Mine Guards of Logan (1922)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From the Logan Banner of Logan, WV, comes this editorial about mine guards, dated June 30, 1922:

MINE GUARDS OF LOGAN

The attorneys for the defense in the miners’ trials at Charles Town, which have been in progress for the past several weeks, have taken every opportunity of referring to the deputy sheriffs of Logan county mine guards as “thugs” and “two-gun men.”

Logan county is, and has been for several years, ruled by officers elected on the Democratic ticket. The Logan Banner adheres to the party of Lincoln, Grant, Roosevelt and Harding. It believes in the policy of the Grand Old Party and so long as that belief endures we will be found advocating the doctrines as preached by the leaders of this political organization.

Politics has no place in the discussion of the so called mine guard system in Logan county. We hold the love and respect of our homes far above any reverence to political parties and when the good name of Logan is attacked we forget political lines and join with the good people of this vast community in resenting any reflection on the fair name of Logan.

It has always been a mystery to us why the demand for the abolishment of the extra number of deputy sheriffs in this county should come from parties who are non-residents of the county? Who has demanded their abolishment? What cry has been heard from Logan county for aid? What facts have been presented of any unlawful acts committed at the hands of officers in this county?

Logan is filled with men of the highest type of intelligence. Likewise, they have many, many men here who are as brave as any men to be found in the nation. These men would not, for an instant, be a party to crimes in the county without raising their voices in protest. When it is all sifted down, it is found the hue and cry for a change of conditions is raised by those other than citizens of Logan county. Here are four points that must be borne in mind when considering Logan county:

  1. Due to the natural geographical conditions, Logan is rather isolated from other sections of the state.
  2. Due to this isolation and the fact that it is far removed from through transportation facilities, it is hard to attract labor here.
  3. In order to secure labor it becomes necessary to employ many who have had previous criminal careers.
  4. The county is mountainous, the operations are many and widely scattered, and the forces of deputies are not too many but otherwise too small to maintain order and uphold the law in an area of 400 square miles

Logan is situated among the mountains with but one natural outlet. This is by way of the C. & O. branch line to Huntington. The county is naturally divided by creeks, valleys, and branch railway lines. On these can be found many operations, employing hundreds of laborers, and to successfully cope with the lawless the sheriff is naturally required to employ more than the usual amount of deputies.

If Logan county was situated on the trunk line of any railway system, it would be a much easier task to supply the mines with labor, but due to the fact that it is far removed from any other section of the state and that in order to reach any other point, east, west, north or south it becomes necessary to travel over a distance of 75 miles to Huntington, labor is hard to obtain.

In securing this labor to fill the requirements of the large corporations operating here, it is necessary to visit the employment agencies located in the larger cities. Anyone acquainted with these agencies recognize the fact they are not scrupulous about whom they list, and the natural consequence is that many brought here on transportation are recognized criminals and members of all nationalities. Not all of them, thank goodness, are of the lawless class, but many are. They require constant watching and close scrutiny to see that their criminal tendencies do not become too pronounced. In order to do this it becomes imperative to have a large force of officers.

In view of the fact that there are 142 operations in this county and that approximately 50,000 people are laboring within our borders it can be readily seen that 35 deputies are a comparative small force to exercise supervision over such a huge population. Should a riot break out within our county it would require at least eight hours to obtain help from any section of the state. The fact that Logan needs as large a force of officers was amply attested when the armed march was made on Logan last August.

This article is not written in the defense of Don Chafin or his deputies. They need no defense at our hands. It is not written in defense of a policy adopted by any political party in the county. Regardless of the political affiliations of the sheriff, the Banner would earnestly recommend to anyone, be he the most rabid Republican in the county, if they should be sheriff, the retention of an official force as large as is now employed.

A great hue and cry has been raised because the salaries of these officers have been paid by the coal operators. Let us for a moment realize that the coal industry in the county is the sole industry in our midst. Upon the shoulders of these operators fall the burden of the peace and happiness of their employees. It is in order to furnish these employees protection and security that they have gone into their pocket books and paid for this protection. Who objects? Have you heard a taxpayer in Logan county object? Not one. They are perfectly willing that this cost shall be borne by the operators. They might as well object to the operators subscribing to better schools in Logan. Also voice opposition to better roads, the burden of which falls on the shoulders of the operators.

No one has heard a Macedonian cry from Logan for aid? Not even when union fields of the state were appealing for bread. If there was ever an example of the benefits of the non-union shop plan it was simply exemplified during the recent dull period. Logan worked and fared well. We have no ills to cure nor any abuses that need redress. The propaganda put forth pour from the foul mouths of others than citizens of Logan county and we beseech them to busy themselves with affairs other than ours, for we are perfectly able to take care of ourselves, and when we need their assistance, or advice, we will call for them loud and long.

Anthony Lawson Survey (1849)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anthony Lawson survey (1849), 400 acres, Dry Branch of Guyandotte River, Surveyors Record B, Logan County Clerk’s Office, Logan, WV. Note: This property is contained in present-day Lincoln County.

