OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Hermione and Her Little Group of Serious Thinkers/Understanding and One's Own Home

UNDERSTANDING, AND ONE'S OWN HOME
IT'S terrible when one can't get understanding in one's own family!
Papa has very little real sympathy for advanced ideas. And as for Mamma!
Sometimes I think I shall write!
Express myself, my real Ego, in Song.
Not rhymes, of course. If I worked a year I couldn't make two lines rhyme.
But rhyme is going out, anyhow.
Vers libre is all the rage now.
We took it up not long ago—our Little Group of Serious Thinkers, you know—and I feel confident it is My Medium of Expression.
It is so untrammeled, isn't it?
And one should be untrammeled, both in Art and Life, shouldn't one?
Often I ask myself, at the close of day: "Have I been untrammeled today? Or have I failed?"
If I could put my real Ego—and how wonderful the Ego is, isn't it?—into vers libre, even Papa might understand me.
​I have always yearned to be understood!
I have drawn back from matrimony again and again because I thought: "Will he understand me? Will he see my real Ego? Or will he not?"
Only the other evening I was talking to the loveliest man, who has been misunderstood by his wife. It is frightful!
He is a sculptor. A cubist sculptor. But he looks quite respectable—really, some very good people receive him.
And he has the most wonderful eyes—sympathetic, you know, and psychic—but oh! so pure, too!
He dotes on purity. He told me that.
His wife does not understand him. She does not see his real Ego.
He said to me: "I can read you like an open book. You are yearning. You are yearning for real understanding. No one has ever understood you. Is that not so? Is that not your secret?"
Alas! It was. I could not deny it.
I said to him: "But is real understanding ever attainable?"
He sighed and said: "Alas! The Unattainable!"
I knew why he sighed—there is so much of it—the Unattainable!
"What one attains," I said, "is often so intangible—do you not find it so?"
​"Alas!" he said, "the Intangible!"
And I felt, somehow—in a queer psychic way that is elusive, you know—strengthened and sweetened spiritually by our sad little talk.
Our real Egos had been in communion. That's what he said.
He has nine very commonplace children, and his wife is very difficult socially.
She insists on filling some sort of a commercial position, although he says her place is in the home.
So they have grown apart. People don't invite her places. Only him.
Oh! to be understood!
# Harper's Magazine/Michel and Angele

Extracted from Harper's magazine, where it was published in two parts: October & November 1900: pp. 685-699 & 895-922. Accompanying illustrations by F. de Myrbach omitted. The novella was modified (possibly expanded) and published in book form in 1904.
MICHEL AND ANGÈLE<
A STORY OF HUGUENOT EXILES
By GILBERT PARKER
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
Part II
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
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 1932, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 91 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
# Holmes v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 710
Holmes v. California
Holmes, pro se.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen. of California, and William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District.
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
# Holmes v. California/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 710
Holmes v. California
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814.
Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 358. 360, 83 S.Ct. 817, 818.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 624
Holmes v. Conway
Argued: May 1, 1916. --- Decided: June 12, 1916
Messrs. leonard S. Ferry, Thomas F. Doran, and John S. Dean for plaintiff in error.
No counsel appeared for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 625 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McReynolds 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
# Holmberg v. Armbrecht

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 392
Holmberg v. Armbrecht
Argued: Feb. 1, 1946. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1946
Mr.Clarence Fried, of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. Edgar M. Souza, of New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Holmes v. Comegys

