OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 124

Chap. CXXIV.—An Act for transferring the claims in the office of the commissioner to the third auditor of the Treasury Department.
All claims under the act authorizing payment of property lost, &c. not finally acted on &c., transferred to the office of the third auditor. Act of 1816, ch. 40. Act of 1817, ch. 110. The third auditor to be governed by the same rules, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all claims under the act, entitled “An act to authorize the payment of property lost, captured, or destroyed by the enemy, while in the military service of the United States, and for other purposes,” passed on the ninth of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, and the act in amendment thereof, passed the third of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, now remaining in the office of the commissioner of claims, and not acted on finally by said commissioner before the ninth of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, be, and the same are hereby, transferred to the office of the third auditor of the Treasury Department; and the said third auditor, in all adjudications upon the claims aforesaid, shall be governed, in all respects, by the same rules, regulations, and restrictions, as have heretofore been prescribed to the commissioner of claims under the above-recited acts.
500 dolls. for performing the duties under this act.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the third auditor aforesaid, for performing the duties hereby required by him, shall be allowed and paid the sum of five hundred dollars, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, April 20, 1818.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 16

Chap. XVI.—An Act supplementary to the act, entitled “An act further extending the time for issuing and locating military land warrants, and for other purposes.[”]
Act of April 16, 1816, ch. 49. Time for issuing military land warrants extended. Act of Feb. 24, 1819, ch. 41. Time for locating unlocated warrants extended.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the time limited by the act, passed on the sixteenth of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, ​and to which this is a supplement, for issuing military land warrants, shall be extended to the first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen; and the time, limited by the said act, for the location of unlocated military land warrants, shall be extended to the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
Approved, March 9, 1818.
# United States v. Johnson (319 U.S. 302)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 302
United States v. Johnson (319 U.S. 302)
Argued: May 11, 12, 1943. --- Decided: May 24, 1943
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Indiana.
Mr. Paul A. Freund, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Vernon M. Welsh, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
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
# United States v. Johnson (319 U.S. 503)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 503
United States v. Johnson (319 U.S. 503)
Argued: and Submitted Oct. 12, 1942. --- Decided: June 7, 1943
See 320 U.S. --, 64 S.Ct. 25, 88 L.Ed. --.
[Syllabus from pages 503-505 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Floyd E. Thompson, of Chicago, Ill., and William J. Dempsey, of Washington, D.C., for respondent Johnson.
Messrs. Harold R. Schradzke and Edward J. Hess, both of Chicago, Ill., for respondents Sommers and others.
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
# United States v. Johnson (327 U.S. 106)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 106
United States v. Johnson (327 U.S. 106)
Argued: Jan. 2, 1946. --- Decided: Feb 4, 1946
See 327 U.S. 817, 66 S.Ct. 699.
Mr.Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Homer Cummings, of Washington, D.C., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from page 107 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Johnson (323 U.S. 273)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Murphy

## Dissenting Opinion

    Reed
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 273
UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON et al.
Argued: Nov. 8, 1944. --- Decided: Dec 18, 1944
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware.
Mr. W. Marvin Smith, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. H. Albert Young, of Wilmington, Del., for appellees.
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
# United States v. Johnson (323 U.S. 273)/Concurrence Murphy

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Murphy
* Dissenting Opinion Reed
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 273
UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON et al.
Argued: Nov. 8, 1944. --- Decided: Dec 18, 1944
Mr. Justice MURPHY, concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Court and believe that the judgment should be affirmed.
Congress has the constitutional power to fix venue at any place where a crime occurs. Our problem here is to determine, in the absence of a specific venue provision, where the crime outlawed by the Federal Denture Act occurred for purposes of venue.
The Act prohibits the use of the mails for the purpose of sending or bringing into any state certain prohibited articles. It is undisputed that when a defendant places a prohibited article in the mails in Illinois for the purpose of sending it into Delaware he has completed a statutory offense. Hence he is triable in Illinois. But to hold that the statutory crime also encompasses the receipt of the prohibited article in Delaware, justifying a trial at that point, requires an implication that I am unwilling to make in the absence of more explicit Congressional language.
Very often the difference between liberty and imprisonment in cases where the direct evidence offered by the government and the defendant is evenly balanced depends upon the presence of character witnesses. The defendant is more likely to obtain their presence in the district of his residence, which in this instance is usually the place where the prohibited article is mailed. The inconvenience, expense and loss of time involved in transplanting these witnesses to testify in trials far removed from their homes are often too great to warrant their use. Moreover, they are likely to lose much of their effectiveness before a distant jury that knows nothing of their reputations. Such factors make it difficult for me to conclude, where Congress has not said so specifically, that we should construe the Federal Denture Act as covering more than the first sufficient and punishable use of the mails insofar as the sender of a prohibited article is concerned. The principle of narrow construction of criminal statutes does not warrant interpreting the 'use' of the mails to cover all possible uses in light of the foregoing considerations.

