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
William H. Russell 62 0 Browse Search
Charles Floyd 46 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 28 0 Browse Search
Bailey 25 21 Browse Search
Henry Clay 22 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 20 0 Browse Search
John L. Eubank 18 0 Browse Search
Luke Lea 18 0 Browse Search
R. T. Lincoln 16 0 Browse Search
February 13th 13 13 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: February 14, 1861., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 197 total hits in 65 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
William Mckim (search for this): article 4
given, (Meigs witness,)2,000 James G. King & Sons, N. York city, (witness, J. G. Ring,) Missouri's10,000 Clark, Dodge & Co., New York city, (witness, L. C. Clark,)2,000 Captain Porter, New York city, (Matthew Morgan witness,)2,000 Jerome Fitzhugh & Co., New York city, purchased with the knowledge of their character, (J. H. Garland witness,)10,000 W. T. Coleman & Co., N. York city, (witness Coleman,)50,000 George Smith, Chicago, (A. Campbell witness,)21,000 Thomas Swann, Baltimore, (Wm. Mckim witness,)10,000 R. D. Gaither, Balt., (W. Fisher witness,)3,000 B. Atkinson, Balt., (W. Fisher witness,)1,000 Townshend Scott, Balt. (W. Fisher witness,)5,000 Lownds, Thompson & Co., Baltimore, (witness Martin Lewis,)5,000 Total$134,000 A few other bonds were ascertained to have been purchased by Riggs & Co., bankers, of Washington, for other parties, and by other individuals, which are not included in the above statement. More than $6,000,000 of acceptances issued. In
Greenleaf (search for this): article 4
ing up a definite amount of securities. How the bonds were disposed of. From the testimony there procured, it was apparent that the bonds had been disposed of by Mr. Russell and his agent, and that Mr. Russell did not have it in his power to restore any of them. A limited number of them were traced into the possession of certain individuals and corporations, as follows: Merchants Benevolent Association, N. York city, (witness, Hector Morrison,) Missouri's$1,000 Meigs & Greenleaf, for account of C. W. Purcell & Co., Richmond, Va., (witness, C. A. Meigs,) Missouri's10,000 Mitchell, Schenectady, N. Y. from one to three, State not mentioned, (Meigs witness,)2,000 Sanders, Haydensville, Mass., one to three, State not given, (Meigs witness,)2,000 James G. King & Sons, N. York city, (witness, J. G. Ring,) Missouri's10,000 Clark, Dodge & Co., New York city, (witness, L. C. Clark,)2,000 Captain Porter, New York city, (Matthew Morgan witness,)2,000 Jerome Fitzhugh &
Irvin (search for this): article 4
data furnished by the War Department. It appears therefrom that acceptances to the amount of $840,000 were returned to the Department for cancellation. Mr. Russell, however, claims to have returned only $200,000, or $250,000. He further states that the acceptances which he did return were those which had matured in his own pocket and could not, therefore, be negotiated. But this assertion is positively contradicted by the endorsements on the returned acceptances, and by the testimony of Mr. Irvin, a clerk in the War Department. From the careless and irresponsible manner in which business was transacted by that gentleman and the late Secretary of War, and from the fact that it was the habit of Governor Floyd to issue acceptances at the Department or at his house, or at whatever place he happened to be, it is a matter of great uncertainty whether or not the $840,000 should be deducted from the sum heretofore stated. The probability is that when the acceptances were returned to
January, 12 AD (search for this): article 4
estimony of Mr. Russell shows that they were not all delivered at one time, but that three hundred and thirty-three were transferred to him on the 13th of December--nearly two weeks subsequent to the date of Mr. Bailey's confession. The only satisfactory explanation that can be given of this noticeable discrepancy is the supposition that the statement was actually prepared on the day it was given to Mr. Wagner, and the day the last bonds were delivered to Mr. Russell, and dated wrongfully "Dec. 1st," to allay any suspicion that might be excited if it were seen that the date of the abstraction was identical with the date of the last acceptance which was issued by the War Department, for the purpose, as your Committee think, of making up a definite amount of securities. How the bonds were disposed of. From the testimony there procured, it was apparent that the bonds had been disposed of by Mr. Russell and his agent, and that Mr. Russell did not have it in his power to restore a
May (search for this): article 4
advice, having confessed the illegality of his proceedings, and expressed a determination to make no further acceptances, would have proceeded thereafter with great caution and circumspection, even if he did not entirely discontinue his previous policy. It appears, however, that supposing the note to Mr. Benjamin, before referred to, to have been written a year ago, there have been issued by Governor Floyd, since that time, acceptances to the amount of $2,163,000, viz: In April, $40,000; in May, $250,000; June, $350,000; July, $95,000; August, $235,000: September, $125,000; October, $270,000. To this amount must be added the $798,000 of unconditional acceptances, of which there is no registry, and the grand total is as above stated. Having had his error and its consequences distinctly pointed out — having expressed his intention to refrain in future from the commission of similar acts, he still persists in his former course, and actually issued an acceptance for $135,000 at a d
