USA > Iowa > Keokuk County > The history of Keokuk County, Iowa : containing a history of the county, its cities, towns, &c. : a biographical directory of its citizens, war record of its volunteers in the late rebellion, general and local statistics, portraits of early settlers and prominent men > Part 47
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 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96
The motion was granted, and the cause sent to Burlington. At the spring term of the District Court, held at Burlington, in 1847, a decision was made in favor of Mr. Knox, the complainant. The county commis- sioners appealed to the State Supreme Court, and in June, of the same year, the decision of the District Court was reversed, the injunction dis- solved, and the bill of Mr. Knox dismissed.
It was now nearly one year that the clerk had prevented the removal of his office from Sigourney by permitting himself to be enjoined, but now legal restraint seemed to be at an end. There yet remained, however, one for- lorn hope, one step more possible to be taken, and Mr. Knox decided to take it. This was to carry his case to the Supreme Court of the United States. For this purpose Mr. Knox went to Iowa City. It was thought that an appeal to that court, with the filing of a supersedeas bond, would continue to restrain the clerk's office at Sigourney.
It was also well known that those who were in the interests of Lancaster were wide awake, and that an order to remove the office would be brought from the District Judge, Cyrus Olney, as soon as obtained.
To avoid service of notice of this kind for removal, and to give Mr. Knox time to return with his supersedeas, Mr. James, the clerk, "was not at home," or, in other words, he secreted himself at the house of one Cook.
When Mr. Knox returned the clerk acknowledged service of the notice of supersedeas.
Two days after this Mr. James received a letter from Judge Olney, of which the following is a copy :
" FAIRFIELD, July 26, 1847.
" DEAR SIR :- I have received official notice from the clerk of the Supreme Court that the bill of Mr. Knox against the commissioners has been dis- missed, and the injunction dissolved, and Lancaster decided to be the county- seat. It, therefore, becomes my duty to hold the District Court at Lancaster, while that decree remains unreversed. The public records should also be kept there, and the public business transacted there. If you find it inconven- ient to attend yourself at Lancaster, you can act through a deputy except during court.
" Respectfully yours, "CYRUS OLNEY."
24
376
HISTORY OF KEOKUK COUNTY.
Upon receipt of this letter Mr. James replied, stating the condition of the case, and the collision, as he deemed it, in the jurisdiction of the two courts. Mr. Olney's reply, which came a few days afterward, was quite unequivocal, and left no doubt as to the course he must pursue in order to avoid a contempt of court. It was as follows:
" FAIRFIELD, August 5, 1847.
"SIR :- The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Knox vs. The Board of Commissioners of Keokuk County makes it my duty to hold the Dis- trict Court at Lancaster, you are therefore notified hereby, and required to remove your office, as clerk of said court, to the latter place, as soon as pos- sible.
" Yours, etc., " CYRUS OLNEY, " Judge."
Still hoping that the Supreme Court would shield him from the power of the district judge to punish for contempt, Mr. James forthwith re- paired to Fairfield to consult with Judge Carleton, whom he knew to be then at that place. The integrity and ability of Judge Carleton were above suspicion. Upon having a confidential conversation with him, he advised Mr. James, that, under the circumstances, it would be the safer course to remove the office. This was accordingly done on the 7th day of August, just one year and one day after the vote was taken on the removal of the county-seat.
After the removal of the office, Mr. Knox obtained a rule from the su- preme court requiring the defendants to show cause why they should not be held to answer for a contempt in disobeying the injunction. This rule was heard at the June term, 1848, of the Supreme Court, and so much of the decision as relates to the merits of the case is hereby appended :
" At the July term of the court the injunction was dissolved and the bill dismissed. The parties were thereby restored to the same position they oc- cupied antecedent to the issuing and service of the writ of injunction. If it was made the duty of the defendants to remove the records of the county to Lancaster by the vote of the people of Keokuk county, which was shown to be the fact by the testimony which formed the basis of the action of the court in dismissing the bill and dissolving the injunction, that duty became revived by removing the restraint with which they were surrounded by the effects of the injunction upon its dissolution. But it is contended that the appeal of the cause to the Supreme Court of the United States continued the injunction in full force. If this position be well taken, and we are not dis- posed to question it, yet we are at a loss to know how the defendants are in contempt of this court. The decree of this court was, that the bill be dismissed and the injunction dissolved, and although by operation of law, case having been appealed, the injunction may not have lost its power, still the defendants, in the absence of the appeal, are but carrying out the decree of this court by removing the records to Lancaster.
