an education, she was determined to make her mark and stamp her impress upon the world. She chanced to get to Boston, and, possibly while looking upon the statue of the great Benjamin Franklin, she became inspired with the thought that some hand had wrought that upon which she was gazing with emotion that stirred her very soul.
She exclaimed, "I too can make a stone man." The liberty-loving William Eloyd Garrison, whose advice she sought, gave her introduction to a Mr. Brockett, a professional sculptor, whose kind and sympathetic heart could appreciate holy ambition even in a poor girl to become a great woman.
​He presented to her the pattern of a human foot and some simple materials with which to try her hand, saying, "Go home and make that; if there is anything in you it wnll come out." She tried once and had to "try again," but after all succeeded admirably. Encouraged by this victory, she pushed her way on and on until she has been recognized and honored throughout a large part of the civilized world by those who admire the beauties of the work of an artful hand. Some of her works are "Hagar in the Wilderness," "Madonna with the Infant Christ and Two Adoring Angels," "Forever Free," "Hiawatha's Wooings," "Longfellow, the Poet," "John Brown," "Wendell Phillips." These, with her honored reception in Rome and the attractions which her studio had for the travelers from all parts of the world, all speak in no uncertain tones of her real merits as an artist and sculptress.
# Watkins v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Watkins v. United States."
* 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.
* Watkins v. United States (76 U.S. 759)
* Watkins v. United States (354 U.S. 178)
# Watkins v. United States (354 U.S. 178)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), was a case brought to the Supreme Court of the United States after John Watkins was convicted under 2 U.S.C. 192, for failing to answer questions while posed as a witness relating to people he may have known to be communist. Under a committee of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities, Watkins stated he did not wish to answer these questions, as they were outside of the scope he had been called upon, and of the committee. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
354 U.S. 178
Watkins v. United States (354 U.S. 178)
Argued: March 7, 1957. --- Decided: June 17, 1957
[Syllabus from pages 178-181 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Sol. Gen. J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# Watkins v. Sedberry

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
261 U.S. 571
Watkins v. Sedberry
Argued: Jan. 19, 1923. --- Decided: April 9, 1923
[Syllabus on pages 571-572 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. C. C. Calhoun, of Washington, D. C., and Clarence T. Boyd, of Nashville, Tenn., for petitioners.
Mr. Norman Farrell, of Nashville, Tenn., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Watkins v. Murray/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan Marshall
Denied.
Justice BRENNAN, 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
# Watkins v. Murray/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan Marshall
Justice BRENNAN, dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 227, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in 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