USA > Iowa > Chickasaw County > History of Chickasaw and Howard counties, Iowa, Volume I > Part 18
USA > Iowa > Howard County > History of Chickasaw and Howard counties, Iowa, Volume I > Part 18
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
AN INDIGNATION MEETING
The story is told of an olden time judge, that in making his decisions, he was wont to advise the defeated party in cases before him, that there were two things
.
156
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
they might do: they might take an appeal from his decision, or they might go round the corner and "cuss the court." It would seem that the defeated party in this contested election case sought relief by the latter method. The public mind was in a high state of excitement, and party feeling over the decision was intense. As a means of giving vent to his feeling a public meeting was called at the Brink House, a well known hostelry, on the banks of the East Wapsie, located about a mile and a half northeast of New Hampton. No history of Chickasaw County's primitive period would be considered complete without some account of this exciting assembly of indignant citizens.
"Pursuant to notice, the citizens of central, the western and northern parts of Chickasaw County, assembled at the Brink House, on Wednesday, April 23, 1856, and organized by calling the Hon. J. C. H. Miller to the chair, and electing E. R. Gillett secretary. The chairman stated the object of the meeting in a few words: 'It seems,' he said, 'that we are called together again to deliberate upon the ways and means whereby the people-the majority of the people-shall be heard, and the elective franchise vindicated.' "
G. R. Rowley, minority member of the board of canvassers, read a report, showing the number of votes actually cast for county officers, and on the county seat question. From this report it appears that J. C. H. Miller had received a majority of five for county judge ; Thomas A. Jacobs had received a majority of nine for county clerk; C. M. Webster had received a majority of thirteen for county surveyor ; William Tucker had received a majority of six for school fund commissioner; and that in the total vote on the county seat proposition New Hampton had received a majority of seven. Following this statement Mr. Rowley proceeded in his report to give expression to an opinion, that was everything but complimentary, regarding the action of the canvassing board majority in throwing out the vote of Washington Township. Among other things, he said :
"Hon. W. E. Andrews, then acting as county judge; John Bird, Esq., and myself constituted the board. We differed on the validity of the returns from North Washington precinct. But there being two to one, they overruled me and threw out those returns, even after having them down on the clerk's tally sheet, which, if not destroyed, can yet be seen in the office; they were crossed off, and the remaining precincts counted, which changed the result of the election. If, fellow citizens, this was the first time that Bradford and its hirelings had polluted the sanctity of the ballot box we might overlook it. It is no longer ago than last August that we elected this same J. C. H. Miller as our county judge by over fifty majority. Then the Hon. Judge Lyon and A. E. Haskell perverted the will of the majority of the voters of the county by throwing out a precinct with over sixty votes to obtain their ends, without any just cause, as I verily believe; and so the court decided, before whom the Hon. Judge was taken; and it saw fit to bind him over to answer for fraud and corruption in changing the result of the election.
"But what do we see now? The same prosecuting attorney who took such an active part against Hon. Judge Lyon and had him bound over; now he is called upon to act as judge and canvasser. How much does he lack of perverting the will of the people? Has he not taken advantage of ignorance or oversight, and changed the result of the election, when it was in his power to have avoided it?
157
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
"Fellow citizens, the day of our freedom and independence has gone by, in this far-famed County of Chickasaw; the will of the majority has to succumb to a meager minority. The democratic will, the 'greatest good to the greatest number,' is perverted, and its glorious principles and precepts trampled on with impunity. Again the American principle, 'the majority shall rule,' is cast aside, and a new plank is instituted, thus, 'The minority shall rule in Chickasaw County, henceforth and forever.' Fellow citizens, was ever so palpably gross a fraud perpetrated as this? Were ever inconsistencies so glaring, as those of our Brad- ford neighbors? We may boast of our love of liberty, and expatiate with owlish gravity upon the wrongs of Kansas; but, I will tell you, the home ruffians in this county tower in brutal atrocity and unmitigated villainy above the Kansas- Missouri brigands. We may talk of going to Kansas to defend the ballot box from a Missouri mob; but we know little of our duty when we thus talk and act ; we little think the same thing is transpiring in our very midst; the ballot box is wrested from us-the palladium of our liberties assaulted-the voice of the majority slighted-the rights of the people taken away !
