standing said deeds, and asking a judgment against said railroad company for five thou sand dollars as for moneys had and received by said company which belong to the plaintiff.

And asking that you, John M. Forbes, Henry P. Kidder, John N. A. Griswold, John W. Brooks, and Alpheus Hardy, and each of you have acquired by virtue of said contract or said deeds no interest in or lien upon any of said lands. and that the claims of the defendants to any and all of said lands be declared groundless and void; and that, unless you appear thereto and defend before noon of the second day of the next term of the district court of Mills county, Iowa, which is to be begun and held at the court house in Glenwood, in Mills county, Iowa, on the 8th day of February, 1875, detault will be entered and judgment thereon rendered against you, pro confesso.

This 30th day of December, 1874.

L. W. Ross,

C. B. LAWRENCE, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
D. H. SOLOMON,

In the District Court the company won the cause, whereupon the county appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. the cause and its results here follow.

The history of

The plaintiff in this case set up the fact, in order to defeat the compromise, that the lands in controversy were swamp lands and that it had therefore, no power to convey them as provided by the terms of the compromise. It will be noted that it was a condition of the settlement that the railroad company should continue its road through Mills county, and should locate a station at Glenwood. The county set forth that the lands could not be legally transferred on the grounds that there was no proper or adequate consideration for such transfer, in reply to which the defendant held that the company was not bound by the act of Congress to locate its line by the way of Glenwood, nor to establish a station there, and that an agreement to do so constituted a valid consideratiou for the agreement to compromise. The county further claimed "fraud" in effecting the compromise, or rather in leading to the proposition to so settle the case on the grounds that the surveying party of the company were running "scare lines" to lead the people of the county generally, and the citizens of Glenwood particularly, to infer that they would, after all, fail entirely of the road. But no adequate proof was adduced that the lines were run where the company had not a legal right to locate its route. The third ground urged by the attorneys of the company was excess of powers on the part of the Board of Supervisors in making the contract. This was ably answered by the attorneys for the company in their argument before the Supreme Court, and the question at issue was decided in their favor, on the grounds that a trustee-as the county set up that it held the lands in trust-in the exercise of a reasonable discretion, may certainly compromise debts, and in the proposition of the county to effect such a settlement, it alleged debt in express terms. The decision in this cause was rendered by Justice Adams, and the decree of the inferior court was affirmed.

But it seems that the railroad company had filed a cross suit to recover from the county the payment of the ten thousand dollars named in the articles of compromise. This is the second suit that grew out of this transaction. In the district court the plaintiff the railroad companywas beaten, whereupon an appeal was taken to the supreme court of the state and the decree by the lower court reversed, on the grounds that the agreement for the compromise had not been abandoned by the company in its answer had maintained. To show that it was, the county put in evidence the docket entry of the supreme court of the United States made in the case in which the alledged compromise was made, which entry shows in effect that the case came on to be heard, and was argued by counsel, and that the decree of the supreme court in Iowa was affirmed. To rebut that evidence, the company introduced the testimony of the attorneys of the defendant company in that case. From it, it appears that nothing was done by the attorneys of the defendant company in that case in the supreme court of the United States, except to file printed briefs, and that if they were filed after the compromise was made, they were filed in ignorance of the compromise. The counsel for the company did not appear personally in court. One of them, speaking of the compromise, says: "No attention was thereafter given by counsel for defendant to the case, as the matter was supposed to be compromised." Judge Adams expressed it as his opinion that neither party did anything on the supposition that the compromise had been abandoned. The judgment of the district court was by him, therefore, reversed. The case then found its way, on the appeal of the county, to the supreme court of the United States, where now the matter rests, awaiting final adjudication.

POLITICAL HISTORY.

The records relating to the early political history of the county are in a criminally imperfect condition. Almost the sole records preserved are the names and bonds of those who received the suffrage of the people of the new county as its first officers on the day of organization.* Their names have been elsewhere given.

The poll-books show a total vote in the county of one hundred and sixty, distributed as follows:

*The act of the general assembly, defining Mills county, together with Union, Adams, Adair, Cass, Montgomery and Pottawattamie, was approved January 15, 1851.

At the next election, held in the fall of 1852, there was cast the following vote:

There is a marked falling off here, but it is readily accounted for by the fact that many of those who had voted at the first election had left the country and gone to Salt Lake City. The newcomers had not equaled those who had gone.

