OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# City of Chicago v. Willett Company/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 574
CITY OF CHICAGO v. WILLETT CO.
Argued: Feb. 9, 1953. --- Decided: Feb 9, 1953
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
If a carrier had two trucks, one engaged exclusively in intrastate commerce and the other engaged exclusively in interstate commerce, I think this tax could not constitutionally be levied on the latter. Like the tax in Sprout v. City of South Bend, 277 U.S. 163, 170, 48 S.Ct. 502, 504, 72 L.Ed. 833, it is not designed 'as a measure of the cost or value of the use of the highways.' As the Supreme Court of Illinois said, it is an occupational tax. 406 Ill. 286, 290, 94 N.E.2d 195. It therefore could not be exacted for the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce. Sprout v. City of South Bend, supra, 277 U.S. at page 171, 48 S.Ct. at page 504, 72 L.Ed. 833; Spector Motor Service v. O'Connor, 340 U.S. 602, 71 S.Ct. 508, 95 L.Ed. 573.
The incidence of the tax in the present case is no different. It is a flat fee per truck. Respondent does not segregate its intrastate from its interstate business; nor is it possible for it to do so; nor could respondent continue in business if there were a segregation. 406 Ill. 286, 291-293, 94 N.E.2d 195. One truck often makes both intrastate and interstate deliveries. The interstate business, by increasing the number of trucks operated by respondent, therefore increases the amount of the tax. That for me is enough to establish an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. This case therefore is not controlled by Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Tax Comm., 297 U.S. 403, 414, 56 S.Ct. 522, 525, 80 L.Ed. 760, where the interstate business did not increase the amount of the tax.
The burden on commerce is as great whether the tax on the interstate carrier is imposed by the state of its incorporation or by another state. That is implicit in Sprout v. South Bend, supra, a case which it seems to me is faithful to the constitutional scheme.

## 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
# City of Chicago v. Willett Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 574
CITY OF CHICAGO v. WILLETT CO.
Argued: Feb. 9, 1953. --- Decided: Feb 9, 1953
Mr. Arthur Magid, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles Dana Snewind, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
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
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Meuser Speech

​Mr. Meuser. Madam Speaker, a day that was intended to debate the importance of election integrity and the rule of law tragically became a day that will be a black mark in our Nation’s history. Nevertheless, the work of this House must go on, as America will go on.
We must all sincerely thank the Capitol Police and Metro Police for their selfless actions today, putting their safety and lives on the line to protect this House. The lawlessness and violence of today must be condemned, just as all violent protests must be condemned.
Nevertheless, the fact remains, a large number of Pennsylvanians are enormously frustrated with actions taken by elected and appointed officials in Pennsylvania, which have led to a high level of distrust for this past election.
We have the United States Constitution, which is the reason we have been and will continue to be a great country and a country of laws.
The U.S. Constitution is unambiguous, Madam Speaker, in declaring that State legislatures are the entity with the authority to set election procedures and to enact any changes to election law. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states: “The times, places, and manner of holding elections … shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.”
The authority of election procedures lies with the State legislature, period.
In Pennsylvania, this authority was indisputably usurped by the Pennsylvania Governor’s office, by the Pennsylvania secretary of state, and by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
These unlawful actions include, but are not limited to, accepting ballots past 8 p.m. on election day; inconsistent application of verified signature requirements for in-person ballots versus mail-in ballots; authorizing the curing of mail-in ballots with less than 24 hours’ notice, leading to inconsistent preparedness between counties; and authorizing the use of unsecured drop boxes, which is not permitted in statute.
If such unlawful actions are to be accepted, what do we have to look forward to next year? The Pennsylvania secretary of state allowing online voting because it may be raining in Philadelphia? It was a free-for-all.
Madam Speaker, it was back in 2005 when then-Minority Leader Pelosi, while leading 31 Democrats as they objected to the Presidential elector certification, as they did in the last three Presidential elections when a Republican won, stated quite well, actually:
The Members of Congress have brought this challenge and are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom have been disenfranchised in this process. This is their only opportunity to have this debate while the country is listening, and it is appropriate to do so.
Thank you for those words, Madam Speaker. They were appropriate then, as they are now.
If there is an American ideal that all citizens, regardless of party affiliation, can agree upon, it is that we must have election integrity. We should not certify these electors, which were derived by unlawful actions and a result of inaccurate vote tallies.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Posey Speech

