USA > Iowa > Chickasaw County > History of Chickasaw and Howard counties, Iowa, Volume I > Part 17
USA > Iowa > Howard County > History of Chickasaw and Howard counties, Iowa, Volume I > Part 17
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
"That a majority of the citizens of any county, after becoming organized, may petition the district judge in whose judicial district the same is situated, during the vacation of the General Assembly, whose duty it shall be to appoint three commissioners from three different adjoining counties, who shall proceed to locate the county seat of such county according to the provisions of this act."
Under the authority of this act a petition was presented to Judge Wilson, who was at that time district judge of the Second Judicial District of Iowa, of which Chickasaw was a part.
The prayer of the petitioners was granted and commissioners were appointed. The report of these commissioners, filed in the office of the clerk of the District Court, August 14, 1854, signed by William McClintock, of Fayette County, and John B. Oustine, of Winneshiek County, is the only record showing the names of those who were appointed for this duty. The following is their report :
"The Honorable County Judge of Chickasaw County, Iowa :
"The undersigned, commissioners appointed by the judge of the Second Judicial District of Iowa, to locate and establish the county seat of said Chicka- saw County, respectfully report that having had the same under consideration, they have selected the Town of Bradford, in the county and state aforesaid, as the point at which said county seat is hereby located and established."
Thus Bradford, logically and somewhat automatically, became the official seat of government for Chickasaw County. In consequence of this distinction the town began to show an ambition to become a place of great importance. with visions of
147
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
a city of metropolitan proportions. True, it was not much of a boost to their ambition that was given by the county in the way of a courthouse, which was a plain log house, without any ceiling or plastering. But it was a courthouse, and the only one in the county, and that was sufficient reason for Bradford to be satisfied with its present attainments and its future prospects. But, with the prestige of early settlement, and the advantages of surroundings that were favor- able for agricultural and industrial development, in addition to the advantage of being the official center of the county, Bradford was at a disadvantage because of being too far from the geographical center. It could only be a question of time, as other portions of the county became settled, and other towns were established, when there would be a move made for the removal of the county seat to a more central location. And this move came about within two years after the establish- ment of the county seat at Bradford. The election called to determine this ques- tion resulted in a contest and a series of litigation that stirred up the rival fac- tions, and gave the lawyers and courts opportunity to exercise their functions. The detailed account of this contest, and the manner of its settlement, will furnish the subject for another chapter.
CHAPTER III
COUNTY SEAT CONTESTS
FIRST COUNTY SEAT AT BRADFORD-PROPOSAL TO REMOVE TO GEOGRAPHICAL CENTER OF COUNTY-NEW HAMPTON THE PLACE-PETITION FOR ELECTION ON QUESTION OF REMOVAL-ELECTION FIGURES DISPUTED-NEW HAMPTON LOSES IN THE COUNT-AN INDIGNATION MEETING-LOCATED IN NEW HAMPTON BY LEGISLA- TIVE ACT-THEN FOREST CITY COMES WITH A CLAIM-PETITION FOR ANOTHER ELECTION GRANTED ANOTHER DISPUTED ELECTION-DECIDED IN FAVOR OF FOR- EST CITY-HURRIED REMOVAL TO THAT PLACE-PROTESTS OF THE EXCITED POPU- LACE-RESULTING IN SOME PERSONAL ENCOUNTERS-"BATTLE OF BAILEY'S LANE"-DECISION OF HIGHER COURT RETURNS COUNTY SEAT TO NEW HAMPTON.
At the time of the organization of the County of Chickasaw, in 1854, the pop- ulation was about six hundred. In 1856 the population had increased to 2,651, due to emigration and settlements, largely in the central and northern portions of the county. A number of locations for prospective towns and villages had been made, and a wonderful growth and development of the agricultural resources of the county had occurred within the two years. It was within these years that a man by the name of Osgood Gowen settled on a tract of land in New Hampton Township and built a log store about a mile east of the present location of the Town of New Hampton. About the year 1856 the land upon which New Hampton is located was platted, and a few houses were built in that year. New Hampton was not much of a town at that time, but it had prospects and an ambition. It was about this time that the question of removing the county seat from Bradford to a more central location was seriously agitated. The desire was to have the county seat as near as possible in the geographical center of the county, and the site that had been selected for New Hampton was found to be about so placed.
