USA > Iowa > Cedar County > A topical history of Cedar County, Iowa, Volume I > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
The township history of the county is difficult to follow. If one were asked to-day where Freeman township was located, or "Waubespinicon"-that is the way it was put-he would need to study his geography in vain. Freeman in- cluded the present townships of Farmington, Sugar Creek, Rochester. The second
63
HISTORY OF CEDAR COUNTY
one mentioned (save the spelling) was in the northeast, as one might suspect, and included Dayton, Massillon, Springfield, parts of Red Oak, Center and Fair- field. (Walter Freeman was a county commissioner in 1840.) Iowa township was all territory west of the river and was named in 1840. Center was also set off and named at that time, but not in its present boundaries. Linn (Lynn) was named at the same time and included the four congressional townships lying in the northwest one-fourth of the county. There were five townships then in the county and now seventeen. Like many counties in the state, there are sixteen congressional townships, but in the divisions for governmental purposes the seven- teen are made up generally of fractional townships. At the May, 1840, session of the commissioners the two northern tiers of sections in township eighty north, range one west, were ordered to be added to the township known as "Waubes- pinicon," and the name of said township be called Springfield. These sections mentioned that were "taken off" belonged to the present township of Inland. In April, 1842, the sections numbered thirty-six, thirty-five and thirty-four, twenty- five, twenty-six and twenty-seven, township eighty-one, range three, were detached from Linn (Lynn) and added to Center on petition from Solomon Aldrich, Ben- jamin Frazer (Fraseur), William Frazer (Fraseur),57 and Calihan Dwigans as voters who wished to be in Center township. In 1842 the portion of township eighty-one, range four, lying west of Cedar River, was by petition of voters taken from Iowa township and added to Linn.
In October, 1842, it was ordered to change the name of Freeman township to Rochester. This included, remember, all that portion lying in the southeast portion of the county .. There were only two more changes in the township lines before 1850. Elzy Carl petitioned to have a tier of sections taken from the west side of Springfield and attached to Linn, which was granted in 1845. A remon- strance having been filed regarding the attachment of the sections lying south of the river in township eighty-one, range four, these sections were attached to Center for school and township purposes. This is the first mention of schools in the records so far as noted-1845.58
A little later Sugar Creek township was set off, but the board repealed this and continued to call it Rochester. It is not quite certain why this was done, as no petition is found, but the record shows certain dissatisfaction with the assessment in Rochester and this may account for the change.59
In March, 1848, the petitioners for a new township composed of the two con- gressional numbers eighty-two, ranges three and four west, were granted their request and this was called Pioneer.
As these townships gained more population the divisions increased. Spring- field was divided and Polk was created in the northeast. Later Polk became Dayton and Massillon. Pioneer was cut in two and the east half called Fremont. Inland and Fairfield came off from the adjoining larger sections, and the west side of the river was changed from one to three. These are found in the records, but details can be carried no further.
