OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Roderick Hudson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907)

THE NOVELS AND TALES OF HENRY JAMES
New York Edition
VOLUME I
RODERICK HUDSON
BY
HENRY JAMES
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1907
Copyright, 1875, by H. O. Houghton & Co., and
James R. Osgood & Co.
Copyright, 1882, by Henry James, Jr.
Copyright, 1903, by Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
Copyright, 1907, by Charles Scribner's Sons
Published under special arrangement with Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
* Preface
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
# Rodd v. Heartt/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
84 U.S. 354
Rodd v. Heartt
As to the first of the grounds, on which a dismissal of this appeal is asked, on looking into the acts of Congress relating to the connection of the district judge with the Circuit Court, we are of opinion that, though upon appeals from the District Court the district judge has no vote in the Circuit Court, he has in all other respects the powers of a member of the court, and may consequently allow appeals from its decisions.
Secondly, it is apparent that, though no one of the claims allowed exceeded $2000, yet the claim of the appellants, which was disallowed, exceeded that sum.
Thirdly, we are of opinion that the decree may be considered as of either the 3d day of June or the 6th day of June, 1872, and that the appeal was in time to operate as a supersedeas under the act of 1789. That act, however, does not prescribe the existing rule. The act of June 1st, 1872, which must govern the case, allows sixty days for the filing of the bond by which the appeal is made to operate as a supersedeas.
MOTION DENIED.

## 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
# Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 687
Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Company
Argued: March 1, 1886. ---
T. M. Patterson, C. S. Thomas, and R. S. Morrison, for plaintiffs in error.
G. G. Symes and Hugh Butler, for defendant in error.
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
# Reynolds v. Sims/Concurrence Stewart

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. --Warning: template has been deprecated.
* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Clark Stewart
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
MR. JUSTICE STEWART.
All of the parties have agreed with the District Court's finding that legislative inaction for some 60 years, in the face of growth and shifts in population, has converted Alabama's legislative apportionment plan enacted in 1901 into one completely lacking in rationality. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, post, p. 744, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court holding that this apportionment violated the Equal Protection Clause.
I also agree with the Court that it was proper for the District Court, in framing a remedy, to adhere as closely [p589] as practicable to the apportionments approved by the representatives of the people of Alabama, and to afford the State of Alabama full opportunity, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Constitution, to devise its own system of legislative apportionment.
# Reynolds v. Sims/Concurrence Clark

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. --Warning: template has been deprecated.
* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Clark Stewart
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
MR. JUSTICE CLARK, concurring in the affirmance.
The Court goes much beyond the necessities of this case in laying down a new "equal population" principle for state legislative apportionment. This principle seems to be an offshoot of Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963), i.e., "one person, one vote," modified by the "nearly as is practicable" admonition of Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 8 (1964). Whether "nearly as is [p588] practicable" means "one person, one vote" qualified by "approximately equal" or "some deviations" or by the impossibility of "mathematical nicety" is not clear from the majority's use of these vague and meaningless phrases. But whatever the standard, the Court applies it to each house of the State Legislature.
It seems to me that all that the Court need say in this case is that each plan considered by the trial court is "a crazy quilt," clearly revealing invidious discrimination in each house of the Legislature and therefore violative of the Equal Protection Clause. See my concurring opinion in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 253-258 (1962).
I therefore do not reach the question of the so-called "federal analogy." But, in my view, if one house of the State Legislature meets the population standard, representation in the other house might include some departure from it so as to take into account, on a rational basis, other factors in order to afford some representation to the various elements of the State. See my dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, post, p. 741, decided this date.
# Rough-Hewn/Part 7

Layout 2
THE END OR ALL ROADS
* Chapter 41
* Chapter 42
* Chapter 43
* Chapter 44
* Chapter 45
* Chapter 46
* Chapter 47
* Chapter 48
* Chapter 49
* Chapter 50
* Chapter 51
* Chapter 52
* Chapter 53
* Chapter 54
* Chapter 55
* Chapter 56
* Chapter 57
# Rough and Ready

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
written by Alfred Wheeler for Zachary Taylor's campaign in the 1848 US Presidential election, this song extols Taylor's military career.
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
# Rollerson v. United States/Concurrence Fortas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Fortas
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 575
Rollerson v. United States
Mr. Justice FORTAS concurs in the disposition of this case but notes that the Court's action does not imply any view as to the merits of any of the petitioner's claims including his assertions as to double jeopardy.
Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice HARLAN, and Mr. Justice STEWART dissent.

## 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
# Rolston v. Crittenden

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 390
Rolston v. Crittenden
[Syllabus from pages 390-391 intentionally omitted]
Elihu Root, John F. Dillon, and Sidney Bartlett, for Rolston and others.
John B. Henderson, Geo. H. Shields, D. A. De Armond, and B. G. Boone, Atty. Gen. Mo., for Crittenden and others.
WAITE, C. 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
# Rollerson v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Fortas
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 575
Rollerson v. United States
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for furthr consideration in light of Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 22 L.Ed.2d 227.