​Mr. Posey. Madam Speaker, as you have heard from both sides of the aisle over and over and over today and tonight, Members of Congress take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Clearly, the Constitution says State legislatures make voting laws, period, end of subject. And, clearly, in Pennsylvania and some other States, non-legislators changed those voting laws.
No matter who wins or who loses, those are violations of the Constitution whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not.
As Congressman Davidson pointed out, over a dozen FBI agents were immediately dispatched to fully investigate Bubba Wallace’s garage door. But, sadly, the FBI never responded to my request to investigate massive voting irregularity accusations, like the video footage from Georgia that we all wished we didn’t see.
Neither has the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Postal Inspector General, the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and, saddest of all, the U.S. Department of Justice.
The right to vote is not only a constitutional right, it is also a civil right, and we must protect it. Running a fair and transparent election is not something America should run away from. It is something we must live up to.
Every eligible American has a right to have their vote counted and the right to feel confident that his or her vote was counted, not neutralized by an illegal vote.
□ 0220
Otherwise, I fear our Republic is doomed. That is why I implore you to support a full investigation.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Schiff Speech

​Mr. Schiff. Madam Speaker, 80 years ago today, Franklin Roosevelt delivered his third inaugural address. “Every realist knows,” he said, “that the democratic way of life at this moment is being directly assailed in every part of the world—assailed either by arms, or by the secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who would seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations still at peace.”
Today, the principal threat to our democracy comes from a different but also poisonous propaganda of those who seek to destroy our unity and promote discord.
According to this propaganda, America cannot conduct a free or fair election. Our elections are rigged and doomed.
According to this propaganda, the voters can no longer decide who shall be President. The Congress must decide for them.
At a time when our Nation faces an unprecedented health crisis, with thousands dying every day, with Americans struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head, who are we to say that the man America chose to lead us out of this calamity shall not take office?
The coronavirus will claim more American lives than all of the casualties in World War II. To meet that moment will require unity, not discord; will require an abiding faith in our country, in our democracy, in our government’s ability to function and provide for the needs of its citizens.
The Members of this body cannot continue to challenge the merits of an election that was fairly conducted and overwhelmingly won by Joe Biden. It must stop.
Look at the damage that was wrought in this House today, to this country today. Is that not enough?
Roosevelt said: “This Nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women. … Our strength,” he concluded “is our unity of purpose.”
Let us unite once again in defense of the greatest hope of freedom-loving people around the world, this precious democracy.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Norman Speech

​Mr. Norman. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the foundation of our democracy, the Constitution of the United States of America. This document is the fabric and the solid foundation of a nation we call America, which has been a beacon of hope and a shining city on the hill for over 230 years.
The words of our Constitution, as spelled out in Article II, Section 1, are very clear when it comes to our elections: mandating, not suggesting, not implying, but mandating that State legislatures, not secretaries of State, not State commissions, not county officials, not Governors, but State legislators prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding elections.
This mandate was not followed in the great State of Pennsylvania. If we allow this fraud to go on—in a football analogy, the moving of the goalpost after the ball has been kicked and in the air—the preview of coming attractions will be future elections that do not adhere to honest and open voting by “We the People” and the loss of our great Republic.
As a lady told me not long ago, don’t spit in my face and tell me it is raining. This is exactly what has happened to the American people in this election. In the words of Winston Churchill, when Great Britain was under siege by Germany, he said: There will be a ​time when doing your best is not good enough. We must do what is required.
And we must do what is required to save this great Republic.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Raskin Speech

