hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 36 0 Browse Search
Lincoln 19 1 Browse Search
Drumwright 16 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 16 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 16 0 Browse Search
Garibaldi 14 0 Browse Search
Joseph Bell 14 0 Browse Search
November 30th 14 14 Browse Search
Baltimore, Md. (Maryland, United States) 12 0 Browse Search
Charles M. Bosher 10 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: December 1, 1860., [Electronic resource].

Found 957 total hits in 544 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
1857 AD (search for this): article 1
ersons entitled to suffrage may vote by ballot." This provision seems to settle the point as to the mode of casting a vote; it must be given openly or viva voce, and cannot be by ballot, except in the single case of a vote cast by a dumb person. It seems to me it would be incompetent for the Legislature to have required a vote to be cast by ballot, even had it attempted to do so. Nor, in my judgment, has the Legislature made such an attempt. Sec. 14 of chapter 20 of the acts of 1857-'8, provides that "under the superintendence and control of the Commissioners." polis should be open — that he should proclaim and see the votes recorded — appoint writers — have poll books prepared — and deliver to each writer the book he is to keep. The writer is required to write the names of voters in a column headed with the words "names of voters;" and opposite the name of the voter, a mark under the name of each person for whom viva voce." The section then proceeds as follows: "And i
John Letcher (search for this): article 1
al nominee. The circumstances which have led to the remarkable result are matters of such general interest that we publish this morning the interrogatories of Gov. Letcher relative to the questions affecting the result, addressed to Attorney General Tucker, and his response to the same. We also give, in another column, the officent, and not for the Electors, should be received and counted, not appearing whether there were tickets or not? Answer is desired by Monday morning next John Letcher. J. R. Tucker, Esq., Attorney General Richmond Nov. 24th, 1860. Sir --I have received your communication, propounding several questions in respection was held on the 6th of December, 1860, and in the conclusion the paper bears date the 10th of November, 1860, ought the poll to be rejected or admitted? John Letcher. J. R. Tucker, Esq., Attorney General. November 27, 1860. I am of opinion it should be admitted. It is an obvious mistake, and the presumption
November 10th, 1860 AD (search for this): article 1
spectfully, your obedient serv't. J. R.Tucker. Gov. Letcher. November 27, 1860. Where the caption of a return certifies that the election was held on the 6th of December, 1860, and in the conclusion the paper bears date the 10th of November, 1860, ought the poll to be rejected or admitted? John Letcher. J. R. Tucker, Esq., Attorney General. November 27, 1860. I am of opinion it should be admitted. It is an obvious mistake, and the presumption should be, the elecn obvious mistake, and the presumption should be, the election was held on the day required by law, unless the contrary appears.--The contrary does not appear — for it is impossible a return of an election should be made Nov. 10, 1860, held on Dec. 6, 1860, especially when we are considering the return before the day stated therein as the day of election. It is a mistake, and is as if the month was blank.--If it was blank, the legal inference would prevail. J. R. Tucker. For the Governor.
A. B. Smith (search for this): article 1
only for the person whose name is recorded as having received them. If it be said that some name was voted for which is borne by no person known to the Governor, still it does not follow that such a person does not exist. But if no such person does exist, then the vote is void. Where the initial of the middle name is not that of an Elector on either ticket usually voted for, the question is solved by asking, is the name voted for that of the name most like it on the ticket? Is-A. B. Smith, A. C. Smith? Can the latter claim a vote cast for the former? He can only do so by showing the voter meant to vote for him, and how can that be done now? I think such a vote cannot be counted, except for a man answering to the name designated; and not for one whose middle initial is different. I think, however, the addition of junior or senior is no part of the name, is different, and that the vote may be counted for a man who is a candidate who bears the name designated by t
Andrew (search for this): article 1
st with tickets. Ought these votes to be received or rejected? 2d. The initial of the middle name in the return of Electors by the Commissioners being erroneously given, thus, >"S" instead of "T," or the commission of junior or senior at the end of the name, as the case may be: Ought such return to be received and counted in favor of the particular Elector? 3d. In the case of the Christian name of the Elector being erroneously stated in the return — for example, Anthony instead of Andrew — should such returns be counted or excluded for the Elector? 4th. In the case of the sir-name of the Elector being erroneously stated in the return, should such return be counted or excluded for that Elector? 5th. Whether a poll opened in the name of the candidates for the President and Vice President, and not for the Electors, should be received and counted, not appearing whether there were tickets or not? Answer is desired by Monday morning next John Letcher. J. R. Tucke
J. R. Tucker (search for this): article 1
sh this morning the interrogatories of Gov. Letcher relative to the questions affecting the result, addressed to Attorney General Tucker, and his response to the same. We also give, in another column, the official vote uncertain according to the opunted, not appearing whether there were tickets or not? Answer is desired by Monday morning next John Letcher. J. R. Tucker, Esq., Attorney General Richmond Nov. 24th, 1860. Sir --I have received your communication, propounding onclusion the paper bears date the 10th of November, 1860, ought the poll to be rejected or admitted? John Letcher. J. R. Tucker, Esq., Attorney General. November 27, 1860. I am of opinion it should be admitted. It is an obvious mi 1860, especially when we are considering the return before the day stated therein as the day of election. It is a mistake, and is as if the month was blank.--If it was blank, the legal inference would prevail. J. R. Tucker. For the Governor.