## 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. Nugent

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 1
United States v. Nugent
Argued: May 1 and 4, 1953. --- Decided: June 8, 1953
For purposes of Selective Service Act subsection entitling claimant denied classification as conscientious objector by local draft board to further review by an appropriate appeal board and requiring appeal board to refer claim to Department of Justice for inquiry and 'hearing', quoted word would take its meaning from an analysis of precise function which Congress had imposed upon Justice Department by subsection. Selective Service Act of 1948, §§ 6(j), 12, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 456(j), 462.

## 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. Nourse (34 U.S. 8)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
34 U.S. 8
United States v. Nourse

## 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. Noveck (273 U.S. 202)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 202
United States v. Noveck
Argued: Jan. 5, 1927. --- Decided: Jan 24, 1927
The Attorney General and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Ben A. Matthews, of New York City, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 203 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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. Nugent/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 1
United States v. Nugent
Argued: May 1 and 4, 1953. --- Decided: June 8, 1953
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
I concur in Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER'S opinion and only add a word. The use of statements by informers who need not confront the person under investigation or accusation has such an infamous history that it should be rooted out from our procedure. A hearing at which these faceless people are allowed to present their whispered rumors and yet escape the test and torture of cross-examination is not a hearing in the Anglo-American sense. We should be done with the practice-whether the life of a man is at stake, or his reputation, or any matter touching upon his status or his rights. If FBI reports are disclosed in administrative or judicial proceedings, it may be that valuable underground sources will dry up. But that is not the choice. If the aim is to protect the underground of informers, the FBI report need not be used. If it is used, then fairness requires that the names of the accusers be disclosed. Without the identity of the informer the person investigated or accused stands helpless. The prejudices, the credibility, the passions, the perjury of the informer are never known. If they were exposed, the whole charge might without under the cross-examination.

## 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. Nunnally Investment Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
316 U.S. 258
United States v. Nunnally Investment Company
Argued: March 10, 11, 1942. --- Decided: May 11, 1942
Mr. Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Wm. A. Sutherland, of Washington, D.C., 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
# United States v. Noveck (271 U.S. 201)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 201
United States v. Noveck
Argued: Jan. 25, 1926. --- Decided: May 10, 1926
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for the United States.
Mr. Ben A. Matthews, of New York City, for defendant in error.
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
# United States v. Noveck

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Noveck."
* 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. Noveck (271 U.S. 201)
* United States v. Noveck (273 U.S. 202)
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 228

Chap. CCXXVIII.—An Act to provide for the extinguishment of the Indian title to lands lying in the states of Missouri and Illinois, and for other purposes.
Appropriation for extinguishment of Indian title to lands in Missouri and Illinois.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of forty-six thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated, to be applied, under the direction of the President, to the extinguishment of the title of the Kickapoos, Shawanees, and Delawares, of Cape Girardeau, to lands lying in the state of Missouri; and of the Piankeshaws, Weas, Peorias, and Kaskaskias, to lands lying in the state of Illinois; and, for the purpose of defraying all the expenses of treating with, removing, and subsisting, said Indians for one year;Annuity to the Shawnees, &c. for an additional compensation to the Shawnee Indians for their reservation at Wapaughkonitta, in Ohio, an annuity of two thousand dollars per annum, for fifteen years; and, also, the sum of three thousand dollars to defray the expenses of procuring the assent of the Menominee Indians, to the treaty between them and the United States, which was provisionally ratified during the present session of Congress.
Legal representatives of John and James Pettigrew.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed to pay to the legal representatives of John Pettigrew and James Pettigrew, the sum of nine thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, with interest, at the rate of six per centum, from the month of June, in the year seventeen hundred and ninety-four, until the time of payment.
Legatees of A. McKnight.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed to pay to the legatees of Alexander McKnight the sum of two thousand one hundred and twenty dollars, with interest, at the rate of six per centum, from the month of June, in the year seventeen hundred and ninety-four, until the time of payment.
To be paid from the treasury.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That said sums be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 229

