whose vote was challenged; and from the best information I can obtain on the subject the same was done by the judges at the several precincts in said county. Where a man had a certificate of his qualification as a voter in due form from the clerk, and then took said oath if his vote was challenged, I believe that such certificate and such taking of the oath were by the judges regarded as conclusive of the voter's right to vote and he allowed to vote. Having, as I believe, fully answered your interrogatories and to the best of my information and belief, I am, dear sir, yours, most respectfully, W. M. SULLIVAN, Sheriff of Maury County, Tennessee. Governor, &c. His Excellency WILLIAM G BROWNLOW, The clerk county court reports: COLUMBIA, August 18, 1865. DEAR SIR: In reply to your proclamation of the 11th instant, in regard to the franchise act, I beg leave to report : 1st. That I issued but few certificates without proef under oath, and those were to men with whose antecedents I was acquainted, and who had voted against separation and representation, and who have been Union all the time; such men as the Hon. Samuel D. Frierson, Benjamin Harlan, &c. The number, I think, so issued, say 50. 2d. Independent proof was taken in regard to a great many who claimed to have publicly entertained Union sentiments as mentioned in the act, and I not being acquainted with their antecedents, witnesses were sworn in such cases, all of which witnesses were true and loyal. The number registered in this way, I think, is about 200. 3d. Certificates were issued to persons who had been disloyal (but who had taken the oath of allegiance) upon their oath that they had or would have voted in the November, February or March elections, and that it was their intention and purpose so to do but were prevented by high water, &c., or could not get to the election. I examined and questioned them closely, as required by law. In Maury county, in February and March, 1865, when the elections were holden, a large portion of the voting population was cut off from the place where the elections are held by high water. The number registered on the oath of the applicant alone, I think, 930. this number those who voted in former elections, say November, 1864, February and March, 1865, 550. At the November election in 1864, there was polled at Columbia, 131. The number who voted 3d August, 1865, is 1,042. The number who did not vote is 138. WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW, Governor, &c. The sheriff of Hickman county reports: JOHN B. PADGETT, To his excellency W. G. Brownlow, governor of the State of Tennessee: In obedience to your proclamation of August 11, 1865, asking my answer to the several interrogatories therein set forth: 1st. In twelve of the districts in Hickman county, all the judges of the last election were sworn in strict conformity to said seventh section of the act alluded to in said proclamation. In two districts, they being the remainder of the districts in Hickman county, the judges of the election last past were not sworn as prescribed by the seventh section of said act. The votes cast in said lastmentioned districts are as followeth: In district No. 8 there were but seven votes polled, all for Thomas; in district No. 13 there were four, all for Thomas; in the 15th district there was no election held. Interrogatory 2d. There was but one voter challenged in the county, and he did not vote. All of which is respectfully submitted: Clerk county court reports: JOSEPH BEASLEY, Sheriff of Hickman County. CENTREVILLE, TENN, August 20, 1865. SIR: I embrace this my earliest opportunity of responding to your proclamation of August 11, it having never reached me until a day or two ago, with which I proceed to comply, to wit: 1st. I had no deputy, and hence I alone issued all the certificates that went out. I did not require loyal citizens that were publicly known to be such to make proof of loyalty. I placed no construction nor required any other than what was made my duty by the franchise bill. But, notwithstanding, there were some fifty or sixty illegal votes given in, as appears from the enclosed schedule. I ordered each voter to write his name on his ballot, and return the ballots with the poll-books from each precinct, which was done, thereby enabling me to properly ascertain the number of illegal votes given, which I hope will be satisfactory. I am yours, truly, M. H. PUCKETT, Clerk of County Court Hickman County, Tenn. His Excellency Governor W. G. BROWNLOW. From Humphreys county we have the following reports: WAVERLY, August 23, 1865. SIR: In accordance with the requirements of your proclamation of August 11, 1865, in regard to reports of sheriffs concerning the elections held the 3d of August, 1865, for members to Congress, I, as sheriff of Humphreys county, Tennessee, make the following report, to wit: In the following civil districts the oath required by the act of the general assembly, passed at its last session, was taken by the judges of election, and the number of votes given in each district: Third civil district gave Sixth civil district gave.. Twelfth civil district gave The following is a list of the civil districts where the persons holding the elections could not get a copy of the oath required by the said act above referred to, and the oath required by the code of Tennessee was taken by the judges of said elections: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true statement according to the best information I can get, and that I got no information of any challenges in the county of votes. Given under my hand, at office, in Waverly, August 23, M. M. MASSEY, Sheriff of Humphreys County. 