"Fellow citizens, how long shall we be slaves to the minority in the land of liberty, in this 'land of the free and the home of the brave'? If our voice is not to be heard and heeded at the ballot box, what security have we for our lives and property? Are they not in jeopardy? Are they not in the hands of those who could barter them away for a 'mess of pottage'? What, the minority to rule ? If the minority continue to rule, how long before we are burdened with taxes ? How long before we are called upon to build county buildings at Bradford? The minority rules, and we must submit ! Shall we let this wrong pass unnoticed and unrebuked? Is there any assurance that there will not be a repetition of the same offense next year, and the next, and so on for a series of years? In the language of Patrick Henry, 'shall we gain strength by inaction and irresolution ? Shall we lay supinely upon our backs, and hug the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies have bound us hand and foot?' Answer these questions, fellow citizens, upon the altars of your hearts. Answer them with an eye single to the welfare, happiness and prosperity of this beautiful county."
For impassioned utterance, Patrick Henry could not have done better. No doubt the assembled citizens were wrought up to the highest pitch, but, so far as the record appears, nothing further was done about it. But it is easy to imagine that the jealousy and bitter animosity engendered by this controversy did not soon subside. One of the old citizens, with a vivid memory of the stirring events relating to this county seat question, says :
"The seed thus sown was destined to become prolific of bitter personal. partisan and local feeling, between the citizens of the northern and southern sections of the county. The first and leading question, on the advent of settler, was, 'Is he a northern or southern man?' Now, that the mantle of peace has fallen upon the county, we can but look back and suppress a smile at these intes- tine wars, and rumors of war, that so absorbed public interest ; and, in passing. express no opinion as to the justice of either party."
"BATTLE OF BAILEY'S LANE"
Another "episode" connected with the fluctuations of the Chickasaw county seat, occurred as a sequel to the complications resulting from the hurried removal
158
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
of the county seat to' Forest City, heretofore mentioned. This episode in the history of the county is humorously referred to as the "Battle of Bailey's Lane," and if the account of this bloodless conflict is to have a place in this work the proper place is here. The story can best be told by an old citizen, who witnessed the "conflict," probably from the standpoint of an "innocent bystander." This , may be accepted as the official report, briefly stated :
"Judge Bailey lived at Forest City. had property there, and was naturally in- terested in the growth of the place. Immediately after the canvassing of the election, and the throwing out of enough votes to give a majority to Forest City, a posse was brought to New Hampton to remove the records. The posse num- bered about seventy-five persons, who came principally from Forest City and Bradford. The people of New Hampton at first refused to submit to a removal of the records, and made preparations to resist, many coming in from this vicinity to fight against the removal. if necessary.
"The opposing forces met over Gurley's store. where the county safe and books were. The Forest City people first went up, and were followed by the op- posing faction. For a time there was the wildest excitement. and it looked like trouble was imminent. But, under peaceable advice, the Forest City people were permitted to take the records. They threw the safe out of the second story win- dow, removed the records and carried the effects of the county to Forest City.
"New Hampton then began the fight through the courts. A warrant was is- sued for the arrest of Judge Bailey, and a posse went to his house and arrested him. There was a good deal of excitement and considerable delay. the judge and his family making various pretexts to that end. until up came a man with what purported to be a writ of habeas corpus, and took the prisoner away from his captors. The writ purported to have been issued from the office of the clerk of the court, but, it is claimed, was in reality issued by the deputy clerk. Bailey was released, but in the interval during which he was held for consultation, a general fight ensued. In the meantime the judge found it convenient to disappear. and for a time the conflict waged warm and the fighting dangerous. The fight was in front of the judge's house, and was participated in by seventy-five persons. several of whom were severely hurt."
It is unnecessary to add that the posse came away without their intended pris- oner. Many of the parties engaged in this affair were arrested and taken to Wil- liamstown, and thence to Nashua. where a show of prosecution was made but none were convicted. Most of those who participated in this engagement have passed away; the few that remain have long since "buried the hatchet" and are living as neighbors and friends in peace and harmony. To them the mention of the "Battle of Bailey's Lane" only creates a smile of retrospective amusement.