## 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
# Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility

* related portals: Roman Catholicism.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
ROMAN CATHOLIC OPPOSITION TO PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
page
ROMAN CATHOLIC OPPOSITION TO PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
By W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON CHAPLAIN OF ST MARY'S HOSPITAL, ILFORD
LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 1909
page
CONTENTS
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in 1909, before the cutoff of January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1952, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 71 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
# Rollerson v. United States

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 575
Rollerson v. United States
William H. Allen, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Roger A. Pauley, for the United States.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
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
# Radovich v. National Football League

Radovich v. National Football League (NFL), 352 U.S. 445 (1957), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that professional football, unlike professional baseball, was subject to antitrust laws. It was the third of three such cases heard by the Court in the 1950s involving the antitrust status of professional sports. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 445
Radovich v. National Football League
Argued: Jan. 17, 1957. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1957
See 353 U.S. 931, 77 S.Ct. 716.
Mr. Maxwell Keith, San Francisco, Cal., for the petitioner.
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae.
Messrs. Marshall E. Leahy, San Francisco, Cal., and Bernard I. Nordlinger, Washington, D.C., for the respondents.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# Radovich v. National Football League/Dissent Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Frankfurter Harlan
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 445
Radovich v. National Football League
Argued: Jan. 17, 1957. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1957
Mr. Justice HARLAN, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN joins, dissenting.
What was foreshadowed by United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236, 75 S.Ct. 259, 99 L.Ed. 290, has now come to pass. The Court, in holding that professional football is subject to the antitrust laws, now says in effect that professional baseball is sui generis so far as those laws are concerned, and that therefore Federal Base Ball Club of Baltimore v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898, and Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64, do not control football by reason of stare decisis. Since I am unable to distinguish football from baseball under the rationale of Federal Base Ball and Toolson, and can find no basis for attributing to Congress a purpose to put baseball in a class by itself, I would adhere to the rule of stare decisis and affirm the judgment below.
If the situation resulting from the baseball decisions is to be changed, I think it far better to leave it to be dealt with by Congress than for this Court to becloud the situation further, either by making untenable distinctions between baseball and other professional sports, or by discriminatory fiat in favor of baseball.

## 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
# Radovich v. National Football League/Dissent Frankfurter

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Frankfurter Harlan
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 445
Radovich v. National Football League
Argued: Jan. 17, 1957. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1957
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, dissenting.
The difficult problem in this case derives for me not out of the Sherman Law but in relation to the appropriate compulsion of stare decisis. It does not derive from the Sherman Law because the most conscientious probing of the text and the interstices of the Sherman Law fails to disclose that Congress, whose will we are enforcing excluded baseball-the conditions under which that sport is carried on-from the scope of the Sherman Law but included football. I say this, fully aware that the Sherman Law's applicability turns on the particular circumstances of activities pursued in trade and commerce among the several States. But whether the conduct of an enterprise is within or without the limits of the Sherman Law is, after all, a question for judicial determination, and conscious as I am of my limited competence in matters athletic, I have yet to hear of any consideration that led this Court to hold that 'the business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball players was not within the scope of the federal antitrust laws,' Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356, 357, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64, that is not equally applicable to football.
But considerations pertaining to stare decisis do raise a serious question for me. That principle is a vital ingredient of law, for it 'embodies an important social policy.' Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119, 60 S.Ct. 444, 451, 84 L.Ed. 604. It would disregard the principle for a judge stubbornly to persist in his views on a particular issue after the contrary had become part of the tissue of the law. Until then, full respect for stare decisis does not require a judge to forego his own convictions promptly after his brethren have rejected them.
The considerations that governed me two years ago in United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236, 75 S.Ct. 259, 99 L.Ed. 290, have not lost their force by reason of the authority that time gives to a single decision. And so I am confronted with the Toolson case, supra, which guides me to find the present situation within its scope, and the Boxing case, supra, which, while it looks the other way, left Toolson as a living authority. Respect for the doctrine of stare decisis does not yet require me to disrespect the views I expressed in the Boxing case.
I would affirm.

## 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
# Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 255
Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc.
Argued: March 2, 3, 1965. --- Decided: March 15, 1965
Mr. J. R. Goldthwaite, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for petitioners.
Willis C. Darby, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for respondent.
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
# Royal Naval Biography/Mangles, James