Harts News 11.27.1925

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An unnamed correspondent from Harts in Lincoln County, West Virginia, offered the following items, which the Logan Banner printed on November 27, 1925:

Here comes Harts at the tip top again.

Mrs. Vina Adkins and children of Man are visiting relatives at Harts at the present time.

Mrs. Chas. Brumfield and children were the guests of her daughter, Mrs. Robert Dingess, of Whirlwind, Sunday.

Miss Sylvia Shelton and Laura Lucas of Sand Creek were calling on friends at Harts Monday.

Mr. Bill Faris is quite a popular fellow with all the girls at Harts now.

We wonder why Mr. Spencer is taking dinner with Mrs. Sadie Powers so often now?

Mrs. Herbert Adkins attended the circuit court at Hamlin the past week.

Miss Cora Adkins of Logan spent Sunday with home folks at Harts.

Mrs. Beatrice Adkins was shopping in Logan Saturday.

Miss Jessie Brumfield is progressing nicely with her school at Atenville.

Mr. Tom Brumfield and Sesco Messinger have opened up their new garage at Harts.

Miss Myrtle Mobley of Big Creek and Fred Shelton of Sand Creek were seen out walking through Harts Saturday evening.

Mr. A.B. Gillan, C. & O. operator of Huntington was calling on Miss Jessie Brumfield Monday evening.

Miss Harriet Dingess of Logan is visiting friends and relatives at Harts this week.

Combinations: Sadie and her red coat; Inez and bobbed hair; Bessie and her wrist watch; Nora and her powder puff; May and her purple dress; Tom in his garage; Bill and his grey suit; Jessie and her diamond ring.

Dear old Banner, we will see you again next week.

Smith and Patterson Hatfield Property in Logan County, WV (1878-1893)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The following land information is derived from Land Book 1873-1874Land Book 1880-1886, and Land Book 1893-1899 at the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:

Smith and Patterson Hatfield

No property listed in 1865-1877.

1878: Magnolia District

Smith and Patterson Hatfield

100 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $25 building $400 total

[Note: This tract was transferred from Ephraim Hatfield in 1878.]

Smith Hatfield

25 acres Marks Branch, Mates Creek $0.20 per acre no building $5 total

1879: Magnolia District

No records for this year.

1880-1881: Magnolia District

Smith and Patterson Hatfield

100 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $25 building $400 total

Smith Hatfield

25 acres Marks Branch, Mates Creek $0.20 per acre no building $5 total

[Note: In the 1880 census, widowed Nancy Hatfield lived with her son, Patterson.]

1882: Magnolia District

The Hatfield page is missing.

1883: Magnolia District

The page is mostly blank but does list:

Smith Hatfield 25 acres M__ Br of Mates Creek $2.50 per acre [rest is blank]

1884-1885: Magnolia District

Smith and Patterson Hatfield

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $35 building $300 total

Smith Hatfield

25 acres Marks Br. of Mates Creek $2.50 per acre no building $62.50 total

1886: Magnolia District

Smith and Patterson Hatfield

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $230 total

Smith Hatfield

25 acres Mack Branch, Mates Creek $2.50 per acre [blank]

1887-1888: Magnolia District

Smith and Patterson Hatfield

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $35 building $300 total

Smith Hatfield

25 acres Marks Branch, Mates Creek $2.50 per acre no building $62.50 total

1889: Magnolia District

Smith Hatfield

25 acres Mark Branch, Mate Creek $2.50 per acre no building $65 total

Pat Hatfield

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $35 building $150 total

1890: Magnolia District

Smith Hatfield

25 acres Mate Creek $2.50 per acre no building $65 total

50 acres Mate Creek $3 per acre $35 building $150 total

Patterson Hatfield

50 acres Mate Creek $3 per acre $30 building $150 total

1891-1892: Magnolia District

Smith Hatfield

25 acres Mate Creek $2.50 per acre no building $62.50 total

50 acres Mate Creek $3 per acre $35 building $150 total

Patterson Hatfield

50 acres Mate Creek $3 per acre $30 building $150 total

1893: Magnolia District

25 acres Mate Creek $2.50 per acre no building $62.50 total

50 acres Mate Creek $3 per acre $40 building $150 total

Ben Walker Deed to Hezekiah “Kiah” Adkins (1887)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ben Walker Deed to Hezekiah “Kiah” Adkins, 175 acres, Green Shoal Creek, 1887, Lincoln County Clerk’s Office, Hamlin, WV. Note: Cain Adkins, who notarized this deed, was a key figure in the Lincoln County Feud, which was underway in 1887. In October of 1889, Ben Walker buried Mr. Adkins’ son-in-law, Green McCoy. Note: Ellen Ferguson and George Dickinson were African-American residents of Harts Creek District.

Valentine “Wall” Hatfield Property in Logan County (1874-1893)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The following land information is derived from Land Book 1873-1874, Land Book 1880-1886, Land Book 1887-1892, and Land Book 1893-1899 at the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:

Valentine Hatfield

No property listed in 1865-1873.

1874: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

144 acres Double Camp Branch, Beech $0.10 per acre no building $14.40 total

[Note: Regarding the latter tract, the book reads “entered on Books and corrected.”]