1865. His Excellency W. G. BROWNLOW, Governor of Tennessee. The county court clerk reports: WAVERLY, TENN., August 16, 1865. I take the earliest opportunity to reply to the interrogatories in your proclamation of the 11th instant. In answer to the first question to county clerks, I would state that no certificate of registration was issued by me or my deputy without proof under oath that the applicant came within the provisions of the 1st section of the law referred to by you; that is to say, all that obtained certificates of registration in this county came within the provisions of the 1st section of the act to limit the elective franchise, according to my construction of the act, from all the lights I have upon the subject. Answer to second question. With the exception of some two or three persons, all who obtained certificates got them upon the oath of the applicant alone. In answer to your third question, I can say that a part of the certificates issued here were issued to persons who had been disloyal, but who had taken the oath of allegiance, and who stated on oath that they would have voted in the elections of November, February, and March if they had been held in their reach, and that they were true friends of the government of the United States, but what number of them had been disloyal I cannot say with certainty. I suppose that perhaps one-fourth of them had been in the rebel army, and left it some eighteen months or two years ago; and some of them, more than two years ago, returned home, sought protection under the United States government, and took the oath of allegiance and remained at home. There were others who were, during the early part of the rebellion, disloyal in feeling-or were so considered-and afterwards took the oath of allegiance, but I have no way of telling what number. All who obtained certificates I regarded as being at that time-and as having been for some time before-loyal to the United States, and friends to the government thereof, and I considered them entitled to certificates. Yours, with due respect and esteem, LEVI M. COLLUM, Hon. WM. G. BROWNLOW, Governor of Tennessee. Dickson county reports: CHARLOTTE, TENN., August 22, 1865. DEAR SIR: I herein enclose the manner in which the election was held on the 3d instant in Dickson county: District No. 1.-Judges were qualified according to section 7 of an act to limit the elective franchise; three voters were challenged, and deputy did consider taking the said oath entitled him to vote. W. H. HORNER, Deputy Sheriff. No. 2.-Judges were qualified as above. No voter challenged. W. T. DUNIGAN, Deputy Sheriff. No. 3-Judges were qualified as district No. 1. No voter challenged. No. 4.-Judges were qualified as No. 1. F. M'COSLIN, Deputy Sheriff. No voter challenged. No. 5.-Judges were qualified as No. 1. No voter challenged. N. M. HALL, Deputy Sheriff No. 6.-Judges were qualified as No. 1. No voter challenged. M. G. HARRIS, Sheriff. No. 7-Judges were qualified as No. 1. No voter challenged. HI. N. STROUD, Deputy Sheriff. No. 8.-Judges were qualified as No. 1. Two voters were challenged. Deputy sheriff did consider taking said oath entitled them to vote. D. L. MATLOCK, Deputy Sheriff. No. 9.-Judges were qualified as No. 1. No voter challenged. J. F. BOTTS, Deputy Sheriff. No. 10.-Judges were qualified as No. 1. No voter challenged. GEO. COOKSEY, Deputy Sheriff. No. 11.-Judges were qualified as No. 1. Three voters were challenged, and deputy did consider taking said oath entitled them to vote. JESSE DANIEL, Deputy Sheriff. No. 12-Judges were qualified as No. 1. No voter challenged. J. B. MILLS, Deputy Sheriff. I have taken the trouble to go around and see all my deputies, therefore I hope this report will be satisfactory. Very respectfully, His Excellency W. G. BROWNLOW, M. G. HARRIS. Governor of Tennessee. CHARLOTTE, August 22, 1865. DEAR SIR: In compliance with the proclamation of his excellency Governor W. G. Brownlow, of August 11, 1865, I here with submit to you my report: To interrogatory first, I issued no certificates without proof, under oath, that the applicant came within the provisions of the 1st section of the franchise act. 2d. Did you or your deputy issue certificates upon the oath of the applicant alone? I suppose we issued about fifty or sixty upon the oaths of the applicants alone, and all others issued by me or my deputy were upon proof made under oath by a witness introduced by the applicant, except those who were known to me as unconditional Union men. Very respectfully, Hon. A. J. FLetcher, Secretary of State. F. M. BINKLEY, Clerk of Dickson County Court. CLARKSVILLE, TENN., August 19, 1885. To O. M. Blackman, Deputy Sheriff, M. C.: Question. Did you hold the election in the Clarksville district on the 3d day of August, 1865, under the franchise act of 1865? Answer. I did. Question. Did the judges of that election, before entering upon the duties of their office, take the oath required by the 7th section of said act? Answer. They did. Question. Did the judges of said election, when a vote was challenged, administer the oath prescribed by said 7th section? Answer. In every case, I think, they did not. Not more than four or five votes were challenged, though all voters were questioned in regard to their right to vote; some of them under oath to answer such questions as should be asked them touching their right to vote at that election. If answering the questions satisfactorily to the judges and producing the required certificates, their vote was deposited in the box. O. M. BLACKMAN, 170 votes were polled at this precinct, Clarksville. To John Brumfield, District No. 2, Montgomery County, Tennessee: Question. Did you hold the election in your district on the 3d day of August, 1565, under the franchise act of 1865? Answer. I did. Question. Did the judges of that election, before entering upon the duties of their office, take the oath required by the 7th section of said act? Answer. They did not. They took the oath prescribed by the code. Question. Did the judges of said election, when a vote was challenged, administer the oath prescribed by said 7th section? Answer. There were no votes challenged. Only five votes were taken at my precinct. J. D. BRUMFIELD. AUGUST 26, 1865. To V. Q. Jarrill : Question. Did you hold the election in your district (No. 14) on the 3d day of August, 1865? Answer. I did. |