ANOTHER COUNTY SEAT CONTEST
New Hampton had been in peaceful possession of the county seat for twenty years, a respectable courthouse had been built. a county jail had been erected and all other necessary appointments for the official center of the county established. The jealousies and animosities engendered by the contest contention of other years had seemingly subsided, the people of the different sections of the county were on friendly speaking terms, and there was nothing to indicate a revival of
1
159
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
the effort to take the county seat away from New Hampton. Then the unexpected happened.
On the evening of March 26, 1880, the old courthouse that served for many years as a seat of justice in New Hampton took fire and burned to ashes. The cause of the fire has been ascribed to incendiarism, prompted by some one with sinister designs, but this has never been fully proven. However, most of the county records were saved, and, as the old courthouse had served its day, its destruction was not considered a great misfortune. Immediately a movement was started to erect a substantial courthouse, one that would be an honor to the county. On March 31, 1880, the citizens of Nashua took the initiative by circulating a paper, which was signed by some of the substantial citizens of that place, asking the board of supervisors of Chickasaw County to take the necessary steps "to build a courthouse -upon the courthouse square, New Hampton, as soon as the same can legally be done." This petition was signed by the following: A. G. Lawrence, C. A. Greeley, M. Stewart, Jr., S. E. Preston, A. A. Turner, Amos Case. Joseph F. Grawe, William B. Perrin, F. Hollenback, J. W. Kellogg, J. P. Parrish, B. A. Billings, Hazlett & Sons, and 125 others.
The fact that such a petition should come from that vicinity was an indication that, among some of the leading citizens, at least, the old rivalry and animosity that once existed, on account of the county seat contest, had subsided. However. not all the citizens of the vicinity of Nashua were of one mind in regard to re- building the courthouse at New Hampton. There were some there and in other parts of the county who favored another location. Some suggested that the court. house be built at Nashua. Another objection came from Lawler in the form of a resolution, adopted at a meeting of citizens, held in that place, April 3d; "pro- testing against the appropriation of any money by the county to build a court- house, until the town where it was built should make a liberal appropriation there- for."
This action of the Lawler people was an apple of discord projected into plans for a peaceful settlement of the county seat question. But it had the effect of prompting citizens of the towns desiring a courthouse to get busy with a donation offer. New Hampton came forward with a proposition to raise a fund of $5,000 to be held in trust by A. E. Bigelow, H. M. Mixer and John Foley, as trustees ; this fund "to be given to the county of Chickasaw, or as much of it as was needed. to complete the courthouse building, provided, the county appropriated the sum of $5,000 in addition."
An objection was made to the conditions of this offer. The objectors contended that the subscribers to this five thousand dollar fund were only bound for a small sum, in reality. They contended that but little more than the five thousand dollars, which the conditions required that the county should appropriate, would be needed to complete the courthouse, according to plans adopted by the board of super- visors. In other words, the objectors thought they could discover something in the nature of a "joker" in the New Hampton proposition.
This led to much dispute and argument, and there was a wide difference of opinion as to the cost of the proposed courthouse. In the meantime, the citizens of Nashua came forward with a proposition backed by a money consideration, to build the courthouse at that place. Their proposition was, an agreement on their part, if the county seat was located in Nashua, that they would erect a building
160
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
suitable for the purpose, at a cost of $25,000, which the county might occupy as a courthouse, at a nominal rent of one dollar per annum, but which building they would not donate to the county.
Finally, at the September meeting of the board of supervisors, the question of locating the county seat was taken up. A petition, signed by a large number of voters of the county, was presented, asking the honorable board to relocate the county seat at Nashua, in the township of Bradford. At the same time a remon- strance, signed by a larger number of citizens and voters of the county, was pre- sented remonstrating against the relocating of the county seat at Nashua.
The following, from the official records of the board of supervisors, of Chicka- saw County, is the decision rendered on the petition presented, and is the conclu- sion of the Chickasaw County seat controversy :
"The question of the relocation of the county seat was taken up by the board, and the following action was taken: We, the board of supervisors of Chickasaw County, Ia., at the suggestion, and by the expressed consent of the petitioners, by their attorney, without a close investigation of either the petition or the remon- strance, but taking the names as they appear on the face of said petition and re- monstrance, and being satisfied that the names upon the remonstrance exceed the names upon the petition, therefore the prayer of the petitioners is hereby not granted."
