USA > Iowa > Hancock County > History of Winnebago County and Hancock County, Iowa, a record of settlement, organization, progress and achievement, Volume I > Part 25
USA > Iowa > Winnebago County > History of Winnebago County and Hancock County, Iowa, a record of settlement, organization, progress and achievement, Volume I > Part 25
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
"About thirty years ago the county seat or seat of justice of Han- cock County was located on a block of ground known as the courthouse square, situated on the southeast quarter of Section 31, Township 96, Range 23, west of the 5th P. M., the said forty acres being known as the town plat of Concord. A small unincorporated village grew up on this town plat and ever since the location of the county seat a court- house and other county buildings have been maintained upon the court- house square or block. During the whole of the said thirty years the courts have been held at this courthouse and all the official business of the county has been transacted at the seat of justice so established. In February, 1898, the citizens of the incorporated town of Britt, also located in said county, attempted to secure a relocation of the county seat at their town. While these citizens were circulating their petition the inhabitants of the town of Garner, which is also a municipality, duly incorporated, and located in Hancock County, but a short dis- tance from the village of Concord, began proceedings to annex that part of the village of Concord to their town. An election was held and said territory with all that intervened was duly annexed to the town of Garner. Between the original limits of the town of Garner and the plat of the village of Concord is a large amount of land used wholly for agricultural purposes which has not been platted, and which the petitions allege was in no way needed for municipal purposes nor for the prospective future growth and development of the town of Garner. It is further alleged that these annexation proceedings were for the sole purpose of relocating the county seat at Garner.
247
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
"After the annexation proceedings were coneluded, certain citizens of the town of Garner filed with the board of supervisors of the county a proposition offering the county the sum of $30,000 to be expended in purchasing a site and erecting a courthouse in the incorporated town of Garner, as it existed before the annexation proceedings were had. Shortly thereafter the petition for removal to the town of Britt was presented to the board of supervisors and found insufficient. After this finding was made the board of supervisors accepted the proposi- tion made by the citizens of Garner and decided to ereet a courthouse with the money procured for that purpose and to locate the same npon what is known as Block 12, Taliman's Addition to the town of Garner. This Block 12 is not within the limits of the village or town plat of Concord, but is abont one mile north of the same and within the terri- tory of the incorporated town of Garner as it existed prior to the annexation proceedings.
"The county auditor was authorized to expend $4,000 for the site and a committee was appointed to procure plans and specifications for the new courthouse. A postoffice has been maintained by the govern- ment at the village of Concord during all of the thirty years heretofore mentioned.
"It is alleged in the injunction proceedings that unless restrained the defendants will remove the county seat and all the records of the county to the site so purchased; that they will build a courthouse at the new site and thus effectually relocate the county seat.
"These facts are not in dispute and the questions presented for our solution are: Have the defendants as a board of supervisors of Han- cook County exceeded their jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally, and shall they be enjoined from relocating the county seat at a point within the town limits of Garner as they existed before the annexation proceedings were begun.
"Some of the questions suggested by these records are so well settled as to be beyond the range of controversy. First, there is no doubt that the town of Garner had the right by proper proceedings to annex adjacent and outlying territory, and in so doing to include the village of Coneord within its litmits. Second, the board of supervisors had no right to relocate the county seat without following the express provisions of the statute as found in the Code, Section 394 to 409 inclusive. Third, the board had no right to purchase real estate for county purposes when the expense exceeded $2.000. nor to order the erection of a courthouse when the probable cost would exceed $5,000, without submitting the proposition to the legal voters of the county. Code, Section 423.
"Subject to these limitations it had the right to purchase the neces-
248
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
sary real estate for the use of the county and to remove the site of, or to designate for any county buildings required to be at the county seat, provided the site shall not be beyond the limits of the town, vil- lage or city, at which the county seat is located. Code, Section 422; sub. div. 9.
"With these questions settled we come now to the controlling one in the case and that is: did the board of supervisors in making the order heretofore cited, and purchasing the site for the new courthouse in the town of Garner, relocate the county seat ?