" The mere taking of the appeal, then. we think, could not place the de- fendants in contempt of this court by disregarding an injunction it has dis- solved, although the effect of the appeal is to preserve the writ in full force.
" Rule dismissed."
Thus ended the first county-seat contest. Some of the people who had settled in Sigourney followed the county-seat to Lancaster, others moved to
377
HISTORY OF KEOKUK COUNTY.
other parts of the country, while many settled down in Sigourney, deter- mined that the county-seat should again return, and to this hope inany of them clung through the changing vicissitudes of the next decade, at the end of which time their hope was realized.
The indemnity guaranteed by the re-locating act was ordered to be paid from time to time by the board of commissioners, but the amounts received by the lot-holders was a poor return for the loss of the county-seat. Al- though beaten at length in the courts, Mr. Knox made a record which in- spired the commissioners with great care and caution in their subsequent dealings with him. This is illustrated by the wording of the following or- der made by the board with reference to Mr. Knox's indemnity:
" Ordered by the board, that Joseph Knox be allowed the sum of one thousand, six hundred and fifty dollars as his indemnity in full for losses sustained in consequence of the removal of the county-seat from Sigourney, the indemnity being allowed on the following lots, to-wit: Lot No. 6 in block 2, lot 7 in block No. 6, lot 1 in block 8, out-lots 15, 16, 17 and 1S, and that the clerk of this board be required to issue said amount upon the treasurer in two orders of the sum of five hundred dollars each, and the residue in fifty-dollar orders, to complete the said amount of sixteen hun- daed and fifty dollars; provided, and it is understood that this order is made with the understanding with the said Joseph Knox, that no appeal shall be taken by him to the District Court of this county from this allowance or decision of the board.
" And it is further ordered, that the clerk of this board make out to the said Knox, under his hand and the seal of this board, a certificate of the settlement of this indemnity, and that he certify in said certificate that this board has released the said Knox from any and all obligations on his bond in the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa, for the taking to the Supreme Court of the United States the case of Joseph Knox, complainant, and the Board of County Commissioners and Samuel A. James, defendants, which release is hereby granted and made."
The county-seat having thus been removed to Lancaster, and the lot- owners of Sigourney having been indemnified, in a measure for the depreci- ation of the value of real estate, the county-seat war was for the time- being ended in the third year after it began.
THE SECOND CONTEST.
The presidential campaign of 1848, the war with Mexico and State poli- itics absorbing the attention of the people, county questions were for a while overshadowed by national issues, the Sigourney party and the Lan- caster party both became either Whigs or Democrats, and the location of the county-seat for a while was of less importance in Keokuk county than the acquisition of Mexican territory.
There were those, however, who constantly and hopefully looked forward to the time when the county seat would be brought back to the former lo- cation. They were men of sagacity and patience, and did not propose to give the Lancaster party the advantage which would fall to the latter by their own rashiness and ill-timed agitation. The northern part of the county was rapidly filling up and their chances of success improving each year. They felt that they could wait so long as waiting improved their chances
378
HISTORY OF KEOKUK COUNTY.
of ultimate victory, consequently they divided their time between business and national politics.
In 1853 there was considerable talk about another change of the county- seat, but no open and organized effort was made; skirmishers were sent out to feel the enemy, with instructions not to bring on an engagement. In 1854 the movement assumed definite shape and petitions were circulated. In the winter of this year a pressure was brought to bear upon the legisla- . ture which resulted in the passage of the following bill:
"An Act to Relocate the County Seat of Keokuk County:
" SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa, that at the' August election, to be held on the first Monday in August, 1855, there shall be, at the several places of voting in Keokuk county, in the State of Iowa, a poll opened for the purpose of determining by ballot whether the county-seat shall be removed from its present location in the town of Lancaster, in said county, to the town of Sigourney, in said county.
