USA > Kansas > Reno County > History of Reno County, Kansas; its people, industries and institutions, Vol I > Part 16
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
Everything possible was done to crowd the building of the bridges, especially the river bridges across the Arkansas. The founders of the town saw that even with the changes in the boundaries, by which a row of town- ships was added on the north and cast sides of the county and a part of the southern end of Reno cut off and Kingman county created by the Legis- lature of 1872-that even with these changes, that put Hutchinson nearer the center of the county, there was growing in the county a disposition to contest Hutchinson's claim for a county seat at a later date. So they were anxious to have the river bridge completed as soon as possible, so as to offer an opportunity for the people living on the south side of the river to get to Hutchinson. With the completion of the railroad to Hutchinson in July. IS == a profitable business grew up in the hauling of the buffalo bones to Hutchinson to be shipped east. For these reasons nothing was allowed to interfere with the building of the "big bridge." as it was called.
Another matter that received the attention of the county commission- er- at this time was the question of roads. Prior to this time there were no regularly laid-ont public roads. There were no fences and but few farms and the traveler was guided by the axiom that the shortest distance between two points would be a straight line; there was but little to stop anyone from
175
RENO COUNTY, KANSAS.
.
going the shortest route. But as farms began to be settled, it became neces- sary to have regularly laid-out paths of travel. There were some roads that had been used until they became fairly good to follow, especially over the star routes, but they were so few that they would not answer generally for roads. On July 6. 1872. Judge L. Houk and nineteen others presented a petition to the county commissioners to declare all section lines public roads, except the lines of section 13, township 23, range 6, where Hutchin- son was located and which would provide itself with streets. The Legis- lature of 1872 passed a law making all section lines public roads, but it was necessary under the act to have a petition presented to the county commis- sioners and have them declare the establishment of the roads. This, in a general way, was the beginning of the public roads of the county. But it did not meet the immediate needs of the people of that time. There were a good many roads that did not follow section lines. Among the more notable of these roads was one that in later years caused a great deal of discussion and litigation. It was called the "Haven angling road." . The people liv- ing southeast of Hutchinson did not want to follow the square-cornered road system, but preferred to "cut across lot," on their way to town. At that time there was but little objection to such a road. Travelers were scarce and people were more sociable than they were in later years. The land was net so valuable and but little inconvenience was experienced by the owners of the land in having a road run diagonally through their land. So. at the meeting of the board of county commissioners in January, 1873. the "Haven angling road" was authorized. There was no "viewing" of the road, no damages awarded and no benefit assessed by the commission- ers in taking this action : but it met no opposition, for the people to the south- east of Hutchinson wanted it and the owners through whose land the road passed made no objection, so the road was established.
Twenty years passed. The "Angling road" was a highway of con- merce and a big change had been made in the farms lying between Haven and Hutchinson. Many of these were fenced, all of the land farmed and the owners of the land there wanted the road changd to the section lines. The contention lasted four years. Attorneys were retained by both those who wanted the road ept open and by the landowners who wanted the road closed. Two different boards of county commissioners heard the case. The first one refused to close the road. The vote stood two to one to keep the road open. Another petition was filed, another hearing held and the controversy was one that divided the neighborhood along the road. To end
1
176
RENO COUNTY, KANSAS.
it all, another vote was taken and W. K. Noland, one of the commissioners. changed his position in the matter and the "Haven angling road" was a thing of the past. The policy of closing the "angling roads" was adopted and, as but few of the "short cuts" of the old settler remained, the so-called section line roads serve the people for their highways.
Farly in 1873 C. C. Hutchinson issued a circular that contained a great deal of descriptive matter of Reno county, also a map. But it was more than a map. It was his vision of the Reno county in the years to come. At that time there was but one railroad in the county, the Santa Fe. and there were no other railroads looking towards Hutchinson. There was scant business for that one-there was little, in fact, to haul out of the county except buffalo bones and nothing to haul in except the settlers' goods and cattle. But in this dream-and C. C. Hutchinson was a dreamer, and one whose dream this time came true-he saw other railroads built into this valley. How well he dreamed, how his dream came true, can be seen by looking at this map. Put it down beside a map of Reno county of today and one would have to look closely to see wherein the railroad he dreamed of did not appear in the map of today. The "Hutchinson & Nettleton railroad" is but a short distance out of the line of the present Kinsley branch of the Santa Fe. The "Hutchinson & Memphis" could hardly be distin- guished in its route from the Missouri Pacific that was built many years after the map was made. The "Southwestern railroad" of 1873 follows almost exactly the line the Rock Island built into Hutchinson years later and the "E. L. L. & Southwestern" leaves Reno county on almost the same ground that the Missouri Pacific takes as it bends toward the main line of that road that runs into Colorado. This map is published to show the con- ceptions the founder of this city had of its future and his idea of the way railroads would be built into this territory.