December 6th, 1860 AD (search for this): article 1
ompels me to do so more hurriedly than I could have desired. I am, respectfully, your obedient serv't. J. R.Tucker. Gov. Letcher. November 27, 1860. Where the caption of a return certifies that the election was held on the 6th of December, 1860, and in the conclusion the paper bears date the 10th of November, 1860, ought the poll to be rejected or admitted? John Letcher. J. R. Tucker, Esq., Attorney General. November 27, 1860. I am of opinion it should be admitt obvious mistake, and the presumption should be, the election was held on the day required by law, unless the contrary appears.--The contrary does not appear — for it is impossible a return of an election should be made Nov. 10, 1860, held on Dec. 6, 1860, especially when we are considering the return before the day stated therein as the day of election. It is a mistake, and is as if the month was blank.--If it was blank, the legal inference would prevail. J. R. Tucker. For the Governor.
November 27th, 1860 AD (search for this): article 1
I have thus hastily stated my opinion upon the questions presented, and regret that a want of time compels me to do so more hurriedly than I could have desired. I am, respectfully, your obedient serv't. J. R.Tucker. Gov. Letcher. November 27, 1860. Where the caption of a return certifies that the election was held on the 6th of December, 1860, and in the conclusion the paper bears date the 10th of November, 1860, ought the poll to be rejected or admitted? John Letcher. J. R. Tucker, Esq., Attorney General. November 27, 1860. I am of opinion it should be admitted. It is an obvious mistake, and the presumption should be, the election was held on the day required by law, unless the contrary appears.--The contrary does not appear — for it is impossible a return of an election should be made Nov. 10, 1860, held on Dec. 6, 1860, especially when we are considering the return before the day stated therein as the day of election. It is a mistake, and is as i
A. C. Smith (search for this): article 1
person whose name is recorded as having received them. If it be said that some name was voted for which is borne by no person known to the Governor, still it does not follow that such a person does not exist. But if no such person does exist, then the vote is void. Where the initial of the middle name is not that of an Elector on either ticket usually voted for, the question is solved by asking, is the name voted for that of the name most like it on the ticket? Is-A. B. Smith, A. C. Smith? Can the latter claim a vote cast for the former? He can only do so by showing the voter meant to vote for him, and how can that be done now? I think such a vote cannot be counted, except for a man answering to the name designated; and not for one whose middle initial is different. I think, however, the addition of junior or senior is no part of the name, is different, and that the vote may be counted for a man who is a candidate who bears the name designated by the voter.
November 24th, 1860 AD (search for this): article 1
tcher relative to the questions affecting the result, addressed to Attorney General Tucker, and his response to the same. We also give, in another column, the official vote uncertain according to the opinion of the Attorney General: November 24, 1860 questions submitted by the Governor to the Attorney General, upon which he requests his opinion in writing: 1st Whether is it necessary to constitute a good voter that he should present a ticket and write his name on the back, d Vice President, and not for the Electors, should be received and counted, not appearing whether there were tickets or not? Answer is desired by Monday morning next John Letcher. J. R. Tucker, Esq., Attorney General Richmond Nov. 24th, 1860. Sir --I have received your communication, propounding several questions in respect to the electing of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States. I am compelled, by reason of your request for an answer by Monday mo
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...