Back in 1885 the Clayton Village fathers and some Clayton area farmers decided they wanted to be in charge of taxation and other decisions free from the leaders of Hudson Township. They proposed taking two tiers of sections from Hudson Township and one tier of sections from Dover Township to form their new Clayton Township. Here is a representation of the area from a colorful 1864 county wall map.
In early 1885 this article was published in The Adrian Daily Times and Expositor, January 12:
"Clayton" Township. During the last two meetings of the board of supervisors, a petition, praying for the organization of a new township to be called "Clayton," has been in consideration. The petition asked that twelve sections from the township of Hudson and six sections from the township of Dover, be incorporated in the new township. The supervisors, after some discussion, decided to defer action in the premises until the people of the district in question could hold an election and decide for themselves. The election was accordingly held last Saturday, resulting in favor of the new township by a majority of 129; the total vote was 251. The opposition to the new project came mostly from the outskirts of the new town. The election, which was held in Clayton, caused the most intense excitement, and the little town was overflowing with people all day.
Those in favor of the new town are jubilant, and hope that the matter is settled for good.
________________________________
Clinton Township was set off from Tecumseh in 1869, leaving it and Tecumseh Township both in the exact same shapes and sizes of 18 one-mile sections. So it's not like it had never been done!
What the Clayton men didn't anticipate was the ruthless nature of one Levi R. Pierson, Attorney for Hudson Township. For a hint to his personality we can just look to his large tombstone with the stack of (presumably law) books on top, sitting alongside the fence on Cadmus Road in Hudson. The wording on it, front and back have been obliterated by his relatives after his death! Apparently a big embarrassment to them!
Also, it would have been very helpful for them to have a non-Hudson lawyer in their corner, no matter how nice Mr. Lane may have seemed. They went in expecting to state their case and were put off a whole day for whatever reason. It was great that Mr. Sickly invited the Clayton men to meet at the Lawrence House (later called the Lenawee Hotel) where they would be heard at length. (This was the year that the 1885 Court House was built and not occupied until around Dec. of that year.) The Clayton men accepted the invitation--and note that Mr. Sickly did vote in their favor the next day. We are not given any details of the referenced 300 signature petition against the proposal, exactly where the signers resided (inside the proposed new township or outside of it), when it was taken, etc.
Below are 3 newspaper accounts here. The sentence about to explain the reasoning of Messrs. Dewey, Finger and Moore explaining their votes: It ends just like this with no explanation whatsoever!
March 25, 1885 The Adrian Daily Times and Expositor
The board met at nine o’clock this morning, with apparently
good prospects for a lively session.
When the roll call and reading of the journal were through with, a
number of small accounts were allowed.
Mr. Swaney showed a petition signed by 300 or more people of
Hudson township, remonstrating against the creation of the new township of
Clayton. The remonstrance was referred
to the special committee on the proposed new township.
Mr. Sickly, chairman of that committee, said the committee
would be ready to report to-morrow morning.
There had been an impression that the committee would report
this morning, and, accordingly, Messrs. L. M. Judson, Aaron Abbott, Chas Peck,
J. L. Perkins, T. Benfield, Chas. Haskins, W. B. Thompson, Ed. A. Baker, Silas
A. Lawton, N. Perkins and Capt. Littleton, of Clayton, all in favor of the new
township, were present to urge the project.
Mr. Dewey said he noticed a number of Clayton gentlemen present, and as
they might desire to be heard, he moved that the board hear them. Several supervisors spoke on Mr. Dewey’s
motion, when Mr. Judson said he thought no one from Clayton cared to say
anything to the board until the committee had reported, and they had some means
to knowing on what ground to talk.
Chairman Sickly, of the committee, thereupon invited the
Clayton gentlemen to appear before the committee at the Lawrence house, where
they would be heard at length.
The board adjourned, and the gentlemen from the proposed new
township accepted Mr. Sickly’s invitation.
------------------------------------
3-26-1885 The Adrian Daily Times and Expositor
Hudson or Clayton
------
Discussion Before the Board of Supervisors Over the formation of a New Township
------
March 26--When Chairman Love called the board to order this morning and called off the order of business, there appeared no desire to open any of the usual topics, and until Mr. Love pronounced "special or select" nothing was done. Under that head Chairman Rickly, of the special committee appointed to investigate the proposition for the creation of a new township, to be called "Clayton," out of the six west sections of Dover, and the twelve east sections of Hudson, made a report, briefly stating the various steps taken by the people of the proposed township for the culmination of their desires.
On motion the report was received and the committee discharged.
In order to bring the question of the new township before the board, Mr. Sickly moved that the prayer of the petitioners, asking for the organization of Clayton township, be granted.