In 1839 a petition was presented to the assembly then in session at Burlington asking for a change in the county seat. The act is entitled, "An act to relocate the county seat of Cedar County, or more particularly, the seat of justice in and for said county." The provision was made for three commissioners, not county
64
HISTORY OF CEDAR COUNTY
residents, to locate the new city if such was to be changed. They were under oath to act impartially, and for the best interests of the county. Henry W. Hig- gins, of Scott County; J. G. McDonald, Jackson County, and John Eagan, of Johnson County, were appointed to carry out this act. They were required to meet at Rochester in March, 1840, or September of year before 60 and relocate the seat of government there if in their judgment it should prove the most suitable place. Otherwise they were to proceed toward the center of the county and, using all due consideration as to other needs, locate the new city there. Specific directions were given these commissioners to name said city and make full report to the clerk of the District Court in this county. Such report may have been made, but is not on record, and the reasons for certain proceedings must be sur- mised rather than verified. There were many aspirants for county seat honors- names now lost or forgotten, or never mentioned probably in the hearing of the present generation. There were Centerville, and Elizabethtown, Antwerp, and Warsaw, some of them laid out for the occasion, and whose names remind one of Irving's Knickerbocker's History of New York. The present site of Tipton was an open prairie and gave no promise of being made into a seat of justice. As history states, it was unfortunate for the former seat of government that in the spring of 1840 the Cedar River overflowed its banks, partially submerging Rochester, and causing the newly appointed commissioners to question the advis- ability of re-locating the county seat there.61 They naturally sought higher ground. Luck then favored the present county seat so far as it had to do with natural conditions of water and distance from county lines. The commissioners were courted and banqueted, treated royally by the various candidates for capital honors, but after all was done a barren prairie secured the prize. Here in the geographical center of the county the stake was driven and the present site of the elevator near the C. & N. W. railway depot is not far from that noted spot. The name Tipton is from General Tipton, of Indiana, in which state there is also a town of the same name. It is hinted that the privilege of naming the place led to the vote of one of the commissioners. A very simple matter of founding a city, but not unlike many others in this prairie state. An arbitrary power fixing the place without any consideration of natural adaptation or future advantage, mere consideration of convenience, of obedience to instructions and lack of co- operation on the part of distinterested persons. Money was advanced to the county for the pre-emption of the quarter section on which the original town was located by Samuel P. Higginson 62 on condition that certain lots should be granted him up to twenty in number. The first sale of lots took place June 15, 1840. Fourteen lots were sold for a total of seven hundred and eighty-three dollars ($783). Among the purchasers are the familiar names of Preston J. Friend, J. Scott Richman, Benjamin Fraseur and others. Proposals were received for the erection of a hewed log building for a court house and jail. The contract for this building was awarded to P. M. Vicker, who transferred it to Snyder for the sum of two thousand, four hundred and seventy-five dollars. The building was finished and accepted as a jail by the commissioners of the county before comple- tion. "Previous to this Mr. John Culbertson had been solicited to build a house for county purposes, the county agreeing to share the expense. In this building the court of 1841 was held and continued to be held until the completion of the
CEDAR COUNTY HOME FOR THE POOR CEDAR COUNTY POOR FARM ASYLUM
67
HISTORY OF CEDAR COUNTY
combined jail and court room. Whether this combined building was ever used for court purposes is not a matter of record. It stood facing south, nearly oppo- site the present machine shop of S. M. Murray, in plain view from my father's home."
"Steps went up from the outside, from which you could look into the cell, to the place designed for a court room, but which from my recollection was used by the jailer."63 We find on July 7, 1841, a contract was let for building a new court house and John P. Cook was clothed with power of attorney to carry out the same. The building was to be frame, thirty-six by forty-two (36 by 42), and to stand in the center of the square. This building was finished and occupied for court purposes until the first part of the present structure was completed.
In 1876 Judge Tuthill said: "Notwithstanding the measures thus far inaugu- rated (that is up to the conclusion of the lot sale in the new county seat), there appear to have been some apprehensions on the part of the county commissioners as to the permanency of the county seat at Tipton, for an order issued by the board on the day of sale of lots providing for refunding the price paid for lots with interest at twenty per cent from time of payment should the county seat be removed."64 "Improvements commenced. The first building was a log store for John P. Cook, in which was opened the first store in Tipton. About the same time John Culbertson commenced the erection of a hotel, P. J. Friend built a dwelling house and other buildings were begun by Cummins McCurdy, C. M. Jennings, M. Y. Walker, and others."
"The post office was established in 1840, July 23, with Charles M. Jennings as first postmaster."
