Summarized here are the allegations of the parties: David A. Bennett claimed in his complaint that according to the Allegan County Atlas, published in 1913, any public road ended where the fence and gates were erected. That he owned all of the land lying north of the Kalamazoo River and west all the way to Lake Michigan. That beyond the end of the public road was underbrush and small trees, and this condition made a convenient and secret place for persons who had no regard for the law or private rights of others, to congregate and hold petting and beer parties. That people parked their cars on his property and left refuse, including broken glass, for he and his employees to clean up. That at one time a number of people came and spread a table cloth upon his lawn and were about to hold a picnic, when they were discovered and requested to leave. That he and his employees frequently had to drive people off the premises at night so that guests in his house could get some sleep. That the gates and fence cost him $500.00 and if the Road Commission removed same, he would be damaged to the extent of $500.00 and upwards, and would be compelled to erect a new fence and gates in order to protect his property. In its petition to intervene, Saugatuck Township claimed an interest in the lawsuit for reason that the land in question was located in the township of Saugatuck. That the public road in question was and always had been the only road or highway leading to the town site of the historic landmark Singapore and to the piers and mouth of the Kalamazoo River. That the road had been used for more than a century by the public, and that even though the town of Singapore was gradually buried by the drifting sands, the public road continued to be used without interference until such time as the fence and gates were erected by David A. Bennett. That the road was still openly visible and had been improved by Saugatuck Township from time to time until certified to the Allegan County Road Commission as a public road. Saugatuck Township's petition further stated that Saugatuck had for many years been a tourist resort and that the village drew heavily on tourist trade; that persons coming to visit Saugatuck used the road in question in order to gain access to swim and fish, and that if access were denied, many persons would refrain from visiting again. And further, that the residents living within Saugatuck Township would themselves have no means of access to the north pier and the shores of Lake Michigan. In his motion to deny Saugatuck Township the right to intervene, David Bennett denied that his fence and gates barred the public from access to the piers and the shores of Lake Michigan, alleging that they could get there by boat. Bennett agreed that there was once a town site known as Singapore but it was abandoned and had ceased to exist. He denied that there was ever any public highway laid out leading all the way to Singapore, but rather in those days the public traveled to Singapore across property now owned by him in any way that suited their convenience at the time. That back then the land so crossed was of little value, was not used for any beneficial purpose, was more or less covered with underbrush, and the then owner permitted such use of the land. He further stated that when Saugatuck Township certified the public road of its township to the Allegan County Road Commission, said township board only certified the public road leading west up to where the present gates and fence are located. That the township had no right to intervene because the township no longer had any control over the road. That since he owned all the property west of the fence and gates, the public had no right to use the beach on Lake Michigan for bathing or picnicking. Lastly, Bennett pointed out that the village of Saugatuck owned a park on Lake Michigan and had a good public road to said park and that same was ample to accommodate all of the public who desired to use it. According to later Commercial Record accounts, it appeared the case was heard in Justice Court about September 1948. Justice of the Peace Leslie Junkerman rendered a decision in favor of Mr. Bennett on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to indicate an infringement of public rights. Then a year after the Justice Court decision, the Road Commission counter sued and took the matter to the Allegan County Circuit Court. On a Saturday afternoon in early September 1949, a Commercial Record reporter interviewed Bennett, who was recuperating from pneumonia at his estate. Bennett related that after he bought the old Cook estate and made his improvements, he began discouraging the public from crossing his property. This was where the whole thing started, he said. Same individuals in the community felt that to bar public passage across the dunes to the pier was illegal on the grounds that it had once been a road. "I bought the property in mid summer 1945," Mr. Bennett recalled, "and it was during the fall or early winter I first made an offer to the township of Saugatuck through their board members in an effort to compensate for barring the public from my premises, which I felt I had a moral and legal right to do. This was before I had actually erected the fence. In best faith I offered them an easement