"SEC. 4. That if there shall be a majority of votes cast at said election in favor of removing the county seat of said county to the town of Sigour- ney, in said county, the county officers of said Keokuk county shall remove. their offices, and the books, papers, records, and other personal property of their respective offices, belonging to said county, to said town of Sigourney so soon as the county judge of said county can procure proper rooms for the temporary use of their respective offices; Provided, Said removal shall not take place until, by proper bonds and securities, said Keokuk county is. secured in the sum of five thousand dollars, to be paid into the treasury of said county, one-half on the first Monday in January, 1856, the other half on the first Monday in January, 1857, to be secured on or before the first day of October, 1855.
"SEC. 5. That in case said county-seat is removed to Sigourney, the lot- holders in the town of Lancaster shall be indemnified, said indemnity to. be assessed by three disinterested commissioners, viz .: William P. Organ,. of Washington county, James Bridges and Henry Blackburn, of Mahaska county, who shall first be sworn to the faithful discharge of their duties as- such commissioners, and shall proceed to discharge the same, and make their return thereof to the county judge of said county on or before the. first day of December, 1855, and said county judge shall give each claim- ant an order on the treasury of said county for the amount assessed to him, as in other claims against said county."
Under this special act the election was held at the time named, and from the abstracts returned to the county judge it appeared that there was a. majority against the proposed removal. This result, however, was arrived at by the action of the canvassers, who threw out the vote of certain pre- cincts on the ground of alleged irregularities. From the total vote as cast it appeared that there was a majority of seven in favor of the removal. It was the duty of the county judge, however, to declare the result as certified to by the canvassers, and the verdict was against the proposed removal.
The matter was thereupon taken to the District Court, and is known in the court records as the case of Price and Wait vs. Harned et al. It ap- pears that the plaintiffs, being citizens of the county, and having voted at said election, claimed that their votes had not been properly canvassed; that a majority of the votes was in fact cast for Sigourney, and that the- canvassers had improperly and illegally excluded the returns from four-
379
HISTORY OF KEOKUK COUNTY.
townships of the county, and which votes, if counted, would show a ma- jority in favor of Sigourney; and they therefore claimed that the county officers should remove their offices to Sigourney. For the purpose of com- pelling this removal, the plaintiff's presented their sworn information to the Hon. Wm. H. Seevers, judge of the District Court, praying for a writ of mandamus compelling Harned, who was then county judge, to order the removal of the said offices. The district judge decided in favor of Sigourney, and ordered the removal.
The county officials who represented the case of Lancaster, and who were the defendants in this case, appealed from the decision of the District Judge, and the case came before the Supreme Court at the next term. The case was ably argued pro and con, J. C. Hall, of Burlington, appearing for the appellants, and D. Rorer, of the same city, appearing for the appellees. The decision, which was against Sigourney, was given by Chief Justice Wright. The opinion is somewhat lengthy. We give only the closing paragraph:
" Very great injustice may have been done by the first canvass. If so, «ve have no doubt but the writ of mandamus could properly issue to compel the board to correct the mistake and do their duty. And upon such cor- rection, if the majority was in favor of Sigourney, it is just as clear that upon a failure of the county officers to remove, they could be compelled to do so by mandamus. . While we would not say that the alternative writ might not issue, commanding the canvassers to correct the canvass, and upon such correction commanding the county officers to remove their offices; yet we think the better practice would be to first compel the board to act so as to correct the canvass. When this has been done, and the duty of the county officers clearly fixed, so that their duty can be said to be " specially enjoined,' and they refuse, then let the mandate of the court issue, commanding them to act. And less objection, it is believed, obtains to this course, from the fact that the law contemplates speedy action. The defendants may be required to answer forthwith. The very nature of the writ carries with it the necessity of prompt and decisive action on the part of the court. By pursuing this course, confusion will be avoided, and each tribunal and officer held liable for their own actions, for their own ·contempts, and their own costs, and this, too, it is believed, without any prejudice to the rights of the relators.
" Judgment reversed and cause remanded."
