History of Bay County, Michigan, and representative citizens, Part 24

Author: Gansser, Augustus H., 1872-
Publication date: 1905
Publisher: Chicago : Richmond & Arnold
Number of Pages: 738

USA > Michigan > Bay County > History of Bay County, Michigan, and representative citizens > Part 24

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).

On June 21, 1887, the Legislature passed an act to unite Bay City, West Bay City and the village of Essexville, the union to take place in 1891, and provisions were made for a char- ter committee, representing all three corpora- tions, which was to draft the consolidation charter, and submit it to the Legislature of 1889 for action. The politicians managed to secure an election on the proposition, and to the disappointment of all public-spirited citizens the voters on the East Side defeated the propo- sition by a narrow margin, while the West Side voted largely against the union.

The matter was in abeyance for a few

years, and then the advocates of Greater Bay City again moved to follow the example of the up-river towns. Saginaw, which had long been below Bay City, East Side, in population, con- summated a union with Saginaw City, three miles down the river, thus regaining over night the coveted position of being the third city of Michigan, and relegating Bay City to the rear ! There, as here, consolidation brought out new activities, and any one can readily see that the older but less fortuntaely situated city above the Carrollton sand-bar has gained much in pres- tige and material progress by consolidation. With a population of more than 40,000, it took at once a place among the large cities of the country, while her peers to the north were hopelessly divided, and lost sight of among the multitude of mediocre country towns in the roster of our country's municipalities! The success of the union of our old commercial and industrial rivals, though separated by several miles, gave new impetus to the movement in the Bay Cities, which from the first have had their business centers exactly on opposite sides of the inland harbor. They succeeded in se- curing another referendum vote on consoli- dation in April, 1903, and until the day of the election, all the forces, pro and con, threshed over again all the arguments of other years and less opportune occasions. But the success- ful merger of large municipalities like Brook- lyn and New York, the absorption by Chicago of suburbs for miles around, on the presump- tion that population and rank in the world's great cities counted for much, and the undeni- able success of consolidation for the much less favorably situated cities of Saginaw, proved more convincing arguments than any thereto- fore advanced by the progressists.

A joint committee of business men from both sides of the river took up the defense of

201

AND REPRESENTATIVE CITIZENS.

consolidation, and on the eve of the election issued the following address to the citizens of both sides of the river :

"I. Consolidation will give us at once a population of 45,000, and therefore accord us a prestige as a city we do not now possess. II. It will give us a municipal credit that all grow- ing cities need, and enable our bonds to be nego- tiated upon a market now denied to us. III. It will lessen the expenses of administering public affairs and reduce taxation, on the principle, that larger cities can be run proportionately cheaper and more efficiently than smaller ones. IV. The united city will be the county seat, and united will have less taxation and more influ- ence in the affairs of our county. V. It will enhance the value of real estate. VI. It will lessen the cost of running the city government, inasmuch as it will reduce the number of heads of departments. VII. It will tend to draw to us manufacturing industries and give better wages and more constant employment to labor. It is well known that parties seeking location for investments in industrial pursuits always inquire first of all about the tax rate, which in Bay City in 1902 was as follows: Valuation : $11,447,534.00, rate of taxation for city, school, and highway purposes, $17.13 per $1,000 valuation ; in West Bay City, the valu- ation was $3,321,540.00, tax rate $29.51 per $1,000 valuation ! These figures are an argu- ment for themselves! VIII. The river front- age on the East Side is quite generally occu- pied, but the West Side still offers many ad- vantageous sites, which cannot be availed of because of the high rate of taxation. IX. In- dustries and factories that employ labor are the foundation of municipal prosperity, and with- out them our cities cannot grow. Therefore every effort should be made by citizens on both sides of the river to bring industries employ- ing labor to us. At present all new industries

locate outside our city limits. X. The loca- tion of the cities on either side of the river, their present corporate limits, their fixed posi- tion in the business centers, the ownership and location of the bridges across the river, the direct interests of a great number of citizens in both cities, and the indirect but mutual in- terests of all, the existing conditions relative to quasi public corporations, public buildings and public utilities, the dependence of both cities upon the same service for its future growth, fit them for consolidation upon the fair and equitable plan provided for by the act of the Legislature. Consolidation is as- sured, the only question being when it shall take place, and the sooner that question is final- ly settled the beter! Every interest of each city can be cared for without any detriment to the other, and the present properties of each can be used for the mutual advantage of both. The public schools can be increased in efficiency at a decrease in cost of maintenance. The fixed charges in both cities can and should be decreased, and we may add MUST be decreased. No city can hope to grow or become the fixed abode of a prosperous and contented peo- ple until the question of whether it is cheaper to own an ordinary home or pay rent is settled in favor of the ownership of the home."