PETITION FOR REMOVAL
The proposition for removal of the county seat took a definite shape at the February term of the County Court, held at Bradford, in 1856. At that time a petition, signed by J. H. C. Miller and 224 others, was presented, praying
149
150
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
"That at the next April election, to be holden thereafter in said county, a vote shall be taken between Bradford, the present county seat, and New Hampton, for the county seat." The prayer of the petitioners was granted, and in accord- ance therewith, an election was held. At the canvassing of the votes, the Town- ship of Washington was thrown out, which left the vote a tie, giving each of the contesting places 203 votes. As it required a majority of the votes of the county to remove the county seat, the canvassing board decided in favor of Bradford. And then the trouble began.
On the 6th day of June, 1856, an information was filed by Osgood Gowen, in the office of the clerk of the District Court, asking for a writ of mandamus, and in accordance with the prayer. a writ was issued against the board of county canvassers on the same day. On the day following. two of the members of the board. W. E. Andrews, ex-officio county judge, and John Bird, justice of the peace, filed a response. This response is here given in full, partly for the reason that it contains a detailed account of what was done and why they did it, and partly for the reason that it is a unique specimen of that legal explicitness which is supposed to be attained only by a redundant verbosity. The legal document of the olden time was not considered to be complete unless it employed all the words that could be found in the vocabulary. and. certainly. the legal mind that constructed this document left nothing to be desired in this regard.
RESPONSE OF BOARD OF CANVASSERS
"THE STATE OF IOWA
CHICKASAW COUNTY
In the District Court of Said County.
To the June Term thereof, A. D. 1856:
"In the matter of the information of Osgood Gowen for mandamus against the board of canvassers of Chickasaw County aforesaid, in the matter of an election between Bradford and New Hampton, for the establishment of the county seat of said county.
"And the said W. E. Andrews and John Bird. canvassers of election in said information mentioned. come, and answering, say that they admit that at the February term of the County Court of said County of Chickasaw, A. D. 1856. a petition was presented to said County Court, by J. C. H. Miller and 224 citizens. as alleged in said information, upon which said petition an order was made by said County Court, that the question of a relocation of said county seat of Chickasaw County be submitted to a vote of the legal voters of said county in the year A. D. 1856, and that, in pursuance of said order submitting the question of a relocation of said county seat to a vote of the legal voters of said county at the April election, A. D. 1856. said question was submitted and voted on at said election. And your respondents, further answering, say severally and respec- tively. that in the returns of said election and according to the same. it did appear that the Town of New Hampton had received the number of 213 votes for the county seat of said county, and that the Town of Bradford received 206 votes for the county seat of said county, as appeared on the face of the papers purporting to be said returns of the said election. And your respondents further aver, and so they answer. that all the returns so made to the county
151
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
judge of the County of Chickasaw, embracing to-wit: all the returns from the several townships and precincts of said County of Chickasaw, at the election so held in and for said county, duly examined and canvassed as the law directs, by said board of canvassers; and that after such canvass and examination as aforesaid it was found that the said election returns at the election held as afore- said for the purpose aforesaid, were duly and properly made in compliance with law, with the exception of the Township of Washington in said county ; and after duly examining and canvassing the returns of said election so held as aforesaid, for the purpose aforesaid, for all the townships and precincts in said county, it was found that the returns of the votes for the said Township of Washington were insufficient, irregular and of no effect, and utterly null and , void in law. And so said respondents, answering as aforesaid, aver that said votes of the Town of Washington, given at said election, having been found and decided by said board of canvassers, after due examination and canvass, to be insufficient, irregular and of no effect, and utterly null and void, were then and there. to-wit: at Bradford, aforesaid, within the time required by law, duly canvassed and examined by said board of canvassers, and were then and there, within the time aforesaid, duly and legally rejected by said board of canvassers. after a legal canvass of the said votes and returns, then and there held for insufficiency, irregularity and nullity, and for no other reason.
