Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 5 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
Wakefield and Hampton Di*tricts polled the heavies* votes, j 259 each, with Wakefield District < giving the convention its biggest boost, 219 for, 40 against. Hampton, though less one-sided, was de- f ddedly for the convention, with a ~ final tally of 188-71 chalked up. t ; The county vote, by districts, % is given below: i ^ Wakefield district, 219 for, 40 ’4 sgsinst. ■: , Kll: Hampton district,- 188 for, 71 . •gainst.. :" !, : Piedmont district, 182 for, If against; _ ’r* i % Hawthorne district, 64 for, 11 ; against. 1'' Stonewall district, 112 for, 21 - against. ■ , ; . ' ' Jackson district, 107 for, 25 'against. Total 872 for* 187 against., While the county went almost; 5. to-1 for ;he convention, the m- T tire state’s percentage, affected strongly by-the Northern Virginia vote, dropped to a 2-1 percentage-! In favor of the ©invention. -ij! Seventh Distrifct Vote Amherst, 1577 for, 295 against, f Augusta, 1759 for, 1322 against. ; Bath, 579 for, 201 against. . Buena Vista, 293( for, 243 ; against. 1 - / v - ji"' Clarke, 746 for, 250 against. ^ Frederick 1260 for, 495 against, i Highland, 185 ior, 276 against. j Harrisonburg, 755 for, 960 against. ' s-4-* - ’ Rockingham, 1327 for, 214S against. v Nelson, 1582 for, 241 against. 'i Page, 1320 for, 769 against. Rappahannock, 872 for, 187 against. ' k - '• ;■ Rockbridge,! 1245 for, 994 against. ''It :
53.2%