​Mr. Raskin. Madam Speaker, the baseless attack on Pennsylvania and its electors brought to mind, for me, the great Tom Paine, the champion of popular democracy, who came over to America to fight with us in the Revolution against the king. He lived in Philadelphia, where he wrote “Common Sense” and “The Age of Reason.” And Paine said: In the monarchies, the king is the law; but in the democracies, the law will be king.
When you think about it, the peaceful transfer of power is the central condition of maintaining democracy under the rule of law. That is why the famous election of 1801 was such a big deal.
When John Adams relinquished the Presidency to his passionate adversary and lifelong friend Thomas Jefferson, it was the first peaceful transition of power between democracies in a democratic republic in the history of the world.
And he said, as he rode back to Massachusetts from Washington, Adams said that he did this because we are a government of laws and not of men. We will betray this principle if we trade a government of laws for a government of men or, even worse, a single man, or an impressionable and dangerous mob ​intent on violent sedition and insurrection against our beloved democratic Republic.
Here is Abraham Lincoln right beforethe war. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I would answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must, ourselves, be its author and its finisher.
Madam Speaker, my family suffered an unspeakable trauma on New Year’s Eve a week ago. But mine was not the only family to suffer such terrible pain in 2020. Hundreds of thousands of families in America are still mourning their family members. Many families represented in the Congress are still mourning their family members who have been taken away from us by COVID–19, by the opioid crisis, by cancer, by gun violence, by the rising fatalities associated with the crisis in mental and emotional health.
Enough, my beloved colleagues. It is time for America to heal. It is time for our families and communities to come together. Let us stop pouring salt in the wounds of America for no reason at all. Let us start healing our beloved land and our wonderful people.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Lofgren Speech

​Ms. Lofgren. Madam Speaker, our duty today is significant but straightforward. We must count the votes of the electors as cast in the electoral college and announce the results.
As discussed, our roles and responsibilities are established by the Constitution and Federal law, and they are clear. The facts before us are also clear. Pennsylvania submitted one slate of electors, as chosen by the voters of the State. The slate was certified according to State law. Now those lawful results must be counted and announced.
Despite disinformation and any number of false claims that you may have heard, including here today, as former Attorney General Barr said: “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
This is not simply a conclusory statement. The results of the election have been litigated. The record is clear: The lawsuits challenging the election results failed. They failed because there is simply no evidence to support these baseless claims.
Now, it is one thing to tweet a belief, quite another to provide actual evidence. These cases failed because there is no evidence. Judges ruled in the lawsuits that the 2020 election was sound.
It should come as no surprise that Republican officeholders have recognized the election results as legitimate and accurately determined in an election that was conducted safely, securely, and with integrity.
We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As we near the end of the task before us, let’s remember the beginning of the Constitution. Before Article II and the 12th Amendment, which spell out the electoral college, and before Article I, which creates Congress, the Constitution begins with the preamble. The preamble is short and bold: “We the people.”
The people spoke in historic numbers. Their votes have been counted. Their choice is clear. It is time, as the law requires, to announce the state of the people’s vote.
The violence and disorder inflicted on our democracy by seditious rioters today is an indication of why adherence to our Constitution is so vital.
I urge all of us to stand up for law, for democracy, for our Constitution, and to stand up for America and reject this objection.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Neguse Speech

​Mr. Neguse. Madam Speaker, to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I will say this: I carry the same Constitution that you do. And the Constitution, sir, does not allow you, me, or any Member of this body to substitute our judgment for that of the American people. It does not allow us to disregard the will of the American people. Because under this Constitution, under our Constitution, Congress doesn’t choose the President. The American people do. And they have chosen in resounding numbers, as every single Member of this body well understands.
Madam Speaker, I have been at a loss to explain what happened today, but there is a statement that I found that largely summarized my thoughts on the matter.
“The scenes of mayhem unfolding at the seat of our Nation’s government” are a “sickening and heartbreaking sight. This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic, not our democratic Republic. I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election and by the lack of respect shown today for our institutions, our traditions, and our law enforcement. The violent assault on the Capitol, and the disruption of a constitutionally mandated meeting of Congress, was undertaken by people whose passions have been inflamed by falsehoods and false hopes. Insurrection could do grave damage to our Nation and our reputation.
“In the United States of America, it is the fundamental responsibility of every patriotic citizen to support the rule of law. To those who are disappointed in the results of the election: Our country is more important than the politics of the moment.”
□ 0030
Those are not my words. Those are the words of former Republican President George W. Bush.
To my colleagues, it is after midnight tonight. It has been a long day ​for our country, a long day for our Republic.
Let us dispense with this. Let’s do the right thing. Let’s honor our oath. Let’s certify the results, and let’s get back to the work of the American people.
# Close-in Lands of Adventure