"And your respondents, further answering, say that after said returns of all the said townships and precincts of said county of Chickasaw were so can- vassed as aforesaid, and the returns of the votes of said Township of Wash- ington were so rejected as aforesaid, the state of the canvass was as follows, to-wit :
"Bradford received 203 votes, and New Hampton received 203 votes ; and of the votes so rejected after said canvas as aforesaid by the canvassers aforesaid. ten votes were cast for New Hampton and three votes for Bradford; and that your respondents there made out and signed a statement of the canvass aforesaid. specifying the said number of votes so cast for the respective places aforesaid. which remains of record in the office of the county judge of said county, by reference to which will more fully appear.
"And your respondents, further answering, deny that they have done aught in the premises aforesaid : that they have acted fairly, honestly and in good faith. and as they believed, and still believe, in strict accordance with law and their duty as canvassers as aforesaid. And your respondents, having fully answered herein, beg to be discharged.
"W. E. ANDREWS. JOHN BIRD."
This document is not only unique, but is also remarkable, for the reason, that in all the multiplicity of words, it is not stated upon what grounds the board of canvassers decided, that the vote of Washington Township was "illegal, irregular and of no effect." Whether the canvassers had exhausted the vocabulary was the reason for not finding words to make this statement, or for the reason that they did not care to have the legality of their action too closely inquired into by the court. does not appear. This important omission might have been supplied by the elimination of the surplusage of "saids" and "aforesaids."
G. R. Rowley was the minority member of the board of canvassers, and he differed from the other members as to the validity of the returns from Wash-
152
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
ington precinct. In his statement he says the reasons assigned for throwing out the vote of that precinct was because all the members of the board of election did not sign the returns. It was claimed by the relator that the board of can- vassers having decided the returns from Washington Township irregular, that they were in duty bound to return them to the township officers for correction, and to stay the canvass until the returns were corrected and returned, and then complete the canvass. But the cause was never prosecuted to final result. A change of venue from the county was applied for and the case fell between the courts. It was claimed that the proper fees were not paid for the transcript, and the decision of the canvassers remained, and Bradford continued to be the county seat.
RELOCATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT
The advocates of the relocation of the county seat in the geographical center, which meant the site of New Hampton, did not lay down when their purpose was defeated by the action of the board of canvassers. Finding that they were thwarted at the ballot box, and that the process of securing what they considered their rights through the courts was a tedious and uncertain process, they decided to direct their efforts through the Legislature. Having elected E. R. Gillett as representative in the Legislature, who was favorable to a change of the county seat, they enlisted his services in the cause. He was instrumental in securing an act of the general assembly providing for the appointment of a commission to relocate the county seat. By chapter 236 of the acts of the Sixth General Assembly it was provided, "That D. B. Wallen, of Bremer County ; H. B. Boyd and C. A. Newcomb, of Fayette County, be, and they are hereby appointed com- missioners to relocate the seat of justice of Chickasaw County, on the first Monday of March, 1857, or within two months thereafter, as a majority of them may agree, in the pursuance of their duties under the provisions of this act."
Under this appointment, D. B. Wallen and H. B. Boyd met and relocated the county seat at New Hampton. The entry in the record of the county judge says: "The commissioners appointed by the act of the Legislature to relocate the county seat of Chickasaw County report in favor of the geographical center, or New Hampton."
The "geographical center" was about all that could be claimed for New Hampton at that time, as an advantageous site for the county seat, as the town contained only a few houses and a small population. But the commissioners readily decided that this was the logical location for the county seat, and the promoters of New Hampton, and the advocates of that selection, were satisfied with the commissioners' decision. New Hampton was secure in the enjoyment of the honor and distinction, for the time being. But it was only for the time being. Her troubles were not yet over.