(NICKERSON
JLAKE
O POND
-
CREEK.
.
&
RON-BRIDGE-
5
S
RT
WESTERN
K
SOUTH
UTCHINSON
MON BRIDGE
AUTO
FREE BRIDGETK
TOSVIHSTAR
1
RED ROCK
NTV
BRIDGE
-
AS
R
-
FREE.B RIDGE
CAST
LETON
6
5 4 3
1
5
7 8 9 10 11 -12 CLEAR RUN
18
16|15
13
-
19 20 21 22 23 24
NORTH- LINE- OSAGE-
-/ A-D-I-A·NY
-LA-N-D.SI
30 29 28 21 2625
-
JSOUTHEAST
1
31 3233 3435 36
HUTCHINSON
AN
MEMPHIS R.R.
0
1
4
YTRUST
IRON BRIDGE
FAC
&NO
T
Map Drawn by C. C. Hutchinson in 1873, Showing His Remarkably Prophetic Vision of Future Reno County.
.
CHAPTER XXIII.
BONDS OF THE COUNTY AND ITS SUBDIVISIONS.
As soon as Reno county was organized in January, 1872, one thing was very apparent to the men who were managing the county's affairs, and that was that improvements of various kinds would be necessary. A court house had to be built, bridges had to be built, and the running expenses of the county had to be met. Another thing was apparent, and that was that the county would have to borrow money to make these improvements. So the early bond issues were voted. Ever since that time Reno county has had a bonded indebtedness.
Another feature of these bonds was that they were refunded, most of them, before they were due. The early bond issues generally bore seven per cent. When the county's credit was strengthend and bonds could be sold at a low rate, these bonds were called in and paid off and in their place other bonds were issued at a lower rate of interest. To pay the commis- sions for making the change in these bonds, the money in the sinking fund. that was for the payment of those bonds when they became due was used to pay these commissions. Considerable criticism of the county commissioners was made at the time, but they justified their action by saying that the interest on the bonds was as much a part of the debt as the principal, and that a reduction in the rate of interest of the bonds was such a reduction of the indebtedness as would justify them in using the sinking fund under the limitation of the statute that required that the sinking fund could be used for no purpose other than the payment of the bonds. They further insisted that it was only the part of wisdom to extend the time of the pay- ment of the bonds, beyond that contemplated at the time of the issuance of the bonds so that the burden of the internal improvements of the county should be distributed, and that the generations of the future that would use these improvements should help pay for them, and the county at that period of its development should not undertake to pay more than the interest, and that they were wisely acting in the best interests of the people of that day when they were reducing the interest rates on their bonded indebtedness, and likewise decreasing their taxes.
(12)
178
RENO COUNTY, KANSAS.
While considerable money was paid in commissions for the refunding of these bonds, from the standpoint of the present, the objections to extend- ing the time of payment of the bonds of the county seem to be of little force. Considering the comfort and benefit the present generation has inherited in the way of municipal improvements, no criticism of any great force can be urged against the action of the county commissioners of that day; and while Reno county would be out of debt now if that policy had not been adopted, yet the burden left to the present generation is so small compared to the changed conditions and improved conditions of the present over that of twenty-five years ago, that no legitimate criticism can be now urged against the policy they adopted. Reno county has always been prompt in the payment of all her obligations. There never has been a default on inter- est payments. Bonds were promptly re-issued when due, and the credit of the county has always been carefully guarded.
TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.
On January 1, 1916, Reno county had a total bonded indebtedness of $209,000 that was outstanding and not due. The county treasurer had $18,640 on hands to apply on these bonds at the date of their maturity, as the bonds of the county are investments which the holders do not desire to have paid until maturity. These bonds, together with the date of issue, purpose of issuance of the bonds. the date of the bonds, the date of their maturity, and the interest the bonds bear :
Amount. $40,000; date of issue. February 1, 1898: purpose, refunding ; due February 1. 1918; interest rate, 41/2%.
Amount, $15,000 ; date of issue, January 1. 1898; purpose, C. K. & N .; due February 1, 1919 : interest rate, 41/2%.