Thus again it was demonstrated that New Hampton had a pretty firm grip on the county seat, and she has remained in undisputed possession since. The building of the new courthouse in the place of the one destroyed by fire will be mentioned in proper place in another chapter.
CHAPTER IV
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
FIRST SESSION OF COUNTY COURT-THE COUNTY JUDGE THE SUPREME AUTHORITY --- ORDER DEFINING THE COUNTY BOUNDARIES-NUMEROUS ROAD PETITIONS -- FINANCIAL EXHIBIT, 1856-BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ASSUME CONTROL OF COUNTY AFFAIRS-NASHUA BRIDGE THE SUBJECT OF MUCH DISCUSSION-FINALLY COM- PLETED -- COURTHOUSE BUILT-PETITION FOR COUNTY JAIL REFUSED --- COURT- HOUSES BUILT-FINANCIAL STATEMENT. 1873-COMPARISON WITH STATEMENT OF 1916.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
At the time of the organization of Chickasaw County the statute provided that the financial and controlling authority in the management of county affairs should be vested in the county judge, an elective officer of the county. As related in the chapter concerning the county seat contest, the county judge was clothed with supreme authority-at least he exercised that authority in his decision on a ques- tion in which there was ground for reasonable doubt. As a rule, the man who exercised the function of county judge in the early times, was a man with limited education and with no legal qualification Without the experience and education to take up the work systematically, and without preparation, he entered upon the duties of county judge, assuming the full extent of arbitrary authority that was possible of attainment by one holding that office. The county judge at that time was not inappropriately called the "county king." as he had full charge of every- thing in the county, including roads, bridges, the poor, county buildings, the levy of all taxes, except local and school taxes, and the disbursement of all funds. There were exceptions to this rule, of course. There were county judges who made up in good common sense, and with ability to see the right and wrong side of a question, what they lacked in legal and educational qualifications.
COUNTY COURT PROCEEDINGS
The first entry in the records of the county court, of Chickasaw County. dle- scribes the boundaries of the county, and recites the order for the organization of Vol. 1-11
161
162
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
the county. This, and other matters pertaining to the organization, is fully de- tailed elsewhere. The record of this session is signed by J. Lyon, county judge ; and S. C. Goddard, clerk.
On the 5th of September, 1853, appears the first record of a marriage license. This license was granted to Joseph Wing and Elizabeth Gerrard, and these parties have the distinction of being the first to enter the state of matrimony in the County of Chickasaw. The marriage ceremony was performed by James Lyon, county judge, September 5. 1853. Judge Lyon seems to have had a monopoly in officiating in marriages, during the early part of his term of office. The first seven marriages in Chickasaw County were legalized by Judge Lyon, as will be seen in a list of early marriages elsewhere in this work.
At the session of court held November 7, 1853, a petition for a road from West Union to Bradford, to be called the West Union and Bradford Road, was pre- sented by John Bird, Andrew Sample, E. A. Haskell and others. Same was re- ferred to a commissioner to make report at next term of court.
On the 2d of January, 1854, Joseph Andrews was appointed selecting agent for swamp lands. On the 10th of February, S. E. Hackleton was granted a ped- dler's license, good for three months.
At the April term of court, 1854, a petition signed by D. A. Babcock, S. C. Haynes and Joseph Andrews, was presented asking for a road to be called the West Union and Bradford Road. At the May term the petition was granted and it was ordered that the West Union and Bradford Road should be sixty-five feet wide, and that all roads thereafter should be of the same width. This order es- tablishing the width of roads is evidence of the fact that the county court at that time was possessed of a level head. Road petitions and proceedings subsequent thereto, constituted a considerable portion of the business of the county court from and after this date.
