OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Treaty Series/Volume 1/Cemetery in Algiers

A resolution to build an enclosure around the European cemetery in Algiers (possibly St. Eugene Cemetery).
CEMETERY IN ALGIERS
* "Resolution" signed at Algiers March 21, 1826
* Approved by the President of the United States
Department of State files; enclosure to letter of March 25, 1826, from the U.S. consulate at Algiers
[translation]
The Consuls of the European Powers accredited to the Regency of Algiers having met at the British Consulate at Algiers to reach a decision concerning the necessity of building an enclosure around the European cemetery in this city, where the bodies of Europeans are exposed to insults by the public and to damage by the sea, the British Proconsul General having obtained permission from H. H. the Dey, an estimate of the most urgent expenses has been made by the chief mason of this Government and several assistants assigned to him. The expenses have been fixed at two thousand five hundred piastres, hard currency; and since it is acknowledged that the number of Consuls in this city at present is ten or eleven, the sum of two thousand five hundred Spanish piastres, hard currency, would therefore be divided into two hundred and fifty piastres, hard currency, for each of them. Consequently, it has been agreed that each Consul will submit this proposal to his Government and obtain authorization to enclose the European cemetery in Algiers without ​delay, a tribute due the deceased who are already buried there and to those whom fate may bring to this foreign soil in the future.
Algiers, March 21, 1826
R. M. Thomas British Proconsul General
A. I. A. Fraissinet Consul General of H. M. the King of the Netherlands
F. A. Casternsen Consul General of H. M. the King of Denmark
Wm. Shaler American Consul
Joh. Fred. Shultze Vice Consul of Sweden
Jean Bertuzzi Proconsul General of H. I. & R. M. the King of Portugal
Le Chevalier de Val Consul General of France and Consul General of Spain ad interim
Count Dattili Consul General of Sardinia
Jacob Coen Bacri Consul General of Tuscany
Gennard Magliulo Consul General of H. M. the King of the two Sicilies
Footnotes
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
# Crapy Cornelia

* "Crapy Cornelia" in Harper's Magazine 119 (October 1909): 690–704.
    — First publication in any form.
* "Crapy Cornelia" in The Finer Grain (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910): ?–?.
    — First American book edition.
* "Crapy Cornelia" in The Finer Grain (London: Methuen & Co., 1910): 185–229.
    — First English book edition.
* "Crapy Cornelia" in Maud-Evelyn, The Special Type, The Papers and Other Tales (London: Macmillan & Co., 1923): 323–361.
    — Volume 28 of The Novels and Stories of Henry James, the first posthumous collection of James' works; uses the "New York Edition" text.
# Deupree v. Watson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 656
Deupree v. Watson

## 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. Caltex/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 149
United States v. Caltex
Argued: Oct. 20, 1952. --- Decided: Dec 8, 1952
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
I have no doubt that the military had authority to select this particular property for destruction. But whatever the weight of authority may be, I believe that the Fifth Amendment requires compensation for the taking. The property was destroyed, not because it was in the nature of a public nuisance, but because its destruction was deemed necessary to help win the war. It was as clearly appropriated to that end as animals, food, and supplies requisitioned for the defense effort. As the Court says, the destruction of this property deprived the enemy of a valuable logistic weapon.
It seems to me that the guiding principle should be this: Whenever the government determines that one person's property whatever it may be-is essential to the war effort and appropriates it for the common good, the public purse rather than the individual, shold bear the loss.

## 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. Campos-Serrano

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Blackmun
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 293
United States v. Campos-Serrano
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
No. 70-46 Argued: October 14, 1971 --- Decided: December 20, 1971
Possession of counterfeit alien registration receipt card held not an act punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1546, which prohibits, inter alia, the counterfeiting or alteration of, or the possession, use, or receipt of an already counterfeited or altered "immigrant or non-immigrant visa, permit, or other document required for entry into the United States." The primary purpose of an alien registration receipt card is for identification within the United States, and its merely permissible re-entry function under an Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation does not suffice to bring the card within the coverage of the statute. There is a separate statutory provision specifically protecting the integrity of alien registration receipt cards, indicating that the Congress did not intend them to be covered by the more general language of § 1546. Pp. 295-301.
430 F. 2d 173, affirmed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, J., joined, post, p. 301.
William Bradford Reynolds argued the cause for the United States pro hac vice. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Roger A. Pauley.
John J. Cleary, by appointment of the Court, 401 U.S. 990, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
William J. Scott, Attorney General, Joel M. Flaum, First Assistant Attorney General, and James B. Zagel and Jayne A. Carr, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of Illinois as amicus curiae urging reversal.