Amount, $44.000; date of issue, January 1, 1889: purpose, C. K. & N .; due January 1. 1919: interest rate, 51/2%.
Amount, $6,000; date of issue, January 1, 1899; purpose. C. K. & N .; due January 1, 1919: interest rate, 51/2%.
Amount. $39.000; date of issue, December 1, 1898: purpose, refunding county bonds : due January 1, 1929; interest rate, 4%.
Amount. $24,000; date of issue. June 1, 1899; purpose, refunding county bonds; due June 1, 1929: interest rate, 4%.
Amount, $32,000; date of issue, June 1, 1899; purpose, refunding county bonds: due June 1, 1929: interest rate. 4%.
179
RENO COUNTY, KANSAS.
Amount, $0,000 ; date of issue, June 1, 1900; purpose, refunding county bonds; due June 1, 1930; interest rate, 5%.
Nickerson has $3,900 of sewer bonds. Hutchinson had on January I, 1916, $243,220 of bonded indebtedness, all for internal improvements- pavements, sewers, parks, etc. Grant township had outstanding bonds to the amount of $7,000, and had $9,000 on hands with which to pay the bonds. No explanation is available as to why the bonds are unpaid or why there should have been levies made and money collected in excess of that amount of their indebtedness. Little River township had $8,700 of outstanding bonds and $2,000 in the treasury to their credit to pay on their bonds. Cen- ter township had $1,000 of outstanding bonds on January 1, 1916.
The total school district bonds on the date given was $84,900, these bonds being issued for the erection of new school buildings and grounds and other improvements since January 1, 1916. Eight districts have voted bonds for new school buildings.
The bonded indebtedness of the county has been decreased since 1892, when the county had $412,000 of this kind of debts. The $60,000 of bonds voted in 1872 for a proportion to the taxable property in the county of that time, is far beyond the rate of the bonded indebtedness of 1916. The amount of bonds of the county in 1916, is almost negligible. Of the $210,000 bonds, as shown by the table in this chapter, $50,000 will be due on Janu- ary 1, 1919; $15,000 will be due ten years later, and the balance, $9,000, due 011 January 1, 1930. The bonds of the county in 1873 covered fourteen per cent. of the assessed valuation of the county, while the bonded indebted- ness of 1916 is less than one-fourth of one per cent. of the assessed valua- tion of the county. In other words, from a bond standpoint alone, the county's financial responsibility is more than sixty-five times as great as it was in 1872. In fact, this is a small measure of the difference. Then, the county was an experiment : now, a realization; then, a few settlers with no financial resources ; now, a population close to fifty thousand, and a wealth of diversi- fied industries and a county development that the most ardent financier among the pioneers never dreamed of. Then a land of buffalo and Indians and buffalo grass; now, the homes of contented and industrious people, and with alfalfa fields that produce as much wealth to an acre as the early-day grass did to a section.
This bond matter is of small importance to the county, but it affords a method of ascertaining the progress of less than a half century, which enables us, in commercial terms, to measure the advance of the county in the lifetime of the earliest settler.
180
RENO COUNTY, KANSAS.
In addition to the bonds of the county, a few townships and cities still have a small bonded indebtedness. Sylvia City has $6,000, due January I, 1921. The proceeds of the sale of these bonds were used by the city for the. erection of an electric-light plant. Turon also put in a municipal elec- tric-light plant at a cost of $10,000, for which they issued bonds. They have $3,500 on hand in their sinking fund to retire these bonds when due. Nickerson issued $5,000 in city bonds, the proceeds of which they put in a complete sewer system. South Hutchinson has still outstanding $2,800 of bonded indebtedness. This issue of bonds was used to refund an old bonded indebtedness.
There are some townships that have voted bonds for road improve- ments. Clay township has an issue of $1,500 used on the roads in the northern part of the township, which is an extension of the pavement put down on Fourth avenue, east, Hutchinson. Little River township voted $2,000 with which to build the "Buhler" road. Hayes township was the last of the townships to vote bonds for road improvements, their issue being for $1,000 that was used on some of the "sand hill" roads of that township.
CHAPTER XXIV.
RENO COUNTY'S FINANCIAL MATTERS.