At a special term of court, held July 23, 1855, the following tax rates were established for the current year: For state purposes, 11/2 mills ; for county pur- poses, six mills ; for schools, 11/2 mills; for roads, three mills, and a poll tax of fifty cents. At this session an order was issued for an election of county officers, and at the same time ordered that a vote should be taken on the question of re- straining hogs from running at large, after April 1, 1856; and also a vote on the question of vacating Greenwood Village. This election to be held on the first Monday in August, next, and that Brink precinct be attached to Chickasaw for election purposes.
The presumption is that the vote on the question of vacating the Village of Greenwood was in the affirmative, as on the 20th of August it was ordered by the court that the village be vacated. On the same date it was ordered that Hazzard Green be appointed to sell intoxicating liquors in the Obispo precinct, for medicinal, sacramental and mechanical purposes, only ; and a similar entry was made with reference to J. A. J. Bird, in the Town of Bradford.
The first entry of B. E. DePuy as county judge appears in the record of Octo- ber 1. 1855, and has reference to the appointment of a commissioner to locate a road known as the Waucoma Road.
By the resignation of DePuy as county judge, in April, 1856, W. E. Andrews, prosecuting attorney, became county judge, ex-officio. At the May term of court, 1856, Andrews appears in the record as judge, and among other business trans-
163
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
acted. Samuel P. Elder was appointed liquor agent for the Town of Bradford, at an annual salary of $100, and it was ordered that any liquor agent now acting in said county, or hereafter appointed, shall charge 25 per cent profit on the cost of any intoxicating liquor sold by any such agent, until otherwise ordered by the court.
At the July term. 1856. it was ordered that a road poll tax of $2 be laid on each person liable to pay county poll tax. The total tax levy for 1856 was 81/2 mills. One mill of the tax levied for road and bridge purposes was, "For building bridges too expensive to be constructed from the ordinary road tax." It was at this session of the county court that an order was made for an election to be held on the 15th day of October, 1856, to take a vote of the people on the question of granting aid to a certain railroad. The result of this election and events follow- ing, is given in the chapter relating to Special Elections.
The first record of naturalization is found in the record of October 22, 1856, where it appears that James Prior, a native of England, declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States.
At the November term, 1856, S. B. Carpenter was appointed liquor agent for Richland and adjoining townships, at a salary of $70 per annum.
FINANCIAL EXHİBIT
The following statement of the county treasurer of Chickasaw County, show- ing the receipts and expenditures of the county, from September 1, 1855, to March 18, 1856, is of interest :
G. W. Howard, County Treasurer, To Chickasaw County, Dr.
To Tax list for 1855
$5,853.14
To 281 polls
140.50
To Marriage Fees
10.00
To Fines
10.00
To Balance for 1854
183.43
Total
$6,197.07
Credit
By Delinquent Tax list
$1,635.72
By County Warrants paid
787.97
By Road Warrants paid
212.77
By Error in tax list .
21.83
By Payment to State Treasurer.
500.00
By Payment to School Fund Commissioners 486.65
By Payment to School Fund Commissioners
15.00
Total
$3.659.94
The amount of taxable property in Chickasaw County, as returned by the asses- sors for 1856, was $1,071,726. There was placed in the hands of the county treas-
164
CHICKASAW AND HOWARD COUNTIES
urer for collection, on the 15th day of September, 1856, the sum of $9.045.74. divided as follows: AAmount of tax on property, $8,841.74; amount on poll tax, $204.00.
The total tax levy for 1857 was 111/2 mills. A road poll tax of $1 was levied, in addition to a poll tax of fifty cents for county purposes.
At the December term, 1857, it was "Ordered that $1,000 of the special property tax be expended to construct a bridge across the Rig Cedar, at Nashua." This is the first appearance of any mention of Nashua in the county court records ; it was at that time scarcely more than a location on the Big Cedar.
For a brief time the county seat and place of the official business of the county, was located at Forest City. This was in the period when the county seat of Chickasaw was in a transitory state. The county court followed, or, more strictly speaking, accompanied the county seat to Forest City, April 12, 1858, and trans- acted county business at that place until, by order of a higher court, the county seat was returned to New Hampton. The board of equalization met at Forest City, May 12, 1858, and among other business, reduced the assessment of 1857 upon real estate 50 per cent. The tax levy for 1858 was fixed at 91/2 mills at that time.
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.