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
United States (United States) 16 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 16 0 Browse Search
Drumwright 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
Breckinridge 10 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: December 1, 1860., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 36 total hits in 16 results.

1 2
United States (United States) (search for this): article 1
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 morning, to prepare my reply at once; and to state more succinctly than I would otherwise have done, my reasons for the conclusions to which I have time. 1st. Whether ided 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 in an election for Electors for President and Vice President of the United States, the said officer." (the Conductor,) "shall receive from each voter a paper or ticket containing the names of as many persons for Electors as the State may be entitled to, for the time being. The name of the voter shall be written on the bac
Viva (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): article 1
s prescribed to protect it should not be made instruments to defeat it, and where there is legal evidence that it has been exercised in a particular mode, it will not be defeated, because all the evidence possible has not been furnished to prove it. In the case stated in your question, the Commissioners certify, that a certain number of votes were cast for the Electors — that a portion of them were cast without tickets. Still they were cast; and so the Commissioners certify. How cast? Viva voce, it is to be presumed; and the evidence of the fact must have been furnished by the record on the poll books, from which the Commissioners are required by law to make their return. Why, then, should the votes be rejected? Not because they were not given, for the Commissioners certify they were; nor because there was no legal evidence of it, for we must presume from the certificates the legal evidence was on the poll book. The only reason for rejection must be, because there were no ti
Loudoun (Virginia, United States) (search for this): article 1
the voter could have had an opportunity to secure his right by procuring the ticket. But when he receives and records the vote without a ticket being furnished, is it just to the voter, when the day is passed for the exercise of his right — which he supposed he had exercised — to defeat it for the want of a ticket, not made essential at the time? I am, therefore, of opinion that the votes should be received referred to in your first question. A case somewhat similar, from Loudon county, I was telegraphed to express an opinion upon to the Commissioners at the late election. In that case tickets were furnished; but, though the names of the voters were recorded, no mark was put under the Electors voted for, whose names, however, were on the tickets. In that case the evidence by tickets was complete — that by the poll book was wanting. I decided the votes were good, upon the legal evidence furnished by the tickets. The votes were not bad because though one proof wa<
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
James Stiles (search for this): article 1
icate warrants. The law declares: Sec. 40. "From the returns so made out, and transmitted to him, the Governor shall ascertain what persons are elected, and make proclamation of the fact. " This law shuts up the Governor to the returns, and he cannot go beyond the returns, so made out, to presume a mistake in them, to help what all may really believe was the purpose of the voter. For example, a certificate states that John Stiles received so many votes. The Governor knows James Stiles was a candidate, while no one ever heard that John Stiles was. But non constat the voter may have intended to vote for John Stiles. Who can take the liberty, after the poll is closed and certified by the proper officer, of changing it — of making the voter vote for a man he did not vote for, upon a presumption that he must have so intended? Upon this view I think the votes certified must be counted only for the person whose name is recorded as having received them. If it be sai
W. H. Anthony (search for this): article 1
and the residue cast 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 L
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.
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
John Stiles (search for this): article 1
eturns, so made out, to presume a mistake in them, to help what all may really believe was the purpose of the voter. For example, a certificate states that John Stiles received so many votes. The Governor knows James Stiles was a candidate, while no one ever heard that John Stiles was. But non constat the voter may have intenJohn Stiles was. But non constat the voter may have intended to vote for John Stiles. Who can take the liberty, after the poll is closed and certified by the proper officer, of changing it — of making the voter vote for a man he did not vote for, upon a presumption that he must have so intended? Upon this view I think the votes certified must be counted only for the person whose naJohn Stiles. Who can take the liberty, after the poll is closed and certified by the proper officer, of changing it — of making the voter vote for a man he did not vote for, upon a presumption that he must have so intended? Upon this view I think the votes certified must be counted 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 eithe
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
1 2