April (search for this): article 4
e authority to his advice, having confessed the illegality of his proceedings, and expressed a determination to make no further acceptances, would have proceeded thereafter with great caution and circumspection, even if he did not entirely discontinue his previous policy. It appears, however, that supposing the note to Mr. Benjamin, before referred to, to have been written a year ago, there have been issued by Governor Floyd, since that time, acceptances to the amount of $2,163,000, viz: In April, $40,000; in May, $250,000; June, $350,000; July, $95,000; August, $235,000: September, $125,000; October, $270,000. To this amount must be added the $798,000 of unconditional acceptances, of which there is no registry, and the grand total is as above stated. Having had his error and its consequences distinctly pointed out — having expressed his intention to refrain in future from the commission of similar acts, he still persists in his former course, and actually issued an acceptance f
July 15th (search for this): article 4
h the business. But his precautions have not availed to afford him entire exemption from responsibility in connection with the transactions your Committee have inquired into.--Mr. Lea did not introduce Mr. Bailey to Mr. Russell, nor does he state that he appointed for them a place of meeting, yet it happened that these two persons did meet at the War Department on the same day that the interview between Mr. Lea and Mr. Bailey occurred. Mr. Russell says this was between the 12th and 15th days of last July. It was probably on the 13th day of that month. The Chief Clerk of the War Department, Secretary Floyd's most intimate friend, Col. W. R. Drinkard, was the medium through whom the introduction took place. On that day they had their first interview at the War Department, Col. Drinkard, as shown by his own evidence, impressed Mr. Bailey with the belief that Mr. Russell was a gentleman of great respectability and pecuniary resources, and that if the acceptances of the Secretary of
December 13th (search for this): article 4
sion of any large amounts of money. His bank account was kept with Messrs. Riggs & Co., of Washington city; and Mr. Riggs testifies, that between July and the 13th December his deposits increased largely over former ones, but amounted, in the aggregate, to not more than five or six thousand dollars. It is true, that this sum is a ties, the testimony of Mr. Russell shows that they were not all delivered at one time, but that three hundred and thirty-three were transferred to him on the 13th of December--nearly two weeks subsequent to the date of Mr. Bailey's confession. The only satisfactory explanation that can be given of this noticeable discrepancy is tuture from the commission of similar acts, he still persists in his former course, and actually issued an acceptance for $135,000 at a date so late as the 13th of December, 1860. Whether this manifest contempt of counsel, disobedience of law, and violation of a solemn promise, can be reconciled with purity of private motives,
October (search for this): article 4
ion to make no further acceptances, would have proceeded thereafter with great caution and circumspection, even if he did not entirely discontinue his previous policy. It appears, however, that supposing the note to Mr. Benjamin, before referred to, to have been written a year ago, there have been issued by Governor Floyd, since that time, acceptances to the amount of $2,163,000, viz: In April, $40,000; in May, $250,000; June, $350,000; July, $95,000; August, $235,000: September, $125,000; October, $270,000. To this amount must be added the $798,000 of unconditional acceptances, of which there is no registry, and the grand total is as above stated. Having had his error and its consequences distinctly pointed out — having expressed his intention to refrain in future from the commission of similar acts, he still persists in his former course, and actually issued an acceptance for $135,000 at a date so late as the 13th of December, 1860. Whether this manifest contempt of couns
12 AD (search for this): article 4
in connection with the business. But his precautions have not availed to afford him entire exemption from responsibility in connection with the transactions your Committee have inquired into.--Mr. Lea did not introduce Mr. Bailey to Mr. Russell, nor does he state that he appointed for them a place of meeting, yet it happened that these two persons did meet at the War Department on the same day that the interview between Mr. Lea and Mr. Bailey occurred. Mr. Russell says this was between the 12th and 15th days of last July. It was probably on the 13th day of that month. The Chief Clerk of the War Department, Secretary Floyd's most intimate friend, Col. W. R. Drinkard, was the medium through whom the introduction took place. On that day they had their first interview at the War Department, Col. Drinkard, as shown by his own evidence, impressed Mr. Bailey with the belief that Mr. Russell was a gentleman of great respectability and pecuniary resources, and that if the acceptances o
1 2 3 4 5 6 7