Messrs. Aaron Abbott, S. S. Hutchins, Thomas Benfield, Dr. Eaton, Wm. Littleton, S. A. Lawton, Newman Perkins, Thomas Dowan (could they mean Dowling?), J. B. Kessler, M. Garrison, C. Haskins, and J. L. Perkins of Clayton, were in the room and Mr. Swaney said he would like to hear from them on the question. Accordingly, after the petition, asking for the town had been heard, Mr. Abbott arose, and addressed the board. He was in favor of a new township for a number of reasons. The present arrangement was a practical annihilation of Clayton's political rights. Clayton people were almost foreigners to the affairs of Hudson township. The west end of the town effectually held the balance of power, and could grant or refuse any request of the Clayton end. Fifty to seventy-five voters were obliged to journey from one side of the township to the other at every election, if they desired to exercise the right of suffrage. They could come to Adrian to vote at no more expense. He did not think they were exactly wronged, but circumstances were against them. A fair and impartial vote had shown four fifths of the people in the new town to be in favor of it. He thought the protests from Dover and Hudson recently brought in to be a little late. He had come before the board expecting a free, impartial, just decision.
Dr. Eaton followed with some pertinent remarks. The petition asking for the new town was signed by representative men. A majority of $60,000 of the taxable property on the Dover side of the proposed new town was held in favor of the project. He realized the change would be something of a hardship to Dover. Hudson would lose 18 percent of its taxable property and Dover would lose about 12 per cent. The new town would have a valuation of about $375,000, leaving Dover worth $600,000 and Hudson still the richest township in the county. Taxes in the new town would be a little high, but outsiders need not grumble if Clayton people did not. Clayton would leave Dover the large bridges of the town, but would hold a large proportion of the smaller ones. Hudson would retain nearly all its bridges, it was true, but they were kept up, in any event, for the benefit of Hudson village, and not for Clayton. Towns should be divided to reach a unity of interests. Two years ago the township of Hudson had voted an appropriation of $1,500, to be expended upon the three main roads leading to Hudson. The highway commissioner had commenced at Hudson to expend the money. By the time winter set in he had used $1,000, and Clayton had not been benefited, although paying eighteen percent of the money. In the spring the township voted to use the remaining $500 in the purchase of road scrapers, one of which was sent to Clayton.
Mr. Perkins arose to speak on the list of petitioners, when Mr. Littleton suggested that he allow the opposition to expose a little of its thunder. Mr. Littleton immediately after remarked he would submit to no trickery, whereupon Justice Pierson, of Hudson, asked if he was accused of trickery. Mr. Littleton replied that his remarks were addressed with reference to the gentleman on his right--Highway Commissioner Leisenring, of Hudson.
Mr. Leisenring said he had nothing to say about the new township, but he would like to reply to Dr. Eaton.
Dr. Eaton called him to order, but the chair did not sustain the doctor, and the speaker went on to explain why his work on the roads of the township had been done as it was. Among other things Mr. Leisenring said he could not get men enough to push the work at all points in the town. Dr. Eaton remarked there were plenty of men at Clayton.
After some sparring, Mr. Littleton took the floor, and made a very excited and inflammatory sort of an argument, in which fierce gesticulation and florid verbiage took leading parts. He styled the treatment which the east end of Hudson township received as nothing less than robbery, and did not hesitate to insinuate that some of the $1,500 voted to repair the highways had found its way into Mr. Leisenring's pocket. He believed Mr. Leisenring was opposed to the division of the town, if only for the purpose of securing the control of another $1,500.
Mr. Perkins said they had tried to get a voting precinct for Clayton, but that Mr. Swaney had told him it would be better to move for a division of the town. He supposed the matter of the new town was settled at the last meeting of the board, when they had instructed the people of the new town to vote and decide for themselves on the question. They had voted, and the result had shown a large majority in favor of the new town.
Mr. Woodworth said that no motion had been passed by the board at its last meeting instructing the voters of Clayton to hold an election on the question.
Mr. Moore asked if it would not be right to hear Mr. Leisenring in reply to Mr. Littleton's charges.
Mr. Leisenring said he did not desire to reply. His books would show his honesty if any one doubted it.
Mr. Littleton was willing to ask Mr. Leisenring's pardon, if he had done him any injustice.
Mr. Leisenring said it was all right. He "considered where it came from."
Justice Pierson now made an extended and well-worded argument against the creation of the new township. He argued that the proceedings up to date were illegal--and even if legal, he maintained that the board had no constitutional right to act in the premises. He substantiated his argument by passages from "Cooley's Constitutional Limitations," Howell's statutes, and the state constitution, and a decision from the Northwestern Reporter.