ANOTHER RELOCATION EFFORT
The establishment of the county seat in New Hampton was in 1857. Hardly had this settlement been made, and the county officials adjusted themselves to the new location, until there were indications of a movement to take the county
153
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
seat away from New Hampton. Those concerned in this movement were people residing in the south part of the county, the same section of the county that antagonized the effort to remove the county seat from Bradford.
The people of the south part of the county were united in the opinion that the county seat should be removed from New Hampton, and that the matter should be submitted to a vote of the people at the next election, which would be held in April, 1858. But they were not so well united in the opinion as to what place the county seat should be removed. There were three aspirants for the location, Fredericksburg, Forest City and Bradford. As but one town could be voted on at one election, it was essential for the success of the movement that an agreement should be reached as to which one of these places should be entered in the contest. There was much discussion and many councils among the promoters of this project as to how they could settle upon a place, for they all realized that there must be harmony to even hope for success. It was finally agreed that a representative of each town should together visit every voter in the southern tier of townships and secure from each the first and second choice of places, and when these preferences were obtained they were to add the first and second choice together, and the town having the largest number of this combination was to be the town selected for the contest. This seemed a fair proposition, but the canvassers had not proceeded far in their work until it was found that Forest City had greatly the advantage, because of it being located between the other two. When the other towns discovered that they were working at a disadvantage it was too late to unite their forces in a common cause. Forest City representatives had foreseen this and had pushed the canvass to such an extent that they were successful in making that place the candidate for the relocation of the county seat.
A FLUCTUATING COUNTY SEAT
A petition signed by Hiram Bailey and 398 other citizens was presented to the County Court at the March term, 1858, praying for the submission of the question of a relocation of the county seat to a vote of the people, at the April election following, the relocation to be at a place known as Forest City, situated on sections 12 and 13, township 94, range 10. The prayer of the petitioners was granted by Lorenzo Bailey, county judge. The election was held April 5, 1858, resulting, according to the returns made by the canvassers, in favor of Forest City. Again there was a dispute as to the correctness of the count, and the Washington Township vote was again the cause of contention. The vote of that township was thrown out and not counted, for the reason that there was no accompanying poll list. It was also found that the Deerfield poll book had been tampered with, the vote having been changed from fifty-three to forty- three ; thus New Hampton was shown to have a minority of the votes counted.
A reputable chronicler of the exciting events that followed this election is authority for the story here recorded :
"Immediately on the result of this canvass being known, the county judge adjourned court, to meet in Forest City at 2 o'clock P. M. Within a few minutes the books, papers and furniture of the office were in transit for Forest City, as teams were in readiness, and a long string of oxen, attached to a wooden
154
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
'drag' for the purpose of moving the safe. During this time, and while all was activity in the removal of the county offices, a meeting of citizens claiming their rights had been invaded, was being held in an adjoining building, to take into consideration the course to be pursued.
"This meeting was addressed by some who were in a perfect frenzy of excite- ment and who were in favor of taking possession of the office and retaining it where it of right belonged. Others, more discreet, counseled milder measures ; the cooler ones finally triumphed, and a committee was appointed to commence legal proceedings to reclaim rights that were claimed to have been taken from them by those in power. In accordance with instructions, a suit was commenced at the next term of District Court, and on the 3d day of June, 1858, an informa- tion was filed in the clerk's office asking for a writ of mandamus compelling the board of canvassers to count the votes that had been cast, including those of Washington and the ten of Deerfield. A special term of the District Court was called to meet in August to hear the case at the August term on alternative writ, and after hearing, a peremptory writ was issued as prayed, and respondents appealed.
"At the same time of filing the information for a writ of mandamus, an information was filed asking for a writ of certiorari. At a special session of the District Court these papers were lost, and leave was granted to file new ones at the next term of court.