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
COMMON PLEAS, Philadelphia
County:
HOLMES versus COMEGYS.
T
Levy, objected to the admission of the witness ; and contended, that he ought not to be allowed, or, at least compelled, to give evidence of matters confidentially communicated to him as an agent ; and that the Court had then no power over him as a witness, because he had not been subpœna'd to attend.
But by SHIPPEN, President:– It would be of very dangerous consequence, if it was establifhed, that a commercial agent was not amendable as a witness in a Court of Justice, in a cause against his constituent. It is straining the matter of privilege too far: and the law makes him a witness, we are too fond of getting at the truth, to permit him to excuse himself from declaring it, because he conceives, that, in point of delicacy, it would be a breach of conscience .
by the court :–Let the witness be affirmed.
# Holmes v. Goldsmith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
147 U.S. 150
Holmes v. Goldsmith
This was an action brought by L. Goldsmith and Max Goldsmith, doing business as partners under the name of L. Goldsmith & Co., citizens of the state of New York, against M. B. Holmes, John Dillard, and R. Phipps, citizens of the state of Oregon, as makers of a promissory note, in the words and figures following:
'$10,000. Portland, Oregon, Aug. 9, 1886. Six months after date, without grace, we, or eithr of us, promise to pay to the order of W. F. Owens ten thousand dollars, for value received, with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent. per annum until paid, principal and interest payable in U.S. gold coin, at the First National Bank of Portland, Oregon; and in case suit is instituted to collect this note, or any portion thereof, we promise to pay such additional sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees in said suit. M. B. Holmes. John Dillard. R. Phipps.'
On the day of its date, W. F. Owens indorsed the note, waived, in writing, demand, notice, and protest, delivered the note, so indorsed, to the agent of the plaintiffs, and received the sum of $10,000.
The complaint alleged that the transaction was a loan by plaintiffs to W. F. Owens; that the defendants executed the note for the accommodation of Owens, to enable him to procure the loan thereon; and that Owens was in fact a maker of said note to the plaintiffs, and never himself had any cause of action thereon against the defendants.
To this complaint the defendants demurred on the ground that it did not bring the case within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Upon argument this demurrer was overruled. 36 Fed. Rep. 484.
The defendants answered, denying the execution of the note and knowledge of the other facts alleged in the complaint. At the trial a verdict was given in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount of the note, with interest from date; and on June 19, 1889, judgment was entered on the verdict, in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, for the amount of the note, with interest, and with costs and disbursements.
A writ of error was duly sued out and allowed, and the case brought into this court for review.
J. H. Mitchell, for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 152-156 intentionally omitted]
L. B. Cox, for defendants in error.
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
# Homer v. Collector/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
68 U.S. 486
Homer v. Collector
The argument is, that almonds are dried fruit, and hence are provided for in the second section of the act of 1857; and evidence was offered on the trial to show that such was the commercial sense of the term. But this inquiry had nothing to do with the question, and, indeed, it is difficult to see how any such inquiry could take place except as matter of curiosity and speculation; for, certainly, such proof could not exist or be found in the sense of commercial usage under any of the tariff acts, as a duty has been imposed on almonds, eo nomine, almost immemorially, at least since the duty act of 1804, and continued in the duty act of 1816, 1832, 1842, 1846. The article, as we have seen, is charged specifically with a duty of 40 p. c. ad valorem in the act of 1846, and is not named in the changes in the act of 1857. Full effect can be given to the term 'fruit,' 'dried,' without the very forced construction to bring within it the article in question. Direction to the court below that almonds are subject to duty of 30 p. c. ad valorem. The other questions certified need not be answered.
DIRECTION ACCORDINGLY.

## 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
# Homer v. Brown

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
57 U.S. 354
Homer v. Brown

## 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
# Homes of the London Poor

* related portals: London, Housing.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
No. 8.
State Charities Aid Association
52 East 20th Street.
Homes of the London Poor
BY
MISS OCTAVIA HILL.
Reprinted from the “Fortnightly Review” and “Macmillan’s Magazine,” by Permission of the Author
Price, 25 Cents.
TO BE OBTAINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATION.
NEW YORK. 1875.
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
# High Flight

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings. Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds—and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of—wheeled and soared and swung. High in the sunlit silence, hov'ring there I've chased the shouting winds along and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air. Up, up the long delirious burning blue I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace Where never lark, or even eagle flew And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand and touched the face of God.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) between 1929 and 1977 (inclusive) without a copyright notice.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1941, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 82 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
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) before 1964, and copyright was not renewed.
* For Class A renewal records (books only) published between 1923 and 1963, check the Stanford University Copyright Renewal Database.
* For other renewal records of publications between 1922–1950, see the University of Pennsylvania copyright records.
* For all records since 1978, search the U.S. Copyright Office records.
Works published in 1941 could have had their copyright renewed in 1968 or 1969, i.e. between January 1st of the 27th year after publication or registration and December 31st of the 28th year. As this work's copyright was not renewed, it entered the public domain on January 1st, 1970.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1941, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 82 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.
It is imperative that contributors ascertain that there is no evidence of a copyright renewal before using this license. Failure to do so will result in the deletion of the work as a copyright violation.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# High and Low

The grasses green of sweet content That spring, no matter high or low, Where’er a living thing can grow, On chilly hills and rocky rent, And by the lowly streamlet’s side Oh! why did e’er I turn from these? The lordly, tall, umbrageous trees, That stand in high aspiring pride, With massive bulk on high sustain A world of boughs with leaf and fruits, And drive their wide-extending roots Deep down into the subject plain. Oh, what with these had I to do? That germs of things above their kind May live, pent up and close confined In humbler forms, it may be true; Yet great is that which gives our lot; High laws and powers our will transcend, And not for this, till time do end, Shall any be what he is not. Each in its place, as each was sent, Just nature ranges side by side; Alike the oak tree’s lofty pride And grasses green of sweet content.
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
# High from the earth I heard a bird