The first general election in the county occurred during the intense political excitement of 1852, an excitement which the issues joined in that memorable canvass were calculated to arouse. The democratic party made a strong and successful campaign to recover from the decisive defeat which had rested from it the presidency of 1848. General Cass, the candidate for that year. had been defeated in the contest by General Taylor, of Louisiana, whose valor in the Mexican war had made him a favorite with the people. In 1852, at the Baltimore convention in June, the democrats put in nomination Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire, for president, and William R. King, of Alabalma, for vice-president. The whigs put in nomination, at the same place, June 16, General Winfield Scott, of Mexican war fame, with William A. Graham, of North Carolina, second on the ticket. The anti-slavery party put in nomination John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, and George W. Julien, of Indiana.

The democratic candidates were successful by an overwhelming majority. The anti-slavery ticket polled less than one-half the ballots cast by them in 1848, showing a decided diminution in strength. This campaign will always be remembered as a most important one, for it was the last one in which the old whig party presented a candidate. The greatness of the man the party had honored with the nomination for president of the United States, was destined to be that of a military hero, rather than a politician or statesman. In the latter capacities he was an utter failure, and disappointed the hopes of his friends. In his very first speech, to a

deputation of foreigners, he declared that he "loved the rich Irish brogue and the sweet German accent," and this made him the object of ridicule by his opponents, and without doubt contributed largely to losing the canvass. In addition to this, his position on the tariff question, and the Missouri compromise, were neither of them that of the statesman nor competent politician.

There are no election returns by which to record the vote of the county whether whig or democratic. The state cast its electoral vote for the democratic nominees, the last time since that such an event has occurred. Party lines were sharply drawn in the county, and, of course everybody was interested, and it is to be presumed, entered into the contest with a fervor equal to that of like contests to-day.

In the presidential election of 1856, the newly formed Republican party put forth its first candidate, John C. Fremont, who entered the contest on the platform of "Free speech, free press, free soil and Fremont." "No sectionalism" was the watchword of the Democratic party which was represented by James Buchanan. Millard Fillmore led the American or Know-nothing party, whose battle cry-if such such an expression may be used-was "Americans must rule America." The organization of this party was the consequence, in part, of the position taken by Scott in the campaign of four years previous. It might be proper to note the cause of the intense excitement that everywhere prevailed in this election. On January 16, 1854, Senator Dixon, of Kentucky gave notice that when the bill* to establish a territorial government in the territory of Nebraska should be called up he would move an amendment to the effect that the Missouri compromise line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, forever prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude north of said line, should not be so construed as to apply to the territory contemplated by the act, or to any other territory of the United States; but that the citizens of the several states or territories should be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the territories or states to be formed therefrom. This amounted to a virtual repeal of the Missouri compromise, and the announcement in the United States House of Representatives created no less an excitement than the introduction, in 1848, of the Wilmot Proviso.

On the 23d of January, 1854, Senator Douglas, of Illinois, reported what is known as the Kansas-Nebraska bill, providing for the organization of two territories from the Platte country. Among other provisions Senator Douglas' bill contained the following:

SECTION 21. And be it further enacted, That, in order to avoid misconstruction, it is *This bill was introduced in December, 1852, by Senator Hall, of Missouri, and was then called a bill to organize the Territory of Platte. The bill was reported in February, 1853, under the title of the Territory of Nebraska, but no final action was taken.

hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of this act, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, to carry into practical operation the following propositions and principles, established by the compromise measures of 1850, to-wit:

First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives.

Second. That all cases involving title to slaves and questions of personal freedom, are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Third. That the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all the “organized territories," the same as in the States.

Another section of the bill of Senator Douglas, and which is as follows, gave rise to particularly bitter and hostile debate.

The constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory as elsewhere in the United States, except the sections of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, and is declared inoperative.

On February 6, Senator Chase, of Ohio, moved to strike out so much of the bill as declared the Missouri compromise of 1820, "superceded" by the compromise of 1850, but the motion was defeated. On February 15, Mr. Douglas moved to strike out the clause objected to by Mr. Chase, and insert the following:

Which being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, (commonly called the Compromise Measures) is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States.

This amendment was at once adopted by the senate, and embodied, what was afterward known as the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. Mr. Chase, not having full faith in the declaration as to the true intent of this measure, moved to add, after the words "United States," the following:

Under which the people of the territories, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein.

The proposed amendment of Mr. Chase was voted down. The bill became a law May 31, 1854, having received the approval of President Pierce. This bill precipitated the feeling of bitter animosity that entered so largely with the contest of 1866. No attempt can ever be made to depict the scenes of constant turmoil and violence that obtained in some portions of the country. In some sections as Kansas, blood was shed, and civil war seemed imminent. Suffice it to say the anti-slavery party finally