Layout 2
JAMES MANGLES, Esq. Fellow of the Royal Society, and a Member of the London Geographical Society. [Commander.]
This officer served the whole of his time as midshipman, under Captain (now Vice-Admiral) Donnelly, in the ​Maidstone and Narcissus frigates, of which latter ship he was appointed an acting lieutenant, at the Cape of Good Hope, in 1806. He had previously distinguished himself at the attack of some French vessels lying in Hieres Bay; and he also participated in the subsequent operations in the Rio de la Plata. On his return home, he was confirmed by commission appointing him to the Penelope frigate, Captain W. R. Broughton, dated Sept. 21th, 1806. In this ship, latterly commanded by Captain John Dick, he served on the Halifax station; and at the reduction of Martinique, by the forces under Sir Alexander Cochrane and Lieutenant General Beckwith, Feb. 1809.
Lieutenant Mangles’ next appointment was to the Boyne 08, fitting out for the flag of Sir Harry Neale, whom he followed from that ship into the Ville de Paris 110, and served under as flag-lieutenant until after the grand naval review, by the allied sovereigns, at Portsmouth, in 1814. He then joined the Duncan 74, bearing the flag of Sir John P. Beresford, and served as first lieutenant of that ship until appointed by Sir Manley Dixon, acting commander of the Racoon sloop, at Rio Janeiro, in the beginning of 1815. On his return to Plymouth, after escorting part of the Brazilian trade to Bristol, he was superseded ; but soon afterwards promoted to the rank he now holds, by commission dated June 13th, 1815. He subsequently travelled upwards of four years, in company with Commander (now Captain) the Hon. Charles Leonard Irby; and, in Aug. 1823, jointly with that officer, produced a most interesting work, entitled “Travels in Egypt and Nubia, Syria and Asia Minor, printed for private distribution.” This production, not now within our reach, it having been lent to a friend of the parties just before his demise, was thus handsomely spoken of in the London Literary Gazette, Nov. 1st, 1823.
“The work of these two gallant officers is alike honorable to their ​spirit and talents. Imbued with a laudable thirst for knowledge, and inspired with a love of science, when their own noble profession no longer claimed their exertions, they adventured forth in search of information in lands where it is most difficult of attainment. They found, as every one will find who engages in literary and scientific pursuits, increase of appetite grow with what it fed on; and during four years and a half they devoted themselves to travel and inquiry, principally in the interesting regions to an account of which these pages are addressed. They saw much, and examined into many curious matters; and they have told what they saw, and described what they examined, in a way which would do credit to professed writers, and thus produced a book altogether of a very entertaining and intelligent character.”
* ↑ See Vol. I. Part II. p. 665*.
* ↑ See Vol. I. Part I. p. 261.
* ↑ See Vol. III, Part. II. p. 4, et seq.
# Royal Naval Biography/Manley, John

Layout 2
JOHN MANLEY, Esq. [Commander.]
Obtained a lieutenant’s commission in 1782, and his present rank in April, 1802.
# Royal Naval Biography/Manners-Sutton, George

Layout 2
GEORGE MANNERS SUTTON, Esq. [Commander.]
Son of the late Colonel John Sutton, formerly of the Guards, who was the eldest surviving son of Lord George Manners Sutton, and a grandson of John (third) Duke of Rutland.
This officer was made a lieutenant about Aug. 1803; promoted to the command of the Oberon, 16-gun sloop, Jan. 22d, 1806; and removed from her to the Derwent 18, in April, 1810. In the former vessel he captured the French privateer Ratifia, of 14 guns and 38 men, on the North Sea station.
# Royal Naval Biography/Mansel, Thomas

Layout 2
THOMAS MANSEL, Esq. [Commander.]
Was made a lieutenant in Sept. 1804; advanced to his present rank on the 15th June, 1814; and appointed an inspecting commander in the coast guard service, April 13th, 1831.
addendum.
THOMAS MANSEL, Esq. (Vol. IV. Part I. p. 239). [Captain of 1834.]
Was appointed an inspecting commander of the coast guard (Falmouth district) in July, 1827; and advanced to the rank of captain on the 12th Feb. 1834.
# Royal Naval Biography/Manley, Isaac George

Layout 2
ISAAC GEORGE MANLEY, Esq Vice-Admiral of the Red; and Doctor of the Civil Law.
This officer obtained post rank, Nov. 22, 1790. In 1796, he commanded the Apollo, a new frigate of 38 guns, stationed on the Irish coast, where, in company with the Doris, he captured la Legere, French corvette, of 22 guns. He was advanced to the rank of Rear-Admiral, Oct. 25, 1809. In the following year, the University of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of D.C.L.; and on the 4th June, 1814, he was made a Vice-Admiral.
His eldest son, John Shaw Manley, Esq. married July 16, 1821, a daughter of Sir William Clayton, Bart, of Harleyford, co. Bucks.
Residence.– Braziers, Oxfordshire.
# Royal Naval Biography/Manners, Russell Henry

Layout 2
RUSSELL HENRY MANNERS, Esq. [Captain of 1829.]
Was made a lieutenant into the Tyne 26, Captain John Edward Walcott, on the West India station, Oct. 10th, 1822; removed to the Pyramus frigate, Captain Francis Newcombe, May 12th, 1823; promoted to the rank of commander, Aug. 16th, 1825; and appointed to the Britomart sloop, at Plymouth, Oct. 21st, 1827. His commission as captain bears date Mar. 4th, 1829.