Extracted from Adventure magazine, March 20 1925, p. 163. Incidentally, the issue also contained a letter from Spears regarding the “tragically incomplete and ineffective” Americanization. Find it on the Discussion page.
CLOSE-IN LANDS OF ADVENTURE
by Raymond S. Spears
PEOPLE who keep their gaze too much on the horizon often miss the things they would like most to see close at hand. It is so in seeking adventure, in traveling, in thinking too much in terms of thousands of miles. Often, just around the corner lies an unknown land, as strange as anything to be found on the far side of the continent.
Strange people live in the recesses of the Ramapo and Catskill Mountains in sight of New York City, and in the Adirondacks, the Green Mountains, the Alleghanies—the farthest lands of the continent have no more interesting conditions than within a day's automobile drive of Manhattan Island.
When the urge to wander far comes, and one has only a week's vacation or perhaps two weeks, it seems almost useless to try to crowd into so short a space of time the experience, travel, adventure for which one longs. But it should not be forgotten that the strange and unusual is within a day's run of any city, any community, in the United States. Out from Chicago lie the Lake Michigan marshes, the shell rivers, the sand dunes, the back countries of many river bottoms. Maine, New Hampshire, western Massachusetts, lie within a day of Boston. New York has from the Adirondacks to the wilds of eastern Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh has the feudlands, the dying struggles of the old Whisky Rebellion in the Alleghanies, Lake Erie, the Ohio shantyboaters, the big woods along the New York border. No city has a greater variety of back country than Pittsburgh.
St. Louis, with the Missouri, Mississippi, the Ozarks, has even fewer varieties than, for example Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We are accustomed to think of the great West as a land of varied interests. Life in Nevada is simpler, has fewer variations, than can be found within a day's run of Albany, New York.
Those who study their opportunities never lack for expediences!
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
# Close to Thee

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
* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
# Close v. Glenwood Cemetery

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
107 U.S. 466
Close v. Glenwood Cemetery
[Syllabus from pages 466-467 intentionally omitted]
Nathaniel Wilson and J. Hubley Ashton, for Close & Clendenin.
Cortlandt Parker and W. D. Davidge, for Borcherling.
T. W. Bartley, Jessup Miller, and Wm. F. Mattingly, for Cemetery.
GRAY, 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
# Conrad v. Griffey (52 U.S. 480)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 480
Conrad v. Griffey

## 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
# Conro v. Crane

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Conro v. Crane."
* 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.
* Conro v. Crane (94 U.S. 441)
* Conro v. Crane (110 U.S. 403)
# Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Gotha

Edition of 1921; disclaimer.
GOTHA (gō'tä), a town of Germany, alternately with Coburg the capital of the former duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 31 miles W. by S. of Weimar, on the N. outskirts of the Thuringian Forest. It is a handsome, well-built town, with fine parks. The principal public building is the castle of Friedenstein, built in 1643, 78 feet above the town; it contains a library of over 200,000 volumes and 6,000 MSS., and a very valuable numismatic collection. The museum (1878), in the Renaissance style, contains the picture gallery, in which Cranach, Van Eyck, Holbein, Rubens, and Rembrandt are represented; a very excellent cabinet of engravings; a natural history collection; collections of Egyptian, Roman, Greek and German antiquities; and a Japanese and Chinese museum. A new observatory was built in 1874. Gotha prior to the World War was an active industrial town, the principal manufactures being shoes, fire engine pipes, sugar and toys. Gotha sausages have a widespread celebrity. Several hundreds of designers, engravers, printers, and map-colorers were employed here in the geographical establishment of Justus Perthes, who also publishes the “Almanach de Gotha” (see Almanac). Pop. about 39,500.
# Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Green Mountain Boys

Edition of 1921; disclaimer.
​ GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS, a name applied to the male inhabitants of Vermont, from, the chief range of mountains in the State, and used especially in referring to regiments from Vermont in the Revolution and the Civil War.