1875: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

144 acres Double Camp Branch, Beech $0.25 per acre no building $36 total

1876: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

144 acres Double Camp Branch, Beech $0.10 per acre no building $14.40 total

1877: Magnolia District

The record is blank.

1878: Magnolia District

48 acres Beech Creek $5.25 per acre no building $141 total

144 acres Double Camp Branch, Beech Creek $0.25 per acre no building $36 total

1879: Magnolia District

No records for this year.

1880-1881: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

144 acres Double Camp and Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $36 total

1882: Magnolia District

The Hatfield page is missing

1883: Magnolia District

The record is blank for this year.

1884-1885: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5 per acre $50 building $420 total

144 acres Double Camp, Sandy River $1 per acre no building $144 total

1886: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5 per acre $15 building $125 total

114 acres Double Camp, Sandy River $1 per acre $75 building $280 total

1887: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek $5 per acre $50 building $420 total

144 acres Double Camp, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $144 total

1888: Magnolia District

44 acres Beech Creek $5 per acre $50 building $220 total

144 acres Beech Creek $1 per acre no building $144 total

[Note: In this year, Wall Hatfield transferred 40 acres of the 84-acre tract to Doc Mahon.]

1889: Magnolia District

No property listed.

[In 1889, he transferred 89 acres on Beech Creek worth $1 per acre and total value of $89 to Ephraim Hatfield. Also, transferred with others 126 acres on Beech Creek worth $1 per acre and total value of $126 to J.D. Sergeant of Philadelphia.]

1890: Magnolia District

No property listed.

[Note: Wall Hatfield died on February 13, 1890 at Frankfort, KY.]

1891: Magnolia District

Jane Hatfield

84 acres, Beech Creek, $2 per acre, no building, $168 total

[Note: “Entered with 1 yr B tax.”]

1892-1893: Magnolia District

Jane Hatfield

84 acres, Beech Creek, $2.50 per acre, $40 building, $210 total

Elias Hatfield Property in Logan County (1869-1893)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The following land information is derived from Land Book 1866-1872Land Book 1873-1874Land Book 1880-1886, Land Book 1887-1892 , and Land Book 1893-1899 at the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:

Elias Hatfield

No property listed in 1865-1868.

1869-1870: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $4.00 per acre no building $400 total from E.K. Counts

30 acres Mates Creek $10 per acre no building $300 total from E.K. Counts

50 acres Mates Creek $20 per acre no building $1000 total from E.K. Counts

1871: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $90 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $150 total

1872: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $90 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $150 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $150 total

350 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $87.50 total from W. Alderson (assessor)

1873: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $40 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

400 acres Two Tracts Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

350 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $87.50 total

1874: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre $50 building $300 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $40 total

400 acres Two Tracts Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

350 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $87.50 total

1875-1876: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre $50 building $300 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $40 total

400 acres Two Tracts Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

[Note: In 1875, Elias transferred his 350-acre tract but records do not identify the recipient.]

1877: Magnolia District

Records are blank for this district.

1878: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $90 building $90 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $100 total

50 acres Mates Creek $2 per acre no building $100 total

[Note: Records for this year spelled his name as Allias Hatfield.]

1879: Magnolia District

Records are missing for this year

1880: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $90 building $90 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $100 total

50 acres Mates Creek $2 per acre no building $100 total

1881: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $90 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $100 total

50 acres Mates Creek $2 per acre no building $100 total

[Note: The 100-acre tract was noted with this: “yrs from G.W. Duty.” The 30 acre tract was noted as “change to Hardee Dist on Book 1882.”]

1882: Magnolia District

The Hatfield page is missing.

1883: Magnolia District

The record is blank for this district

1884: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $30 building $120 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

1885: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $30 building $120 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

749 acres Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $749

322 acres Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $322 total

[In 1885, he acquired the 749-acre tract from a commissioner. No indication is given about the source of the 322 acres.]

1886: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre [blank]

30 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre [blank]

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre [blank]

1471 acres 4 Tracts Mates Creek $1 per acre [blank]

600 acres Sandy River $1.90 per acre no building $56 total

1887: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $30 building $120 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

1471 acres 4 Tracts, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $1471 total

600 acres Sandy River $1.90 per acre $40 building $1140 total

1888: Magnolia District

600 acres Sandy River $1.90 per acre $40 building $1140 total

1889-1891: Magnolia District

600 acres Sandy River $1.90 per acre $40 building $1140 total

1889-1891: Logan District

30 acres Big Island $20 per acre no building $600 total

13 acres Big Island and Washed Part $1 per acre no building $13 total

[Note: The 30-acre tract was acquired from Oliver Perry. No indication of the source for the 13 acres. According to the 21 March 1889 issue of the Logan County Banner: “On the 18th inst., Elias Hatfield, purchased of Oliver Perry, the property known as the ‘Big Island’ near this place.”]

1892-1893: Magnolia District

400 acres Sandy River $5 per acre $50 building $2000 total

1892-1893: Logan District

25 acres Big Island Guyandotte River $20 per acre no building $500 total

18 acres Big Island Guyandotte River $1 per acre no building $18 total