But the county seat was not to rest in its new location so undisturbed as some seemed to imagine, and history has simply repeated itself in many parts of the state since that day for we continue to read: "Friends of Rochester were not idle. Various schemes were proposed and partly carried out to overcome the growing prestige of the new town in the center of the county. Among these plans was one, which, had it been successful, would have proved unfortunate for the financial prospects of Tipton and its supporters, so far as the matter of the county seat could affect it. Since there were no means of transportation then except overland the plan of the citizens of the town on the river was to secure a line of boats to Rochester from the Mississippi. From this effort it appears steamers did come up to Rochester sometime during the summer of 1840. They did bring supplies and return passengers and freight. But nature defeated this scheme in the favor of the new county seat since the uncertainties of water supply in the river this mode of transportation had to be abandoned. Sometime this plan may succeed and the dream of 1840 will be real. The future of the town of Rochester after this failure was plain, and the failure of any line of railroad to center there or even come within hearing distance has left it stationary all these years. Now, 1910, a new spirit stirs the neighborhood, and it may be that before the present youngest inhabitant has passed away the life that once seemed so abundant will return to the village named for the great city of New York when its water power promised so very much. But to continue the county seat contest. "In 1840 the Rochester people circulated a petition, which was presented to the legislature at the session following, asking for the passage of a law to enable the people to vote upon the
68
HISTORY OF CEDAR COUNTY
county seat question. The citizens of the county seat, already officially located, were equal to the emergency and prepared a remonstrance against any such pro- ceeding or even attempt at such. It was a merry fight and in a short time all the voters in the county were on one or the other document. Rochester had eight majority. This majority was matched by the names of fifteen Scotchmen and one Englishman in Red Oak township, which number, while not voters, were bona fide settlers and had declared their intentions. These names are recorded in the "History of Seventy-eight," and should be preserved with every writing of this statement, since their names can be obtained from no other source, except the duplicate remonstrance which they signed and this cannot be found. They are given by Judge Tuthill as follows: John Ferguson, John Safley, Robert Dallas, Charles Dallas, Samuel Yule, John Chappell, William Coutts, Alexander Coutts, Robert Perie, Sr., Robert Perie, Jr., John Leith, John Garrow, Peter Garrow, Duncan McKee, Daniel McKee and John Goodrich.65
From the reference given above we learn that the contest was full of crimina- tion and recrimination, resulting in dangerous argument and hot tempers were badly stirred. The decision was not with the people of the county. The terri- torial assembly had that matter strictly in charge and before that time came for decision the blood had cooled and it appears that the two factions were ready to submit to the action without protest. December 8, 1840, these two lists of "pro- posers" and "opposers" were presented to the legislature then in session at Burlington. Nor was a lobby wanting for either side, although it stood three to one in number of speakers. Green, Toney and Hastings were present in behalf of Rochester, while Samuel P. Higginson alone stood for the present county seat. The old sea captain, to quote the former authority, was a new feature in such assemblies, and rather won the favor of the men who were now in power. By some means the remonstrance was effective and Tipton retained its honors unmo- lested. The vote was decisive, being seven to nineteen, after coming from a select committee of which Herman Van Antwerp, a friend of Rochester, was chairman. If the journal of the territorial legislature is quoted here in the history mentioned before it is not referred to and access to such documents is denied the present writer at this particular time. The usual result followed this decision so far as the prosperity of the county seat is concerned. It began to grow both in population and volume of business. This was only a lull in the battle, only the first attack, for the next move of the Rochester people was to carry the war into elections, since they must acquire power in the law-making body if they would control the location of the county seat. Hence they sought to elect mem- bers who were friendly to their interests, and they needed to elect some one they could trust. They moved with caution. The district then was composed of Cedar, Linn, and Jones Counties. It was entitled to one Councilman and two members of the House. The voting by general ticket over the whole district made it possible to elect members opposed to Rochester even if Cedar County had a majority against that particular candidate. A nomination in those days was not equivalent to an election, since the two political parties, Whig and Democrat, were not certain of either having a majority until after the votes were counted. Cedar and Linn were both democratic by small majorities, from twenty-five to
69
HISTORY OF CEDAR COUNTY
fifty votes each, while Jones was claimed by the whigs by about the same number. Other complications arose from the fact that the greater part of the whig vote lay in the southern part of the county and would support the candidate favorable to Rochester. The democratic majority lived in the portions of the county that would favor Tipton as the seat of government and this combination of affairs made predictions of the result impossible.