## 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. Cambuston

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 59
United States v. Cambuston
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California, which affirmed a decree of the land commissioners in favor of a grant of land to Cambuston.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Black (Attorney General) for the United States, and Mr. J. Mason Campbell for the appellee.
Mr. Black made the following points:
1. Assuming the paper on which the claim is based to be genuine, it is, nevertheless, void and worthless, for want of a petition and inquiry.
2. The grant is inoperative, for want of evidence that it was delivered while the Governor had power to make it.
3. The grant is fraudulent, fictitious, and simulated.
Mr. Campbell's points were the following:
1. That the grant itself is evidence, as of the power of Pico to make it, so also of the observance by him of all the necessary preliminaries, and that there is no proof to the contrary. (United States v. Peralta, 19 How., 347; United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet., 729, 731; United States v. Delassus, 9 Pet., 134; Minter v. Crommelin, 18 How., 88; Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet., 448.)
2. That the possession of the grant is evidence of its delivery to the grantee by Pico, and the presumption of law is that such delivery was made when it might be lawfully, and that there is no evidence to the contrary.
3. That the absence of an approval by the Departmental Assembly, or of a survey, &c., will not defeat the grant. (United States v. Fremont, 17 How., 560; United States v. Reading, 18 How., 7; United States v. Cruz Cervantes, 18 How., 553; United States v. Vaca, 18 How., 556; United States v. Larkin, 18 How., 563.)
4. As no allegation of fraud was made, either before the commissioners or before the District Court, it cannot be entertained in this court, though, if entertained, the circumstances of the case conclusively show the fairness of the transaction. (United States v. Larkin, 18 How., 557.)
Mr. Justice NELSON 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. Cambridge Loan & Building Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 55
United States v. Cambridge Loan & Building Company
Argued: Oct. 23 and 24, 1928. --- Decided: Nov 19, 1928
The Attorney General and Mr. T. H. Lewis, Jr., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. L. L. Hamby, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
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
# United States v. Camou

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
184 U.S. 572
United States v. Camou
Argued: March 22, 1901. --- Decided: March 17, 1902
Solicitor General Richards and Messrs. Matthew G. Reynolds and William H. Pope for appellant.
Messrs. William Herring and Rochester Ford for appellee.
Statement by Mr. Justice Shiras:
In December, 1891, Juan Pedro Camou filed a petition in the court of private land claims, praying to have confirmed to him a certain tract of land situated in the county of Cochise, territory of Arizona, known and designated as the San Rafael del Valle grant. Subsequent proceedings resulted in a trial and a decree in favor of the government, adjudging petitioner's claim and title invalid, and dismissing the petition. The case was then brought by appeal to this court, where the decree of the court of private land claims was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. 171 U.S. 277, 43 L. ed. 163, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 855.
Subsequently further proceedings were had in the court of private land claims in pursuance of the mandate of this court, resulting, on June 2, 1899, in a decree confirming the petitioner's title to 17,474.93 acres. From this decree of confirmation an appeal was allowed to this court.
Mr. Justice Shiras 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
# Una

Roving, roving, as it seems
* Una in May-day and other pieces (1867)
* Una in Poems (Household Edition, 1904)
# Un Vaincu/Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Here is an English translation of a book written in French on the life of General Robert E. Lee and on the Civil War. An American could legitimately ask : ″Why on earth translate from the French a book on Lee and the Civil War when they have already been treated, in English, in so many other interesting books ?
There are several answers to that question, the first being that the book was written in 1875 by my Grandmother, a Frenchwoman, shortly after the end of the Civil War, and of the 1870 war in which Germany had beaten France. She wrote it for her six children when she was 35 years old and dying of tuberculosis, in an effort to enhance the qualities of the current generation of young people -- those who would have to rebuild France.
Another answer is to benefit my numerous and fascinating American stepchildren and step-grandchildren. The members of our family on both sides of the Atlantic feel close to one another and I wanted to give them one more occasion to experience this closeness by concurring with one another in their admiration of the great man Robert E. Lee had been. He was an example of the virtues to be practiced in daily life, and whenever faced with grave and threatening problems, such as we and our descendants will have to tackle.
But there is another reason why this book needs to be translated in English. While working on the translation, and becoming more familiar with the causes, circumstances, and spirit of the Civil War, I was struck by the remarkable similarities : The misunderstandings between the North and South on the one hand, and the current misunderstandings between the USA and Europe on the other. I believe that it would be constructive for young Americans ​and Europeans to read about and understand these similarities. It would help them gain the equanimity necessary to solve peacefully, and in the best interest of both sides, the disagreements between them.
The Civil War erupted, as all wars basically do, for economic reasons. General Lee was convinced that it could have been avoided if the proper spirit had inspired both North and South. Today, economic rivalry is inspiring misunderstandings and hostile feelings between the USA and Europe. With the fast economic development of China and Japan, which will increase competition, an economic war between the USA and Europe, both worlds of Judeo-Christian culture, will become really a Civil War. Thanks to the atom bomb it will probably not develop into a military one. It could, nevertheless, develop new forms, and cause uncountable miseries and local bloody fights.
Let us, therefore, endeavor to adopt Robert E. Lee's philosophy. The translation of this book is a minute effort in that direction.
Rémi Boissonnas
# United States v. Harris (311 U.S. 292)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 292
United States v. Harris (311 U.S. 292)
Argued: Nov. 22, 1940. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1940
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Gordon B. Tweedy, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
Mr. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Harris (403 U.S. 573)/Concurrence Blackmun