"Appellees contend that this was the effect of the proceedings. On the other hand, it is insisted that the board did nothing more than remove the site of, or designate a new site for the courthouse, and that the site selected by them was within the limits of what we may call the greater town of Garner, at which the county seat is located.
"In solving the questions thus presented we must first determine what was the county seat of Hancock County at the time the preced- ings were had, of which complaint is made. The county seat is the place properly designated for doing the business of the county, the place at which the public buildings are erected, where the courts are held and the county officers are located. The term does not necessarily mean the county buildings or the land on which they are situated. In common parlance it means the town or municipality where the build- ings are located and the business transacted.
"Whallon vs. Cir. Ct. Judge, 51 Mich. 503.
"It is not necessarily coextensive with the town where located.
"State vs. Atchison County, 44 Kas. 186. "State vs. Smith, 46 Mo. 50. "State vs. Harwi, 36 Kas. 503.
"In the absence of statute it seems to be well settled that when a city or town is selected as a county seat the boundaries of such city or town as they then exist become the boundaries of the county seat and the subsequent inclusions of more territory does not remove the county seat. See authorities last cited.
"One of the statutes to which we have referred seems to authorize a change of site for the courthouse, provided, the place selected is within the limits of the town at which the county seat is located.
"Now, the county seat of Hancock County was located at Concord, and a pertinent inquiry is, when, if ever, was it changed to Garner? Appellees say that was done when Garner extended her limits. But is
OLD HANCOCK COUNTY COURTHOUSE Built 1867-1869. Occupied in the fall of 1868. Abandoned in 1596.
L
249
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
that proposition sound? True it is, that Garner has extended her limits and has taken in the village of Concord, but did that act alone change the location of the county seat? Had Concord incorporated and extended her limits so as to take in what is now the town of Garner, there would be less doubt of the legality of the procedings. But that was not done. Here Garner extended her limits so as to take in the county seat and by that act alone she claims the county seat.
"It does not seem to us that the propositions advanced by appellee's counsel are sound. If they are, then all that is necessary to effectuate a relocation of the county seat is for the town that seeks to secure the relocation to extend its boundaries in such a manner as to absorb the seat of justice and the act is accomplished. In this manner county seats could be removed without the vote of the people affected thereby and the provisions of the law be made wholly ineffectual. There is no doubt that the county seat was located at the village of Concord and it is doubtless true that the village as a village has been absorbed. But the mere absorption of the territory did not remove the seat of the county government. That was just as definitely fixed after the exten- sion of the city limits of Garner as it was before. The platted portion of the village of Concord is just as easily identified now as it was before the change, and that part of it which constituted the county scat is just as much the county seat now as it was before the inhabitants concluded to become, for municipal purposes, a part of the town of Garner.
"A village is defined to be a town site platted and incorporated. The question as to when the county seat was located at the town of Garner has not been satisfactorily answered by appellee's counsel. Of course, we will grant that, if Garner ever became the county seat the board of supervisors had the right to select a new site for the court- house, provided they located it within the limits of the town. But we ask again : When did the legislature or the people of the county determine that Garner was the county seat? When did the people of the county, who alone could determine upon a relocation, say that it should be changed from what is known as the village of Concord to the incorporated town of Garner? As the electors of the county are the only persons who can relocate the county seat, surely the inhabitants of a town adjoining the seat of justice cannot by proceeding to annex territory contiguous to the town in which they live, relocate the county seat.
"For county seat purposes the territorial limits of the village of Concord are as well defined and as distinct now as ever they were, and the electors of the county have never indicated in any proper manner that they desired a change.
1
250
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
"The limitations of Section 423 of the code with reference to the amount that may be expended by the board in erecting a courthouse, or in purchasing a site therefor have no application in the case before us, for it clearly appears that the money which the defendants proposed to expend was donated by the citizens of Garner.
"Appellees further contend that neither certiorari nor injunction is the proper remedy to correct the evils complained of. We think that certiorari is the proper remedy by which to test the legality of the proceedings of the board of supervisors, and that injunction will lie to restrain the removal of the books and records.