This apparent victory for Lancaster caused great satisfaction to the friends of the latter place, who gave themselves over to a season of rejoic- ing. But their triumph was of short duration; in fact, it proved in the end to be the very best thing that could have happened for the friends of Sigourney, for they got the county-seat the next year, and that, too, with- out paying any indemnity whatever to the lot-holders of Lancaster.
A general act, entitled " An Act in relation to County-seats," was passed by the legislature, and approved January 21, 1855, which provided that any county-seat might be re-located by taking the following course: A pe- tition, signed by at least one-half of the qualified electors, must be pre- sented to the county judge, asking for a re-location. The county judge must then order a vote to be taken, at the next April election, between the place designated and the existing county-seat. If the point designated in the petition obtain a majority of all the votes cast, the county judge must
380
HISTORY OF KEOKUK COUNTY.
make a record thereof, and declare the same to be the county-seat, and re- move the records and documents thereto as early as practicable thereafter."
Accordingly, a petition was circulated early in the year 1856, and it hav- ing been made to appear that a majority of the qualified voters had signed the petition, the county judge, the Hon. S. Harned, ordered a vote to be- taken at the ensuing election on the first Monday in April.
The result of this election was that a majority of the votes cast were for removal to Sigourney. Upon the canvass of the votes and this fact ap- pearing, Judge Harned declared Sigourney the county-seat. The several county officers, with their official records and books, accordingly removed from Lancaster to Sigourney on the 12th of April, 1856-just eight years, eight months and five days from the time that the clerk's office was re- moved from Sigourney to Lancaster, and over eleven years from the time- when the question first began to be agitated.
The county-seat was now back at Sigourney, but the contest was not yet ended; the case must first be taken to the District and Supreme Courts be- fore the friends of Lancaster would submit. Sigourney had set Lancaster a good example in the matter of litigation, and the latter were not slow to. profit by it.
At the term of the District Court next following the removal of the. county-seat, the case was taken into the courts. It is known on the court records as " Casey vs. Harned." The plaintiff applied for and obtained a writ of certiorari, directed to the county court, in substance requiring that court to return the facts attending said election and removal. The return being made and the case heard, the action of Judge Harned in ordering the removal of the county-seat was affirmed.
The case was then taken to the Supreme Court, Knapp & Caldwell ap- pearing for the appellant, and Seevers & Seevers appearing for the appellee.
The main point which the attorneys for the appellant attempted to make and upon which they chiefly relied for a verdict was the fact that the special act under which the vote of August, 1855, had been taken was. passed subsequently to the general act under which the election of April, 1856, had been held. They claimed that the special act of January 24th, 1855, in effect repealed the general act of January 22, 1855, so far as it concerned Keokuk county; that after having held an election to determine whether the county-seat should be removed from Lancaster to Sigourney, the latter indemnifying the former, and it being decided against removal that Sigourney could not now come in and under the general act procure a removal without paying any indemnity. It was also held that in the special act it was provided that in case there was a majority against re- moval then Lancaster should forever remain the county-seat.
Chief Justice Wright gave the decision which was in favor of Sigour- ney, affirming the judgment of the lower courts. In substance the court held that the word forever ment only until such a time as it should be. legally otherwise ordered, and that it cannot be the effect of a special act to repeal a general act. We give the concluding paragraph of the opinion:
"We conclude, therefore, that the right of the citizens of Keokuk county to vote on the subject of the re-location of their county-seat under the act of January 22d, 1855, was not taken away by the special act of the 24th of the same month; and consequently that the county judge of that county being properly petitioned had full power to submit such question to a vote- of the people at the April election, 1856. And we thus determine that the.
381
HISTORY OF KEOKUK COUNTY.
judgment of the District Court must be affirmed without considering the objection that the relator, Casy, had no right to institute this proceeding; without deciding whether the special act is public or private in its charac- ter, and without noticing the further point, that if the special act repealed the general act, pro tanto, the statute would be rendered thereby uncon- stitutional, in view of the provisions of the constitution which require all laws of a general nature to have a uniform operation. These questions it is unnecessary to enter upon at this time.
Judgment affirmed."