High from the earth I heard a bird, He trod upon the trees As he esteemed them trifles, And then he spied a breeze, And situated softly Upon a pile of wind Which in a perturbation Nature had left behind. A joyous going fellow I gathered from his talk Which both of benediction And badinage partook. Without apparent burden I subsequently learned He was the faithful father Of a dependent brood. And this untoward transport His remedy for care. A contrast to our respites. How different we are!
# High v. Coyne

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 111
High v. Coyne
Argued: December 5, 6, 7, 1899. --- Decided: May 14, 1900
The complainants, who are appellants here, filed their bill to enjoin the executrix of their father's estate from paying the legacy taxes levied by §§ 29 and 30 of the war revenue act of 1898. The collector of internal revenue was also made a defendant, and an injunction was asked against him to prevent his collecting or attempting to collect the taxes in question, which, it was asserted, he was about to enforce against the executrix, who, it was averred, would pay unless by the writ of injunction she was forbidden to do so. As heirs of their father and as beneficiaries of his estate, the complainants asserted they were entitled to prevent the executrix from making payment of taxes which were unconstitutional and hence void. The reasons relied on to show that the taxing law was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States were that the taxes were direct, and not apportioned, were not uniform, and were levied on objects beyond the scope of the authority of Congress. The bill was demurred to as not stating ground for relief. The demurrers were sustained, and from a decree dismissing the suit this appeal is prosecuted.
Messrs. A. M. Pence, John G. Carlisle, Peter B. Olney, William Edmond Curtis, Henry M. Ward, Ward B. Chamberlin, George F. Chamberlin, Julien T. Davies, Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., E. S. Mansfield, W. S. B. Hopkins, Thomas B. Reed, Thomas Thacher, Wheeler H. Peckham, Charles H. Otis, Richard C. Dale, Samuel Dickson, John C. Bullitt, George A. Carpenter, and Shirley T. High for appellants.
Solicitor General Richards for appellees.
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
# Horlock v. Oglesby

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 718
Horlock v. Oglesby et ux.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Indiana
No. 1217. Argued: N/A --- Decided: April 22, 1968
— Ind. —, 231 N.E. 2d 810, appeal dismissed.
John D. Clouse for appellant.
Theodore Lockyear for appellees.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 718
Horlock v. Oglesby
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

## 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
# Horback v. Porter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 549
Horback v. Porter
Mr. Justice MILLER 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
# Horback v. Porter/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 549
Horback v. Porter
In these two cases the facts are the same, and the questions suggested by the records are exclusively questions of fact.
It is charged in the bill that Horbach, one of the defendants, having sold the land which is the subject of the controversy, and received the consideration for it, afterwards caused the equitable title under which he then claimed to be set aside by the secretary of the interior, and procured a patent to himself for the land thus sold; and that he then conveyed the land to Wiggins, his codefendant in these suits.
The plaintiffs are purchasers from Horbach's first vendee, and charge that Wiggins purchased with notice of their rights.
We are of opinion that the evidence sustains the allegations of the bill, although the answer of Wiggins denies them.
It is made pretty clear by the testimony that the charges against Horbach are true; and although it is not shown that Wiggins had any participation in this fraud, or that he had actual knowledge of the rights of plaintiffs when he purchased from Horbach, and received the legal title, a case of constructive notice of those rights is well made out.
The plaintiffs in both cases were in possession of the land, having it inclosed by fence and in actual cultivation at the time Wiggins bought of Horbach. This was sufficient to put him upon the inquiry, and if he had inquired he would have received full information of the superior equitable claims of complainants.
The plaintiffs, in accordance with these views, had decrees for conveyance of the legal title in the district court in which the cases were first tried, and these decrees were affirmed on appeal by the supreme court of the territory of Nebraska. On a simple matter of conflict of testimony like this, in which we are able to concur fully with the judgments of two courts which have already passed upon the same record, we do not deem it necessary to give any minute criticism upon the testimony on which these decrees are founded.
They are therefore affirmed, with costs.
J. J. Reddick, for appellants.
J. M. Carlisle and James M. Woolworth, for appellees.

## 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
# Hormel v. Helvering

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
312 U.S. 552
Hormel v. Helvering
Argued: March 3, 1941. --- Decided: March 17, 1941
George M. Wolfson, of New York City, and R. C. Alderson, of Austin, Minn., for petitioner.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen'l, for respondent.
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