In 1872, when Reno county was organized, the question of raising money with which to run the county was one that puzzled the early settlers. The county had to have a building in which to transact its business, to house its records and to hold its courts. It had to provide for the expense of inain- taining order. It had to build bridges across the Arkansas river, Little river and Cow creek. It had no taxable property 'and no machinery for collecting taxes. So, among the first activities of the county commissioners was to call an election to vote bonds with which to obtain the necessary finances. Nor was it as easy then as now to sell bonds. There was no such market as there exists now for the sale of county or municipal bonds. Capital was afraid to invest in the uncertainty of a county as far west as Reno. When it is recalled that there were no railroads in the county, and that even the railroad builders, supposedly composed of men of ability and men who had confidence in the land into which they were building, openly declared they never expected to sell any land west of Great Bend, and that, in their opinion, it would be fifty years before any land in Reno county outside of the bottom, would be settled; it is not strange that there was no demand for bonds of such a community, so the first financial action taken in Reno county was the voting of bonds to build a court house, then an additional series of bonds to pay the first year's interest on those bonds, and also for the maintenance of the county.
In 1872 the assessor reported five hundred and sixty-eight dollars in valuation in personal property in Reno township, the only township then organized. There was no railroad property assessed that year, for the Santa Fe did not have any of its road in Reno county at the tax assessment time. So the only property that was on the tax rolls in 1872 was the meager belongings of the early settlers. There was no land available for taxing purposes, for no one had title to his land, it either being homesteaded or pre-empted, so the property valuation of Reno county in 1872 was very small.
Among the early financial troubles of Reno county was an injunction
182
RENO COUNTY, KANSAS.
suit, filed by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company against the board of county commissioners and also against the treasurer of the county, enjoining the board of county commissioners from levying any taxes for that year, and also enjoining the county treasurer from receiving any money from any taxes for the year. This suit was filed on March 25, 1874. C. G. Foster and Joseph Waters representing the railroad. The case was brought in the name of Joseph Nickerson, then president of the Santa Fe railroad. This injunction suit paralyzed the activities of the county. The railroad was the heaviest taxpayer in the county, and if the county was not allowed to levy any taxes, financial ruin faced the county. The purpose of the road was to discourage all internal improvement. They said the county didn't need any improvement. They were particularly adverse to building any school houses. District No. 2, in Grant township, wanted a school house. The railroad officials said they didn't need one. They likewise refused to pay any interest on the bonds voted the previous year by dis- trict No. 19. Likewise they refused to pay any interest on the school bonds voted in districts 27, 28 and 30. They especially objected to paying any interest on the school bonds of district No. 30 because these bonds were voted one day too late, according to a strict interpretation of the law, to be taxed in 1874. So the company found an especial objection to district 30's bonds. In the other districts they gave as the reason that the district didn't need school houses. These districts had no school houses of any kind, and it was simply the attempt of the road to keep the taxes down as low as possible.
COMPROMISES MADE WITH RAILROAD.
Considering that Congress had given the road every other section of land in the county for a distance of five miles wide on each side of the track. as a bonus to build the road, and considering the fact that the men who built the road originally, a bunch of young men from Boston who put up no money to help build the road, for a very apparent reason-they had no money to put into the enterprise-and considering that they mortgaged the land for money with which to build and equip the road, the consideration of these facts was the occasion of deep resentment on the part of the early settlers. The road did not continue this policy very long, as the resentment led to a practical boycott of land agents of the Santa Fe. The settlers would not buy the Santa Fe land. As soon as the effect of the company's small policy began to develop, and the railroad officials realized the effect it was
183
RENO COUNTY, KANSAS.
having on immigrants, they dismissed the suit, but not until the county com- missioners had compromised with the road on many levies of taxes.
The commissioners were severely criticized for compromising with the railroad, but a condition faced them that they dared not allow. There was very little money in the county. The county had no credit. It found the sale of its bonds a difficult matter and the commissioners of the county were forced to provide for the running of the county and to raise money to meet the interest on the bonded indebtedness of the county. So they compro- mised with the railroad and some of the school districts suffered heavily by the refusal of the company to allow the improvements to be made. . \t another time, in later years, the Santa Fe showed its disposition to dictate to the settlers, when it moved its shops from Nickerson to Newton. This action was largely because of the effect of an election held in Nickerson. when the company's small local official resented the action of the voters of Nickerson, and the company declared they would make the grass grow on the streets of Nickerson. They never succeeded in their attempt. They spent a good sized sum of money in moving their shops, hoping to carry out their threat. At a later period, one of the smaller division officials made a threat of what the road would do to Hutchinson, if the city of Hutchinson enforced some of the ordinances that affected the railroad, but the higher officials of the road soon sought to assure the city officials that the threat was not that of anyone who could make it good, and assured the city com- missioners they would seek to obey all ordinances governing the city. The time has passed now when any railroad can hold up Reno county's progress. They are all too dependent on the county for an immense revenue, and it any one of them would undertake to "double-cross" either the city or the county, the other roads would become the beneficiaries, and only the road doing the "double-crossing" would suffer.