The democratic caucus was called to meet at Tipton and sixteen delegates were chosen to represent the county in a convention to meet at Gilbert's, in Linn County, and these delegates were all known to be friendly to Tipton when it came to select- ing candidates for the territorial assembly. This move was important, since these delegates would select their own candidate from their county when it came to nomination.
This Tipton caucus was repudiated by the remaining portion of the democratic party, who declared it had been called without due notice to all concerned and that the county seat had been favored in the call. If history speaks true, it was a one- sided affair and not in harmony with present views of such proceedings, since Joseph Crane of the Rochester party was chairman of the democratic executive committee, and he in ordinary usage would call a caucus if one were to be called. The county committee ignored the Tipton caucus and proceedings and proceeded to make an official call at Rochester of the democrats of the county. But this result was evidently not unexpected by the former combine, for they fell upon the meeting at the river town and taking possession of the organization simply ratified the action of the former caucus at the county seat. Even in 1841 methods of meeting emergencies were not far from being as perfect in their disregard of legality as they are on occasions now.
On the seventeenth of June, 1841, the district convention met at Gilbert's as arranged, and one of Cedar County's delegates failing to make his appearance Joseph Crane of Rochester was appointed in his stead. Harvey G. Whitlock was presented by the Tipton party as their candidate for representative, and Mr. Crane presented the name of Herman Van Antwerp for the same office. The nomination was carried by strategy on the part of Joseph Crane. He seems to have propounded a question to Mr. Whitlock 66 which so embarrassed him to answer that the delegates from Linn and Jones voted in a body for Van Antwerp, who was favorable to Rochester in the capital fight. The Cedar County delegation withdrew in disgust, and it soon became evident that the party in Cedar was badly split, and it was due to the local interest in the county seat question.
The whigs took advantage of this division in the democratic party, and a meet- ing was called in Tipton to select delegates to a convention of the district to meet at Goudy's, in Linn County. To preserve harmony in the county the delegates were equally divided between the two contending towns for county seat honors. When the convention was called to order at Goudy's the Rochester party presented the names of James W. Tallman and those from Tipton territory that of the old sea captain, Samuel P. Higginson, the same Higginson who furnishes so much of the early county seat history, and to whom it may be the county owes more than it has paid so far as history goes. Linn and Jones delegates were posted on the com- bination of democratic and whig votes to elect a candidate favorable to Tipton, and
70
HISTORY OF CEDAR COUNTY
since this combination would elect a whig they voted for Higginson. This gave him the nomination on the first ballot.
The election of August, 1841, was one of the most exciting in Cedar County, that is, up to the time of those who could give any information on the matter from personal experience. Doubtless many just as exciting have been held since, but they could not be compared with those days by any one of authority. The fight was not political, not state questions of vital public interest, but just a plain county seat matter, whether it should or should not be once more brought before the territorial assembly for re-location. This was the prime question for the future. Voters did not inquire as to the political tendency of the candidates, but simply whether he was for the proper town for the county capital. When votes were counted the candidate from the new town had about thirty majority, thus defeating the river town in spite of all the efforts of her sympathizers. This settled the contest for a time.
A different phase of the same sectional feeling came up in 1842 when it came to the nomination of members of the territorial councilman. An aspiring young lawyer, William R. Rankin, endeavored to preserve harmony in the ranks of the democratic party in order to win in this election. He was a candidate, but in his efforts to secure the nomination he made one fatal mistake by promising the Rochester people that he would support them impartially if elected, not considering himself pledged to Tipton in any contest.