"The mandamus case was reversed in the Supreme Court as being an improper remedy, and in the opinion it was intimated that the proper remedy was an injunc- tion. On the 12th day of April, 1859, an application was made to the district judge for an injunction restraining the county officers from holding their offices at any other place than New Hampton. The writ was granted, final hearing to he had at the next term of District Court. At the spring term of court the injunc- tion and the certiorari cases both came up for hearing, and they were decided' in favor of New Hampton, whereupon the records and county offices were again returned to New Hampton."
Thus, New Hampton, after much trial and tribulation, became the established county seat of Chickasaw County, and the people of the county, who had been agitated over the question of removal during the past five years, and often per- plexed to know where they could find the courthouse when business required, could now have peace. There was another effort made to take the county seat away from New Hampton, about twenty years later, of which mention will be made further along in this history; but this effort was unsuccessful.
ELECTION OF COUNTY OFFICERS CONTESTED
The election of April 7, 1856, in addition to the disputed returns in regard to the county seat, developed a contest over the election of the county officers voted for in that election. The action of the board of canvassers in throwing out the vote of Washington Township affected nearly all the candidates for county office in that election. A contest was instituted by the candidates who claimed to have been illegally "counted out" that for a time seriously threatened the peace of the inhabitants, and engendered bitter personal quarrels that were slow to subside. Osgood Gowen, on behalf of the contestants filed the following statement :
155
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
"That the county canvassers declared Lorenzo Bailey elected to the office of county judge ; George Reed elected to the office of district clerk, and William F. Wright elected to the office of school fund commissioner; and that there was a tie vote between John A. Billings and C. M. Webster, for the office of county surveyor ; whereas, in fact, J. C. H. Miller was duly elected to the office of county judge ; Thomas A. Jacobs was duly elected to the office of district clerk; William Tucker was duly elected to the office of school fund commissioner; and C. M. Webster was duly elected to the office of county surveyor, each having received a majority of the legal votes cast in said county at said election for his said office."
Among other things submitted as cause of contest, the following were set forth :
"That the judges of election of Washington Precinct in said county, neglected to sign the returns sent up to the judge, and left the same otherwise informal; by reason of which informality and neglect, the county canvassers, or a majority of them, cast out the entire returns and vote of said Washington Township, in which precinct there were fourteen votes polled, and all for the said J. C. H. Miller, for county judge ; and all for Thomas A. Jacobs for district clerk; and also twelve votes were given to William Tucker for school fund commissioner; and all to C. M. Webster for county surveyor." And then it is charged that the canvassing board made an error in not counting the vote of Washington Township.
The board before whom this contest was filed consisted of W. E. Andrews. prosecuting attorney and ex-officio county judge, and a resident of Bradford ; George W. Howard, selected on the part of the defendants, and at that time treas- urer and recorder of the county, and a resident of Bradford; and Henry H. Shaffer, selected by the contestant, Osgood Gowen, and a resident of Obispo Township, now Jacksonville Township. The board decided adversely to the con- testant. and affirmed the decision of the board of canvassers. No further legal proceedings appear of record and it is presumed the incumbents held under the election as returned by the canvassers, unless it was in the case of Webster, candidate for county surveyor in that election, in which the canvassers reported a tie vote between him and his opponent, Billings. The records of county officers show that C. M. Webster served as county surveyor from 1856 to 1858, from which it is evident that the "tie" vote was in some way decided in favor Webster.
It will be noted that W. E. Andrews, who was ex-officio county judge, and who served as presiding member of this contesting board, was also one of the majority members of the board of canvassers who threw out the vote of Washing- ton Township, the action that brought about this contest, and the contest over the county seat vote. W. E. Andrews appears as one of the signers to the response to writ of mandamus, filed against the board of canvassers, and he is probably the architect of that remarkable vocabulary exhibit, that appears in the carly part of this chapter. In view of his official connection with the action upon which this contest was based, the question might have been raised as to his competency to serve as a judge on this contesting board ; it could hardly have been expected that he would repudiate the action for which he stood sponsor.
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.