SOME INTERESTING STATISTICS.
The following table shows the constant increase in the valuation of tax- able property in the county. It shows also the entire indebtedness for each of the years since the county was organized, the total expenditures for all purposes and the rate of taxation for each year since the county was organ- ized in 1872, and closing with the financial condition of the county at the end of 1916:
184
RENO COUNTY, KANSAS.
Year
County Valuation
Amt. State Tax
County Ex- penditures
County Levy in Mills
State Tax in Mills
Total in Mills
Amount Bonds
1872
596,820
5,410
22,100
36
6
42
$6,000
1874
602,125
6,000
24,000
36
6
30
91,500
1875
605,000
6,100
25,000
27
6
33
91,500
1576
926,000
7,250
23,150
25.5
5.5
31
105,000
1877
1,642,094
9,031
41,873
27
5.5
32.5
110,000
1878
1,522,413
8,383
41,105
24.5
5.5
30
130,000
1879
1,619,283
8,904
39,672
18.5
5.5
24
130,000
1880
1,843,850
10,141
37,111
17
5.5
22.5
144.682
1SS1
1,920,091
10,560
32,641
16.5
5
21.5
144,000
1SS2
2,124,015
10,644
35.051
15
4.5
19.5
144,000
1SS3
3,911,159
17,600
58,667
14.5
4.3
18.8
141.500
1SS4
3,098,376
13,2SS
44,810
13.5
4.5
18
144,4100
1SS5
3,777,289
14,027
44,543
14
4.6
1S.6
143,500
1SS6
3,911,159
17,991
52.800
13.5
4.1
17.6
141.500
1SS7
5,399,041
22,136
80,985
15
4.1
19.1
141,500
1SSS
6,089,733
24.727
77,349
12.7
4.1
16.8
141,500
1SS9
6,431,526
26,374
135,062
21.1
4.2
309.500
1890
6.149,269
26,580
86,089
14
4.25
18.25
401.500
1891
5,962,230
24,139
81,265
13.6
3.95
17.55
412,000
1892
5,816,353
26,992
S3.173
14.3
3.9
18.2
412.000
1.893
6,148,092
27.697
81,769
13.3
3.8
17.1
412,000
1894
5,795,142
24,079
70,580
15.6
3.9
19.5
411.000
1895
5,780,537
30,441
S3,817
14.5
4.25
183
411,000
1896
5,952,583
28,272
S3,336
14
4.24
1.8.25
:$3,000
1897
6,133,480
27,600
67,46S
11
4.1
15.1
382,000
189S
6,009,873
21,034
84,138
14
S.5
19.5
360,000
1900
6,754,987
30,774
81.059
12
5.5
17.5
360,000
1902
7,456,205
32,026
74,562
10
6.4
15.6
333.000
1904
7.631,433
41.972
80.130
10.5
5.4
15.7
338,000
1906
$,937,564
41,096
132,934
.1445
.47
.619
306,000
1907
9,366,468
58,072
162,673
.163
.12
.783
292.000
190S
61,544,407
55,309
152.629
.248
1.46
25,8,000
1909
64,469,817
80,587
210,562
1910
$2,674,054
$6.507
246,757
.29
.135
.44
270.000
1912
77,588,560
93,106
176,026
.227
.12
.349
207.900
1913
78,849,635
94,619
177,987
.268
.12
269,000
1914
76,750,505
92,100
204.274
.270
.12
252,000
1915
79,769,903
99,712
299,10S
.375
.125
1916
79,769,903
103,700
215.376
,21
.13
.. 4
217.020
1899
6,340,490
33,445
SS,346
14
1901
6,667.971
36,673
66,679
10
15.5
360,000
1905
7.883,560
43,359
82.777
10,5
5.7
15.5
343.000
1903
7.605,465
53,238
69.970
9.2
.12%
.45
292,000
1911
77,800,000
$3,360
247.960
.12
40.5
60,000
1873
14,625
32
The above table shows some interesting points regarding Reno county's finances. The property valuations given prior to 1908 are supposed to be
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.