"In the first case the action of the board of supervisors in ordering a relocation and change of the county seat is annulled.
"And in the second case the ruling on the demurrer will be reversed and the case remanded for a decree in harmony with this opinion. Annulled and reversed."
This momentous decision of the Iowa supreme court was regarded as a victory by the people of Britt, as it would force the question to a vote of the people. Consequently, the "Garnerites" and the "Brit- tishers" assembled their forces for the fight during the next four years before such an election could be held. Much ill feeling was engendered and the newspapers of Garner and Britt kept up a lively skirmish. The Britt Tribune christened the Garner people by the amusing term of "Whispering Willies," and attributed to them during the course of the next few years every trait in the criminal category. Likewise vice versa. The Tribune, immediately after the decision was handed down from the supreme court, took occasion to remark: "The county seat will remain in the 'dove cote of dilapidation' for about four years now. (Meaning Concord.) The people will walk over the intervening farm lands for a mile and a half every time they want to go to the county seat. Our good friends of Garner will doubtless find some good use to put their private courthouse to and then we will bring the county seat question to a vote of the people and Britt will build one that will equal in magnificence the Temple of Solomon, and we may possibly buy Garner's private courthouse to set up on top of ours for a bird house." The Garner people organized a railroad company and started to build a line to Crystal Lake in order to make sure of the votes of the people in the latter vicinity when the question came to a show down.
Notwithstanding the decision of the supreme court the board of supervisors, on January 4, 1900, voted to pay for heating the new courthouse, which had been constructed by the citizens of Garner, for the use of rooms for three county officials-the sheriff, county attorney and superintendent of schools. Injunction proceedings were instituted
251
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
immediately by the other side and on March 12, 1901, the district court handed down a final decree in the case. It follows:
"In district court of Hancock County, state of Iowa, February term, A. D. 1901. Thomas A. Way et al., plaintiffs, vs. E. P. Fox et al., defendants, judgment and decree.
"Be it remembered that on this 12th day of March, A. D. 1901, being the 15th day of February, 1901, term of this court, this cause coming on for hearing and decision upon the defendants' default and upon offers made and upon the plaintiffs' verbal application for a decree ยท and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the defendants, E. P. Fox, R. M. Day, H. T. Rose, W. C. Richards and F. J. Oxley, being individually county supervisors of said county and their successors in office and E. F. Brummond, county auditor of said county and his suc- cessors in office be and they are hereby perpetually enjoined and restrained, as follows :
"1st. From removing and moving the county seat and courthouse site of said county from its present location on the original town or village site of Concord in said county.
"2d. From removing and moving the county offices and county records, books and papers from the courthouse and said courthouse block in said village of Concord to any point or place outside of said original town or village of Concord, that is to any point outside of the land described as the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 96, Range 23.
"3d. From establishing the county seat of said county at or within the limits of the original town of Garner in said county as it existed before the annexation of the territory which was annexed in the year 1898.
"4th. From establishing the courthouse of the said county or any county offices or office at or upon block No. 12 of Tallman's Addition to the town of Garner, in said county or elsewhere than at the county seat at Concord on said forty aere tract of land above described.
"5th. From declaring or making or using said block No. 12 as the site of county buildings or for any county offices.
"6th. From establishing the courthouse or any of the county offices of said county including the offices of said county superintendent. sheriff, and county attorney, at or upon the new courthouse so called situated upon said block 12 in Talhan's Addition to the town of Garner, in said county, and from providing and furnishing county offices therein and paying from the funds of said county for the coal and heating of said new courthouse or any part or room thereof on said
252
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
block and from ordering or drawing any warrants from said county funds therefor and that the defendants pay the costs.
"A permanent writ of injunction may issue herein as provided by this decree and reciting in substance of this decree.
"But nothing herein contained shall prevent the legal electors of said county from hereafter beginning and completing proceedings as provided by law for the relocation of the county seat of said county and if such proceedings shall be commenced hereafter nothing herein contained shall prevent the defendants or their successors in office from doing any of those acts in reference to such proceedings which boards of supervisors and auditors can lawfully perform in like proceedings.