Chap. CCXXIX.—An Act for the erection of barracks, quarters, and store-houses, and the purchase of a site, in the vicinity of New Orleans.
Appropriation.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of one hundred and twelve thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the ​Treasury not otherwise appropriated, be, and the same is hereby appropriated for the erection of barracks, quarters, and store-houses, and the purchase of a site, in the vicinity of New Orleans, for a garrison of four companies of United States’ troops.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 237

Chap. CCXXXVII.—An Act to amend the act, entitled “An act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the army of the revolution.”
Third section of May 15, 1828, ch. 53, not to embrace invalid pensioners, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the third section of the act, entitled “An act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the army of the revolution,” approved the fifteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, shall not be construed to embrace invalid pensioners; and that the pension of invalid soldiers shall not be deducted from the amount receivable by them under the said act.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 238

Chap. CCXXXVIII.—An Act repealing part of the fifth section of an act, entitled “An act to establish ports of delivery at Port Pontchartrain and Delaware city, and for other purposes.”
Act of March 3, 1831, ch. 76, repealed. Office of surveyor discontinued.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the fifth section of an act, entitled “An act to establish ports of delivery at Port Pontchartrain and Delaware city, and for other purposes,” approved March second, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, provides for the appointment of a surveyor to reside at Prospect, in the district of Belfast, in the state of Maine, be, and the [same] is hereby repealed.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 232

Chap. CCXXXII.—An Act to provide for the taking of certain observations preparatory to the adjustment of the northern boundary line of the state of Ohio.
Observations to be made preparatory to the adjustment of the boundary line of Ohio.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States cause to be ascertained, by accurate observation, the latitude and longitude of the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan; and that he cause to be ascertained, by like observation, the point on the Miami of the Lake which is due east therefrom, and also, the latitude and longitude of the most northerly cape of the Miami bay; also, that he cause to be ascertained, with all practicable accuracy, the latitude and longitude of the most southerly points in the northern boundary line of the United States in Lake Erie; and also, the points at which a direct line drawn from the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan, to the most southerly point in said northern boundary line of the United States, will intersect the Miami river and bay; and also, that he cause to be ascertained by like observation, the point in the Mississippi which is due west from the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan;Result to be returned within one year. and that the said observations be made, and the result thereof returned, to the proper department within the current year.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 233

Chap. CCXXXIII.—An Act to amend the act entitled “An act to provide for mitigating or remitting the forfeitures, penalties, and disabilities accruing in certain cases therein mentioned.”
Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe rules.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of fine, penalty, or forfeiture, mentioned and embraced in the act entitled ​“An act to provide for mitigating or remitting the forfeitures, penalties, and disabilities, accruing in certain cases therein mentioned,” or in any act in addition to, or amendatory of said act, and not exceeding fifty dollars in amount, or value, the Secretary of the Treasury, be, and he hereby ​is authorized, if in his opinion the said fine, penalty, or forfeiture was incurred without wilful negligence or intention of fraud, to prescribe such rules and mode of proceeding, to ascertain the facts, as in his opinion may be convenient and proper, without regard to the provisions of the act above referred to;Secretary to exercise power conferred by said act, &c. and upon the said facts, so to be ascertained as aforesaid, the said secretary may exercise all the power conferred upon him in and by said act, as fully as he might have done had said facts been ascertained under and according to the provisions of said act.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 234

Chap. CCXXXIV.—An Act further to provide for the relief of distressed American seamen in foreign countries.
Appropriation for distribution among the owners, officers, and crew of the Spanish brig Leon.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of three thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the fund for the relief of distressed American seamen; and that the said amount be distributed among the owners, officers, and crew of the Spanish brig Leon, in such proportion as shall be directed by the President of the United States, for services rendered and losses incurred, in saving and transporting to the island of Cuba the officers and crew of the American ship Minerva, wrecked and burnt on the Bahama bank.
Approved, July 14, 1832.