This address was signed by A. McDonell (deceased February, 1905), Charles W. Han- dy, A. E. Bousfield, G. H. Schindehette, Alex- ander Zagelmeyer and Frank H. Mohr,-three from each side of the river. This was adopted and approved by the joint committee of busi- ness men held March 23, 1903, and the follow- ing attached their signatures: Hon. Spencer O. Fisher, H. S. Lewis, Lee E. Joslyn, S. R. Birchard, S. P. Flynn, H. H. Norrington, Mayor John Walsh, Dr. Isaac E. Randall, Robert Beutel, Henry Benson, C. S. Ruttle, J. W. Coles, John McGonigle and John J.

202

HISTORY OF BAY COUNTY

Flood, all of the West Side; and John C. Hew- itt, F. J. Trombley, James E. Davidson, Charles A. Eddy, Ed. Kroencke, Walter D. Young, George D. Jackson, J. M. Miller, Thomas W. Moore, Charles R. Wells, A. E. Bousfield, Mayor William Cunningham, H. G. Wendtland, H. M. Gillett, Gen. C. R. Haw- ley, George W. Ames and Judge Hamilton M. Wright, all of the East Side.

This address was supplemented by the West Side business interests, who were all along misrepresented by the opposition :

"We, the undersigned property owners and taxpayers of West Bay City, desire hereby to inform the public that we are heartily in favor of the consolidation of the Bay Cities. We think our prestige will be very much increased by having one large and united city, greater numbers and added influence. We believe that the rate of taxation will be reduced and in every way the interests of this city, as well as of our neighbor city, will be benefited by the union. We think a large city will attract more busi- ness enterprise to it, and more population and that our prosperity will improve, and our prop- erty will be rendered more valuable and busi- ness will be better."

This was signed by Thomas Walsh, George L. Mosher, Sage Land & Improvement Com- pany, Henry W. Weber, H. H. Norrington, August J. Bothe, George Behmlander, Charles A. Babo, Kolb Brothers, Bradley, Miller & Co., James Davidson, Spencer O. Fisher, Goldie Manufacturing Company, Handy Brothers, Handy Coal Mining Company, John M. Kel- ton, Fisher Land Company, Lumberman's State Bank, W. D. Young & Company, Frank H. Mohr and Beutel & Company, altogether the largest employers of labor and capital on the West Side.

Yet no concerted effort was made by those favoring the union at the polls, while those op-

posed had workers at all the voting places. The result was awaited with intense interest. The arguments contained in the public appeal con- tained matters of vital interest to all the people. Great was the enthusiasm on the East Side when it was found that the vote was practically unanimous in favor of consolidation, the major- ity exceeding 2,000 out of a total of less than 5,000 votes cast! On the West Side the first returns again showed an adverse vote of 255, but later an error was discovered in the Fourth Ward of West Bay City, where the election board had simply transposed the figures, giv- ing the majority of 126 in favor of the union to the "nayes," and this was corrected in the official canvass of the votes by the Council. Similar errors were claimed to exist in other wards, and the consolidationists insisted that they had actually received a majority of the votes. So close was the vote, and so disap- pointing was the showing made by the "antis," that by mutual consent the joint charter com- mittee, provided for in Representative John Washer's consolidation bill, was duly appointed from each side of the river, including the re- spective mayors and comptrollers, several al- dermen and three business men, both sides be- ing equally represented. After many sessions they approved and submitted the consolidated city's charter ; it was duly passed by the Legis- lature without any further protest, and the citi- zens breathed easier. They now felt certain that the long sought for union of mutual inter- ests would be completed along those lines in April, 1905, and a stone of obstruction removed from the path of both cities.

State Senator Heine and Representative J. E. Brockway were both placed on record be- fore the election of 1904, and both claimed un- equivocally to favor the consummation of the union. In January the first mutterings of a storm were heard, and rumors began drifting

FEDERAL BUILDING Bay City, E. S.

MASONIC TEMPLE, Bay City, E. S.

WASHINGTON THEATER BUILDING, Bay City, E. S.

THE NEW REPUBLIC HOUSE, Bay City, E. S.

205

AND REPRESENTATIVE CITIZENS.

about the two cities that the tax figures sub- mitted by the West Side two years before, bad as they were, did not represent the ACTUAL state of affairs. Taxpayers on the East Side were frightened by the danger, real or imag- inary, of having to share the tax burden of the West Side, and some of the most ardent consolidationists were by these representations driven to oppose the union at the last moment.