"And to the above decree both parties and both sides now in open court agree and consent.
"Dated this 12th day of March, A. D. 1901. Signed in open court. "J. F. CLYDE, Judge."
This practically ended the contest, except the customary verbal exchanges, until the election on November 3, 1903. The contest at the polls was a hot one, notwithstanding the vote of 2057 to 568 in favor of Garner. The board of supervisors of Hancock County met within a few days after the election and the minutes of the meeting show what action they took.
"Relocation of county seat: Shall the proposition to change the county seat to Garner, Iowa, be adopted? Yes, 2057; No, 568.
"Whereas, the board of supervisors of Hancock County, Iowa, find upon canvassing the vote upon the proposition submitted to the voters of said county at the election held therein, on November 3, 1903, to wit : 'Shall the proposition to change the county seat to Garner, Iowa, be adopted?' that 2057 votes were cast for said proposition and 568 votes against the same and the board find that a majority of all the votes cast on said proposition were in favor thereof, be it resolved by the board of supervisors that said proposition is hereby declared carried, and the said town of Garner as now constituted is hereby declared to be the county seat of said Hancock County, Iowa.
"Be it further resolved, that the respective county officers of said county, required to keep their offices at the county seat, shall as early as practicable hereafter, not to exceed thirty days from the passage of this resolution, remove the records and documents of their respective offices, to the location in said town of Garner, selected by this board as the courthouse site. And the county auditor is hereby directed to make the necessary and proper record of all the facts, findings and orders.
"On motion the foregoing was unanimously adopted.
253
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
"On motion the board unanimously accepted the following con- firmation of the gift of building and grounds :
"To the board of supervisors of Hancock County, Iowa :
"The undersigned trustees of what is known as the Garner court- house fund, having on the 10th day of September, 1898, made, executed and delivered to Hancock County, Iowa, a deed to the following de- scribed real estate, to wit :
"Block No. Twelve (12), of Tallman's Addition to the town of Garner, Hancock County, Iowa, as a gift to said county for certain prescribed purposes, which deed is recorded in the records of Hancock County, Iowa, in Book 10 of deeds on page 575, and whereas circum- stances have up until this time prevented said Hancock County, Iowa, from taking possession and occupying said premises for the purposes for which they were so donated, and whereas said county can now legally take possession and occupy the same :
"We do therefore hereby ratify and confirm the said gift so made of said premises, and hereby ratify and confirm according to its terms, the conveyance thereof, executed as aforesaid, and do hereby ratify and confirm the gift of thirty thousand dollars made to said Hancock County by citizens of Garner, lowa, and vicinity through us as such trustees for the purpose of purchasing said site and erecting the build- ing now erected thereon.
"In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hand, this 9th day of November, A. D. 1903.
"WILLIAM C. WELLS, "WILLIAM SHATTUCK. "WILLIAM SCHNEIDER,
"JOHN CHRISTIE, JR."
On motion the following resolution was unanimously adopted :
"Be it resolved : That whereas in the year 1898 certain citizens of the town of Garner, in Hancock County, caused to be deeded to Hancock County block No. 12, Tallman's Addition to the town of Garner, and which is within the corporate limits of said town, and which deed was so made and delivered as a donation to said county, with intent that said block would be accepted and used by said county as a site for a new courthouse, and which deed is now of record in said county, and in force according to its terms,
"And whereas, the citizens of Garner and vicinity did donate and furnish to the said county a fund of money with which a substantial and suitable courthouse has been erected on said block No. 12; and which is now in suitable condition to be accepted for court and office purposes :
254
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
"Now, therefore be it resolved, by the board of supervisors of Han- cock County, Iowa, that the said block No. 12 in Tallman's Addition to the town of Garner be designated as the new site for a courthouse for said county and such offices as may be kept therein.
"That the donations of said funds with which said block was bought and said courthouse was built be accepted, and that said block No. 12 be henceforth known as the courthouse site of said Hancock County." Thus ended the county seat fight in Hancock County.