At the close of Justice Pierson's remarks Mr. V. H. Lane appeared before the board, asking that the matter be held open until afternoon.
On motion of Mr. Bixby the question was made the special order of business for 2:30 p.m., when the board adjourned until 2 p.m.
-------------------
3-27-1885 The Adrian Daily Times and Expositor
“Hudson or Clayton”
------
The Question of the Proposed New Township
-------
Decisively Negatived by the Board of Supervisors.
-------
March 26—The regular order of business, when the board
assembled this afternoon, brought forth nothing, so that, on motion, the
special order--“Clayton township”—which had been set down for 2:30 o’clock, was
at once taken up.
The appearance of Justice Pierson, in behalf of the
opposition to the new township, at the morning session, had thrown some
consternation among those who favored the new township, and the appearance of
V. H. Lane, of Bean, Underwood & Lane, to refute Mr. Pierson’s arguments,
did not seem to cause surprise. Mr. Lane
made a detailed argument in favor of the new town, dwelling principally upon
the legal questions raised by Mr. Pierson.
That he handled the matter in an able manner could not be doubted. Law books were freely referred to. Mr. Lane closed by producing an affidavit
proving the proper publication of the notice that the creation of the new
township would be applied for, meeting a point which Mr. Pierson had raised. Saying that he was paid for his presence and
argument, Mr. Lane remarked that if he received less for his work than did Mr.
Pierson, he would divide with that gentleman, and took his seat.
Mr. Pierson at once took the floor and attacked his opponent
on a technicality. The notice of an
application for a new township must be published for four successive weeks
immediately preceding that meeting of the board of supervisors, when the
application for the new township shall be made.
Under this head Mr. Pierson maintained that the publication was
defective and showed the application of the Clayton people in proof.
Mr. Lane replied to Mr. Pierson, holding that the
publication was exactly regular.
After one or two more (illegible) and rebuttals by the two
lawyers, they ceased, and Martin P. Stockwell, of Dover, made a few
remarks. His words were somewhat (illegible
but looks like “sarcastic”) and he professed much love for his township, as a
whole. He was opposed to the division of
townships. He knew of two other cases in
this county where the board of supervisors would be asked to create new
townships, if “Clayton” should get through all right.
Remarks were made by Mr. Perkins, of Clayton, Mr. Garrison,
of Dover, and Sup. Shepherd, of Dover.
Mr. Shepherd had doubts of the power of the board, in the precinct
status of the case, to act in the (illegible).
He thought personal feelings and prejudices had caused many of the steps
taken by the promoters of the scheme, and he felt that the question should be
noted on calmly and with good judgment.
He also made several strong points against the new township by reference
to the difficulty in making descriptions of property in subdivided towns.
Thomas Benfield, a Hudson farmer, who is in favor of the new
township, made a short argument on his side of the question.
Mr. Stockwell followed with a few additional negative
arguments.
Several calls of “question,” brought Sup. Swaney, of Hudson,
to his feet, who said he felt he ought to make a statement in favor of Hudson,
as against the new township. He
explained the $1,500 appropriation for the public roads, which had been under discussion
during the morning session. He thought
that the portion of the town which desired to go into the new town had not been
imposed upon, and that, in fact, it had been holding at least 25 per cent of
the town offices.
Mr. Lane made a few remarks, when a running discussion as to
whether the names on the application were all those of freeholders ensued.
The speechmaking on the subject was at length concluded, and
the vote by “yeas” and “nays” taken.
Messrs. Dewey, Finger and Moore explaining their votes:
The vote stood as follows:
Yeas—Sups. Baker, Bixby, Cochrane, Crane, Dewey, James,
Lowe, Sickley-- 8.
Nays—Sups. Ray, Dalton, Finger, Fleming, Gilmore, Goodsell,
Haas, Holdridge, Marsteller, Moore, Munson, Raymond, Shearson, Shepherd,
Swaney, Warren, Woodworth—17.
This matter having been settled in the negative, the board
proceeded to the transaction of other business.
Note that the explanations for the votes were not included in the newspaper article:
---------------------------------
5 more yeas and it would have passed!
The newspaper reports of the elections on the matter and the petition are not straightforward and I'm wondering if there is any more to this story.
Though Clayton Township has only been just an idea, it is fun to speculate with the map and a tour of the territory that was proposed. There are some nice farm places still in existence, as well as the great and unique Lake Hudson, with its dark-sky preserve, bathing beach, campgrounds, fishing and more. There is also Rice Lake in Dover and some other large ponds throughout, all those on private land.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always moderated and will take awhile to be posted, so please be patient.