Choosing the psychological time when Sen- ator Heine was at home ill with the smallpox, Representative Brockway on January 24th in- troduced a bill REPEALING the consolidation act, and at once rushed it through the Legisla- ture! It was not referred to committee, in order that the people might be heard on its merits, but he had it given immediate effect.

The people at home were stunned by the suddenness of the blow ; but when they realized that all .the work of 15 years was again to be undone, and the dial of progress turned back for another 10 or 15 years, and solely at the behest of personal interests, the public-spirited citizens at once rallied in defense of the long cherished union.

Indignation meetings were held. Straw votes and long petitions asking for the repeal, secured under miapprehension of facts, were spurned. The business men almost without exception signed petitions to Governor Warner asking him to VETO the "railroaded" repeal act, and Senator Heine promised to give the people a chance to be heard in the Upper House. But the very next day Senator Do- herty, claiming instructions to that effect from Heine, also rushed the repeal act through the Senate, and nothing but the Governor's veto could then save consolidation !

To the end of having the act vetoed, the Board of Trade, led by President Walter D. Young, Homer E. Buck and others, and the West Side business men, led by Hon. Spencer

O. Fisher, E. T. Carrington, Frank Handy and others, at once petitioned Governor War- ner to be heard before he signed the bill.

The "antis" insisted that he sign it, basing their claims on a snap election called by the City Councils, whose members on both sides were almost a unit against consolidation, held January 10, 1905. The electors were not asked to vote again on the question of consolidation, yes or no, but rather on the union on the basis of the charter as passed by the Legislature of 1903. The opposition figured that the West Side would want that agreement kept, and they were right, for the election, if such it could be called, was reported to have resulted in 1,264 votes for the charter as it stood, to only 6 against it! On the East Side some hard work was done to secure an exactly opposite vote on the grounds of the West Side's poor financial condition, and this too worked, al- though not as well as the "antis" had antici- pated, the vote being 397 in favor of keeping the agreement and charter, to 1,006 in favor of amending the charter, and creating separate taxing districts. NOT ONE SINGLE VOTE WAS CAST AGAINST CONSOLIDATION ITSELF!

Meetings were held in the Fraser House and in the Opera House protesting against the repeal act, and Governor Warner set February 16th for the day of hearing both sides to the controversy. The business men's committee favoring the union went down the night before, while the "antis" chartered a train, to which admission was by card, and wearing badges asking for the veto, they marched up to the Capitol at 10 next morning. The consolida- tionists had Hon. John C. Weadock and James E. Duffy present their case, together with a vast array of facts and figures, while the "antis" were represented by Hon. Nathan B. Bradley, who favored separate taxing districts, but wanted consolidation, Mayor C. J. Barnett of

206

HISTORY OF BAY COUNTY

the West Side, and City Attorney S. G. Hough- ton of the West Side, and H. M. Gillett, at- torney for several large manufacturing insti- tutions, who also wanted separate taxing dis- tricts. The Representative Hall was well filled by Bay Cityans, and the hour was one ripe with possibilities to Bay City, East and West Side.

Governor Warner took the matter under advisement, and that same afternoon VETOED the repeal act! His message was as follows : "The act which is sought to be repealed by this bill was passed at the session of the Legis- lature of 1903, and provided for the consoli- dation of the cities of Bay City and West Bay City into one municipality. It is this act of the Legislature which the bill, which I am now returning WITHOUT MY APPROVAL, seeks to re- peal. After giving every opportunity for a hearing of both sides, those who are advocat- ing, and those who are opposing this bill, I am CONVINCED THAT A VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF EACH OF THE CITIES FAVOR A CONSOLIDATION, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE SEEMS TO BE WHETHER THE ACT PASSED SHOULD STAND AS IT IS, OR THE WORK OF CONSOLIDA- TION BEGIN ANEW. Such being the case, I BE- LIEVE THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL WILL BE CONSERVED BY LETTING THE PRESENT ACT OF CONSOLIDATION STAND, AND REMEDY ANY DEFECTS IN ITS OPERATION BY FUTURE LEGIS- LATION. Such minor details of practical oper- ation might better be left to this or a succeed- ing Legislature, rather than that the great busi- ness interests of the two cities should suffer from any future contention as to the main point at issue-THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO CITIES UNDER ONE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. I believe that by the uniting of the energies of the two cities into one municipality, a better and more economical government will result, and I have no doubt THAT THE FUTURE WILL PROVE

THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS VIEW." So far the sturdy farmer and business man, now at the head of the great state of Michigan. It was his first veto, and is pregnant with possibilities.