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Blackmun
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 573
United States v. Harris (403 U.S. 573)
Argued: March 23, 1971. --- Decided: June 28, 1971
Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, concurring.
I join the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE and the judgment of the Court, but I add a personal comment in order to make very clear my posture as to Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), cited in several places in that opinion. I was a member of the 6-2 majority of the United States Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit in Spinelli v. United States, 382 F.2d 871 (1967), which this Court by a 5-3 vote reversed, with the pivotal Justice concluding his concurring opinion, 393 U.S., at 429, 89 S.Ct., at 595, by the observation that, 'Pending full-scale reconsideration of that case (Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959)), on the one hand, or of the Nathanson-Aguilar cases on the other, I join the opinion of the Court and the judgment of reversal, especially since a vote to affirm would produce an evenly divided Court.' Obviously, I then felt that the Court of Appeals had correctly decided the case. Nothing this Court said in Spinelli convinced me to the contrary. I continue to feel today that Spinelli at this level was wrongly decided and, like Mr. Justice BLACK, I would overrule it.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BRENNAN, and Mr. Justice MARSHALL 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
# United States v. Harris (403 U.S. 573)/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Blackmun
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 573
United States v. Harris (403 U.S. 573)
Argued: March 23, 1971. --- Decided: June 28, 1971
Mr. Justice BLACK, concurring.
While I join the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE which distinguishes this case from Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), I would go further and overrule those two cases and wipe their holdings from the books for the reasons, among others, set forth in the dissent of Mr. Justice Clark in Aguilar, which I joined, and my dissent in Spinelli.

## 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. Harris (177 U.S. 305)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
177 U.S. 305
United States v. Harris
Argued: March 5, 6, 1900. --- Decided: April 9, 1900
This was a suit brought in November, 1895, in the district court of by the United States against Joseph S. Harris, Edward M. Paxson, and John Lowber Welsh, receivers of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, to recover a penalty in the sum of $500 for an alleged violation of §§ 4386, 4387, 4388, and 4389 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
There was a verdict in favor of the United States, but afterwards, on a question reserved at the trial, judgment was entered in favor of the defendants non obstante veredicto. 78 Fed. Rep. 290. Thereupon a writ of error was sued out from the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit, and on March 14, 1898, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. 57 U.S. App. 259, 85 Fed. Rep. 533, 29 C. C. A. 327. The cause was then brought to this court on a writ of certiorari.
Solicitor General Richards for petitioner.
Mr. John G. Lamb for respondents.
Mr. Justice Shiras 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. Foster (233 U.S. 515)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
233 U.S. 515
United States v. Foster (233 U.S. 515)
Argued: April 13 and 14, 1914. --- Decided: May 4, 1914
Assistant Attorney General Wallace for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Philip Rubenstein and Timothy Howard for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 516-518 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Fox."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Fox (94 U.S. 315), ( 24 L.Ed. 192 )
* United States v. Fox (95 U.S. 670), ( 24 L.Ed. 538 )
# United States v. Foster (128 U.S. 435)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
128 U.S. 435
United States v. Foster
There is no claim that the plaintiff did not receive, on his first warrant as gunner, that is, for the whole period of his first continuous service in that position, all the compensation to which he was entitled as gunner, under the law as it was during that period. And it is found, in effect, that he has received credit on his second warrant as gunner for the actual time of his entire service prior to December 27, 1869, both as enlisted man and gunner, counting such service as if it had been continuous, and in the regular navy, in the lowest grade having graduated pay held by him after he re-entered the service, that is, in the grade of gunner. In our judgment, he is not entitled to more under existing legislation. The acts of 1882 and 1883 do not require or authorize a restatement of the payaccounts of an officer of the navy who served in the regular or volunteer army or navy, so as to give him credit in the grade held by him prior to their passage, for the time he served in the army or navy before reaching that grade. Congress only intended to give him credit in the grade held by him after those acts took effect, for all prior services, whether as an enlisted man of officer, counting such services, however separated by distinct periods of time, as if they had been continuous, and in the regular navy, in the lowest grade having graduated pay held by him since last entering the service; and that credit has been given to the plaintiff. In this view, the conclusion reached by the court of claims was erroneous. The judgment is reversed, with directions to dismiss the petition.

## 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. France

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
498 U.S. 335
United States v. France
No. 89-1363
See 499 U.S. 914, 111 S.Ct. 1125.
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