CHAPTER IN' ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE TOWNSIHPS -- EARLY SETTLEMENT
ORIGIN OF THE TOWNSHIP SYSTEM-ORGANIZATION OF HANCOCK COUNTY TOWNSHIPS-TOWNSHIP SETTLEMENT-AMSTERDAM TOWNSHIP-AVERY TOWNSHIP-BINGHAM TOWNSHIP-BOONE TOWNSHIP-BRITT TOWNSHIP -CONCORD TOWNSHIP-CRYSTAL TOWNSHIP-ELL TOWNSHIP-ELLING- TON TOWNSHIP-ERIN TOWNSHIP-GARFIELD TOWNSHIP-GERMAN TOWN- SHIP -- MADISON TOWNSHIP-MAGOR TOWNSHIP-ORTHEL' TOWNSHIP- TWIN LAKE TOWNSHIP.
ORIGIN OF THE TOWNSHIP SYSTEM
Before describing the early settlement of the townships in Hancock County, something must be said of the origin and history of town- ships in the United States. Townships in this country are divided into two classes-congressional and civil.
Theoretically, the congressional township is six miles square. divided into thirty-six sections, bounded by township and range lines. each section a mile square, and the whole comprising a total of six hundred and forty acres of land. The congressional township is used as the basis for all land descriptions and county records of lands and land dealings. However, in some cases the converging meridians of longtitude, or an error on the part of the surveyor, results in a township of this kind being smaller or larger than the specified six miles square. thus causing fractional sections to be entered upon the records.
The civil township is a political subdivision. Although it fre- quently corresponds in extent to the congressional township, its boun- daries are not confined to the lines of the government survey. Natural features, such as rivers and streams, also land ridges, often form the boundaries of this type of township. Another difference is that the civil township is generally distinguished by a certain name, while the congressional township is always described by the number of the town- ship and range lines.
The civil township is the older of the two types. The Pilgrims, soon after their arrival at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620, began to
255
256
WINNEBAGO AND HANCOCK COUNTIES
develop a form of local government, modeled after the Anglo-Saxon "tunscipe," which had been copied from the Teutonic "mark." The "tunmoot," or town meeting, of the Anglo-Saxon gave every citizen an opportunity to express his views and the "tunreeve," or headman, was required to carry out the wishes of the people. The tunmoot was transplanted to New England soon after the first settlements were founded in that section. The first town meetings in this country were held in the settlements of Plymouth, Boston and Salem, Massachusetts. Other settlements initiated the system and during the colonial period of American history the town meeting, or "folk-moot," as it was often called, was a feature of New England. Some authorities, among them Fiske, have stated that this form of local government was the nearest to a pure democracy ever known.
At first the township meant simply a "tract of land granted to per- sons who intended there to settle a town and gather a church." After the beginning of the settlement it was called a town and the outlying and unsettled portions of the grant were called the township, but after a time the two terms were used synonymously. These grants or town- ships were incorporated by the colonial authorities and given certain specified powers. In the town meeting the people were authorized to elect officers, called selectmen, to manage the affairs of the township; a field-reeve whose duty was to impound stray animals until the owner could be found; the hog-reeve who was empowered to see that every hog at large should have a ring in its nose ; and a constable who was to obey the orders of the selectmen. In some settlements the selectmen made it the duty of the constable to "tickle the noses of those who were inclined to go to sleep during church services and keep them awake for the good of their souls." The town meeting also levied taxes, made appropriations for the support of the schools and the building of roads, etc. The famous military organization known as the Minute Men had its origin in the town meeting. Some of the resolutions adopted by the town meetings of New England contained clauses, the sentiment of which were afterward embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson said of the town meeting in 1807: "How powerfully did we feel the energy of this organization in the cause of the Embargo. I felt the foundations of government shaken under my feet by the New England townships. There was not an individual in their states whose body was not thrown with all its momentum into action, and although the whole of the other states were known to be in favor of the measure, yet the organization of this selfish community enabled it to overrule the Union." Notwithstanding this defeat of the purposes of the Embargo Act, and finally of the Act itself, Jefferson repeated: "They have
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.