The veto settled the matter, once and for all. The two Bay City delegations came home on the same train and fraternized as though nothing had happened to divide them but a few short hours before. At home they were met by the citizens with the 33rd Regiment Band, and escorted to the Fraser House, where a great crowd of happy townspeople had assembled to honor the occasion. Hon. Spencer O. Fisher, President Walter D. Young of the Board of Trade, Homer E. Buck, Frank Handy, A. H. Gansser, Dr. William Bishop, Alexander Zagel- meyer, F. C. Merrill, and W. H. Gustin of the several committees who went to Lansing to intercede with Governor Warner to allow con- solidation to be consummated, were lifted on the shoulders of the enthusiastic throng and in brief addresses voiced their conviction, that it was all for the best future interests of both sides of the river and that it presaged new life and progress for Greater Bay City, and its 45,000 people! This was the song the con- solidationists sang on that memorable evening :

My city 'tis of thee, Greater Bay City! Of thee we sing.

Town where our fathers died,

Town of our pioneer's pride,

From every home to-night, Let Union ring !

Since that day the citizens of both sides of the river have aimed to make good the fondest hopes and brightest predictions of the union- ists. The new hotel project has been given new life by the subscription of $50,000, with more in sight. The Detroit boat line is assured. The new railway to the east will be built this year, and the Faulkner Chemical Company's plant will add another huge industry to the growing list in Greater Bay City.

207

AND REPRESENTATIVE CITIZENS.

Both political parties named excellent tick- ets for the official positions under the new charter and on April 3, 1905, the first joint election was held in the united city. Great in- terest was taken in the city ticket, and overshad- owed the election of Circuit Judge Chester L. Collins, and Road Commissioners George L. Frank and William Houser. The first election in Greater Bay City resulted as follows: The City Council will contain 21 Republicans and 13 Democrats. The Democrats elect Mayor Gustav Hine and Recorder John Boston, the Republicans elect Treasurer Edward E. Cor- liss, and Comptroller C. J. Barnett. The vote was :

Mayor.

Comp- troller.

Treasurer. Recorder.

F. T. Woodworth, R.

G. Hine, D.

È C. J. Barnett, R.

T. W. Moore, D.

E. E. Corliss, R.

A. J. Bothe, D.

E. Kroencke, R.

John Boston, D.

WARDS.

East Side-

First

280

280 211

313

Second

215

197

210

201

254

159

225

Third

128

109

151

192

206

391 227

Fifth

187

259

198

2.18

237

204

134

200 163

Seventh

176

III

189

IOI

207

186 106 358 526

Ninth

154

II2

1.48

I2I 207

14I I34

Ioth

157

209

154

217

163

208

154 214

IIth

279

219

273

221

368

132 293 201

Totals

.2465 2471 2479 2462 2957 2003 2506 2443

West Side-

12th

159

211

174

192

16I 195

276

128 352

14th

I37

184

174

148

I37

180

120 199

15th

205

155

220

I 37 209

146 I6I 202

16th

162

203

201

159

176

179 163 194

17th

144

I37

168

II4

157

124 90 190

Totals

1016 1165 1158 1007 1035 1109

793 1371 Grand to- tal for Greater

Bay City .. 3481 3636 3637 3469 3992 3112 3299 3814

The result was somewhat surprising, as the united cities are normally Republican by 500 or more, but the citizens evidently wished to divide the honors, giving each side of the river two of the main offices, as well as breaking even between the parties.

The united City Council met on Monday evening, April 10, 1905, listened to the brief and business-like message of Mayor Hine, named S. G. Houghton of the West Side, city attorney, Capt. George Turner, East Side, city engineer, and John H. Northrup, East Side, street commissioner. All the West Side books, moneys and records were formally turned over and all of the city's business is now centered in the City Hall, built 10 years ago with the ex- pectation of this very union of the two cities.

In April, 1895, the East Side voted in fa- vor of bonding for $100,000 for this new City Hall, by 2,542 ayes to only 820 nayes. Many citizens felt the building as planned too extrav- agant for the immediate needs of the city, but the city fathers felt that while they were build- ing, they wanted to provide for a century to come, and so more money was voted, and as now completed the fine Gothic structure, the pride of the cities, has cost over $200,000. Most of the offices were occupied November 27, 1897, and the fire-proof vaults, airy offices, fine Council chamber and modern city jail, will answer all purposes of the united city for fu- ture generations. The Public Library has large and airy quarters on the south side of the build- ing

THE CHARTER.