A caucus was held at Antwerp, which place, it will be remembered, was an aspirant for county seat honors in 1840. With a number of influential friends Rankin attended and secured a majority of the delegates. The convention again met at Gilbert's, in Linn County, and upon Rankin's suggestion it was agreed that the councilman should come from Cedar County and the representatives from Linn and Jones, a fine move politically from Rankin's point of view. There were other aspirants, however, and from this source came Rankin's defeat and more excitement over the old question. One O. C. Ward took advantage of a very evident condition in political theory-namely, that the member of the council of the territory was from the whole district and not from one county composing it. Obviously the entire district must share in his nomination, and this evidently met with approval, and also led to the undoing of Mr. Rankin, whose machine plans were defeated by a simple fact in the common sense of all good citizens. Van Antwerp was then put in nomination and thus blasted the hopes of the man of legal learning and political skill.
Now came the sequel to the matter. The candidate was the known supporter of the Rochester party and this would never do, and in opposition to him the other party placed John P. Cook in nomination for the same office. The former fight was on and judging from the earlier alignment of forces only one thing could be the result of the election-Cook would win, and he did. Thus ended the county seat contest in Cedar County so far as the territory had to control it. The majority of the people took this as final, but later, many years, it came up by petition for a vote on the matter in the county. In 1852 such vote was taken and resulted in another and final defeat for the old seat of county government. Wm. Green and four hundred and thirty-six others signed the petition asking for this vote. For
--
VIEWS OF CEDAR COUNTY
73
HISTORY OF CEDAR COUNTY
these petitioners W. G. Woodward and J. Scott Richman appeared as attorneys before the county court. It is said "the poll books of this election are lost and along with them the hopes of Rochester to secure the county seat."67
An item of some interest concerning the county boundaries is reported as oc- curring in 1846-7. A scheme proposed by some persons interested in speculation provided for a division of the counties centering on the northwest and the creation of a new county from portions of Cedar and the others, Jackson, Jones, Linn, but when proposed to the legislature it was so unpopular that such a plan was never more heard from. Had such a proposition been successful the county seat con- troversy in the opinion of those then living, would have come forward again for settlement. In 1860 a proposition was made to the assembly of Iowa to create a new county from portions of Cedar, Jones, Clinton, Scott and Jackson Counties. The scheme was proposed by the proprietors of the town of Wheatland as a financial measure, as this would apparently make that village the central seat of government. Opposition was very strong against such a move so far as Cedar was concerned, and it met the fate of a similar proposition from another source which came to the front in the early '40s, about the time of the county seat episode. This measure fell into the hands of the committee on new counties, of which Hon. J. M. Kent happened to be chairman, and the petition of certain citizens of Cedar and Clinton Counties was turned down.67&
When Cedar County came into existence in the winter of 1836-7 it became necessary to fix upon some seat of government. This at first seemed to be a difficult matter, as the entire population at that time, scattered over the twenty-four miles square of the county limits, did not number more than fifty, and no village existed within its boundaries. When it was discovered that Rochester was in embryo it was fixed upon, not because it was the best place, but because it was the only place. This was the only point on the river at that time above Moscow where a ferry had been established, and moreover it was near to the settlers and to the only post office-Rock Creek-then in this county, as population increased in different parts, Red Oak, Linn, Pioneer, and Posten's Grove, a feeling of a more central location began to be manifest.
A brief description of the towns that were candidates for court purposes would convey to the reader an idea of the easy method of making a town. Most of them have been referred to in connection with the county seat contest, but it is worth while to note that these towns were advertised in Boston and lots sold on the strength of their future prospects. Towns on paper were not uncommon.68 Some of the leaders in the county seat contest became prominent in the county's history and made it a real matter of personal interest, probably far beyond any selfish ambition. They could be ambitious; they could be sarcastic; they could make bitter flings at their opponents without being open enemies, and from what has been written one might suppose the "county seat fight" gave opportunity for some amusement and even hilarity at certain times. We may draw such conclu- sions from the printed songs made in "taking off" the different persons chiefly instrumental in furthering either party-"Billy Green," "Stephen Toney," "Hast- ings," and others were rhymed by John P. Cook. Then Joseph Crane, mentioned before, and from his history evidently a more than ordinary man, put John P. Cook
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.