THE FOOL'S BOOK.
When the old court-house was still in use and before the county-seat was removed to Lancaster there flourished what was called the "Fools Book."
This affair originated with the every day loafers' society; it was a quire or two of paper stitched together in which any one whose spirit moved him could indite whatever thoughts presented themselves. It had no special custodian, but laid around loose and contained many specimens of chirography. It was not intended for the ladies although it did sometimes emigrate into their presence. A few extracts from this book will save its memory from oblivion if they do not interest the reader.
The following are the rules of writing:
"1st. Every person writing in this book must write a plain legible hand. "2d. No person shall write anything of a vulgar, obscene or immoral nature.
" 3d. All fines collected under these rules are to be paid in foolscap pa- per, to be attached to this book for the benefit of the fool writers.
"4th. In commencing a writing on any subject, the writer must leave at least one inch of white paper between the commencement of his writing and the end of the preceding piece, on penalty of paying one whole sheet of fair, white foolscap paper, and shall number his piece in consecutive order.
" 5th. If any fool should blot or tear this book, he shall be fined a like sheet of foolscap paper.
"6th. Every fool writing in this book must sign his real or fictitious name to his composition.
"7th. All persons writing in this book must be fools, and are requested not to write anything without saying something either witty, instructive, amusing, pleasing, funny, ridiculous-or somehow else."
No. 1.
" Well, I am going to dinner, certain-thank my stars! It is not every fool that can get his dinner just when he wants it. Lucky dog am I, if I do wear an old coat; and that is not all: I am a contributor to the fools' book, which is a great honor to a chap of my cloth; reckon the fools are about as numberless as any society of great men."
No. 18.
" Now, I suppose there are many persons who are not aware of any such publication as the fools' book; and it is well that this is the case, for there
382
HISTORY OF KEOKUK COUNTY.
is at present such an insatiate rage for new books that the whole commu- nity run mad and remain so until they have perused the last new work, and the knowledge of the existence of the fools' book would excite such a tremendous sensation, such universal interest, find so many favorites and be read with such avidity by a large and respectable majority of the citizens of Keokuk county and vicinity, that it might have a deleterious effect upon the mental organization of the species of animal sometimes called homo."
No. 70.
" She has a pretty face, has she, eh? Well, what of it if she has? If that is all the good quality she has, if a quality it may be called, I would not give a snap for her. I have seen a number of such girls that even did not darn their own stockings; but while their mothers were making slaves of themselves their promising daughters were sighing, longing and look- ing sentimentally before a mirror. Away with such trash! I say; give me the real buxom, tom-boy romp of a farmer's daughter, who is out of her bed-room of a morning ere the lark begins to warble forth his morning hymn; the glow of health is on her rosy cheek; her eyes sparkle with wit and good humor; her step is dignified and majestic; her countenance dis- plays an air of cheerfulness and maiden simplicity, when thus in the bright and rosy morn, ere the sun has yet gilded with rose-tint hues the Oriental horizon, she goes forth amid the song of birds to feed the old hen and chickens."
No. 76. "SIGOURNEY, April 6, 1846.
" MY DEAR FOOLS:
" I am happy to inform you that I am yet alive an able to kick.
" This has been the most all-fired particular queer day I have ever seen. It has been both good and bad; and both good and evil have been com- pletely mixed up with mud. I think it would be a good idea for the peo- ple here to commence brick-making, for two reasons: first, the mortar is al- ready mixed up; second, we need the brick-bats to throw at birds and other varmints that infest this town. The folks had an election here to- day, and it beat Buncombe. The rains beat down all day something like Noah's deluge, and yet the folks were so dry that they drank something less than seven barrels of whisky; in fact, with some that was the all- absorbing question. The people were all hot as pepper about something, and could not keep cool no how you could fix it. The way they election- eered beat all nature and Davy Crockett into the bargain. Everybody was on one side or t'other-only some, and they were afraid to be on any side. I guess they want office, and go on what we used, in Buncombe, to call the non-committal question. I tell you what! the Hawkeyes are great folks for office, so I will say no more about the election-only that one side beat, and t'other didn't.
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.