The following extracts from the much mooted charter for Greater Bay City will be of interest now and in the years to come :

THE BOUNDARIES of Greater Bay City are

Eighth

393

485

357

522

388

498

147 92

Fourth

282

338

345

277 414

206 244

Sixth

214

152

210

153

232

204 I3I 234

1 3th

209

275

221

251

295 265 2.45 185

3II

208

HISTORY OF BAY COUNTY

the same as those now embraced by Bay City and West Bay City. The city is divided into 17 wards. The first II are on the East Side of the river, and are the same as those of the present East Side city, with boundary lines the same as at present constituted. There are six wards on the West Side, the present First Ward being the 12th Ward of the consolidated city, the Second being the 13th, and so on to the Sixth, which is the 17th.

OFFICERS AND ELECTIONS .- The terms of the first officers elected are to be as follows : Mayor, two years; recorder, two years; treas- urer, two years; comptroller, four years; alder- men (two from each ward), one for one year and one for two years; supervisor (one from each ward), two years; constable (one from each ward), one year; justice of the peace, four years. The present justices of the peace of Bay City and West Bay City shall hold their offices until their terms expire. In succeeding elections the term of recorder is to be four years. No person shall be eligible to hold the office of mayor, if he hold any judicial office or any city or county salaried office. The treas- urer cannot be elected for more than two suc- cessive terms. No person can be elected to a city or ward office unless he be an elector.

City elections are to be held on the first Mondays in April of each year. The aldermen and supervisors are inspectors of city, State and county elections. If any one is disqualified by reason of being a candidate, the Council shall appoint an inspector in his stead. In case of a vacancy in the board of inspectors, the electors present may fill it. On the Thursday following the election, the Common Council shall meet as a board of canvassers. All persons elected must qualify within 20 days thereafter. Failure to qualify leaves the office vacant. In case of a tie, the winner shall be elected by lot. An

elector must reside in the ward 20 days preced- ing election day.

The tenure of the several elective officers of both cities, who are not by this act expressly de- clared to hold over, shall be at an end. They shall forthwith turn over their books, records, etc., to the proper officers of the consolidated city.

After the organization of the consolidated city, the charters of Bay City and West Bay City shall thereupon be superseded and re- pealed. All property of both cities becomes the property of the consolidated city, when the organization of the new city is completed.

A general registration shall be held on the first Monday of October, 1908. Until then the present registry of electors shall prevail. The inspectors of election of each ward shall con- stitute a board of registration. On the Saturday next preceeding any general city or special elec- tion and on such other days as shall be ap- pointed by the Council, not exceeding three in all, an opportunity shall be afforded for regis- tration.

THE MAYOR shall receive not less than $1,000 per annum. He shall preside at all meetings of the Council. The acting mayor shall preside in his absence. He has the power of veto of any ordinance, resolution or motion of the Council. It will take a two-thirds vote of the Council to pass a measure over his veto; at the following meeting, the mayor shall com- municate with the Council, giving his reasons for the veto. He shall sign all licenses and permits. He is the conservator of the peace of Bay City and in an emergency, of which he alone shall be judge, he may take command of the Police Department. For cause he may re- move a member of any board or commission or any appointed officer, who shall have a right to make a defense. He is ex-officio member of

209

AND REPRESENTATIVE CITIZENS.

the Board of Supervisors and of all boards created under the provisions of the act, except- ing the Board of Education and the Board of Assessors.

COMMON COUNCIL .- A majority of alder- men can do business and a minority can meet and adjourn. A meeting of the Council may be called at any time by the mayor or acting mayor. On a request from six aldermen, the mayor shall call a meeting within 24 hours. All aldermen shall be given a personal notice of the same. All aldermen can be forced to attend Council meetings. Non-attendance makes each subject to a fine of not more than $5. An alder- man remaining away four weeks in succession, unless sick or excused, vacates his position. Vacancies may be filled by the Council until the next charter election. Aldermen are to re- ceive $2 per session of the Council. At the first annual meeting of the council it shall elect a president, who may vote on all occasions. In case of a tie vote, the mayor shall break it. The Council shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its own members and shall have the power to make its own rules and by-laws. It shall have the power to appoint a city at- torney, a street commissioner and a city en- gineer by a majority vote. Any officer appoint- ed may be removed by a two-thirds vote of the Council, but the mayor, recorder, police jus- tice and justices of the peace cannot be thus removed. Ordinances may be passed by a majority vote. The Council has supervisory control over all officers, agents and employees of the city, and over all boards and commis- sions.

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.

History of Bay County, Michigan, and representative citizens, Part 24

Author: Gansser, Augustus H., 1872- Publication date: 1905 Publisher: Chicago : Richmond & Arnold Number of Pages: 738

Author: Gansser, Augustus H., 1872-
Publication date: 1905
Publisher: Chicago : Richmond & Arnold
Number of Pages: 738