over my property along lake Michigan and south of the harbor entrance where a road could be constructed on connecting township property to the south making it possible for the public to reach the government piers in this manner. I even said I'd pay for half of the cost of building such a road. More recently, I offered to deed all of that property (a mile of Lake Michigan frontage), to the state of Michigan, providing Saugatuck Township do likewise with their adjoining property, for state park purposes. It was proposed that the state take over this property, he continued, which would have included the present oval, and make a beautiful state park. I made my offers repeatedly and was turned down. I understand now due to state financial conditions, the state is no longer in a position to be interested. Remember... I didn't have to do this, I wanted to for the interest of the community." At the time, Bennett said he knew of no effort to move the case to trial. He went on, I do not believe the Road Commission will have much incentive to continue the case, especially in view of the county's finances, since I understand their counsel charged them $400.00 to take this case through Justice Court." When asked who the individuals were who had been openly antagonistic he said, "A few of the community who I am sure do not understand the facts of the case, a very few sentimentalists, and Mr. Edwin House. Mr. House, presumably public spirited, in fact, owns the property adjoining mine. He wants to sell lots on his acreage there, and be able to offer prospective buyers free access to Lake Michigan through my property." Looking over the spacious and wooded grounds of the estate, which was dedicated a wild life sanctuary in 1947, Bennett pointed out the signs attached to the government piers which the public used to fish from which read THIS PIER NOT TO BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. ..U.S. ENGINEERS. "So you see, Bennett said, since I own riparian rights to Lake Michigan with no `mythical roads' and the only public object in sight the government piers which are posted by the U.S. Engineers, what recreational facilities am I depriving anyone from? Or would they have me share my privacy with the holiday making public, to run rampant over my property and picnic on my front lawn, to destroy and make filthy my yard, simply because in the past an unoccupied dwelling made it possible for trespassers to roam?" While the road controversy simmered in Saugatuck, David Bennett gained some unwanted national publicity when certain of his business activities during World War II surfaced amid a Senate investigation of "Five Percenters", men-about-Washington who for a five percent commission secured contracts or favored treatment from the government. The August 22, 1949 issue of Time magazine reported that a nasty little scandal was swirling around the White House. It centered on the hulking figure of Major General Harry Vaughan, military aide to Harry Truman and the President's poker-playing pal. Grossly overweight, Vaughan was described as having an appearance like a cartoonist's portrait of corruption. His uniform, with all its brass and ribbons, looked about as military as pajamas. General Vaughan, it was revealed by several witnesses, had used his high position, his general's stars, his White House telephone and his place in Harry Truman's affections for the most pathetic of rewards--flattery, good fellowship and a fool's sense of power. One of the so-called "men-about-Washington" was Vaughan's oldest friend, John Maragon, a former bootblack, butcher, G-man and collector of bad debts. Maragon was seen so often in the West Wing during the first weeks of Harry Truman's presidency that he was thought to be one of the staff. The most sensational revelations were that David Bennett made gifts of home freezer units during June and July 1945 to the First Lady for the little White House in Independence, Missouri; to Chief Justice Vinson; to Treasury Secretary Snyder; to the President's secretary, Matthew Connelly; to a governor of the Federal Reserve Board; and to Vaughan, who got two. The cost of these freezers was $2,625, all paid for by the Albert Verley Company, David Bennett's Chicago company that dealt in essential oils for perfume. Why was the Verley Company so generous? Senate probers demanded information on what favors, if any, the perfume company received in return. Bennett's friends claimed he didn't expect or get any. They testified that Bennett had always been a very wealthy man, a very prosperous man. He always had big cars and chauffeurs and big apartments. He was one of those fellows to whom gifts like that just did not mean anything. Money was spent very freely. The freezer investigation grabbed front-page headlines in the Chicago Tribune almost every day during August 1949. Investigators disclosed that Major General Vaughan had interceded officially for Bennett before the freezer gifts were made, in fact, seven days before the war ended in Europe. On May 1 on White House stationery, Vaughan wrote a "to whom it may concern" letter to arrange for a military travel permit for Bennett "whose travel is authorized by the President" and who is entitled to the courtesies of American officials abroad. Bennett had not held any official position in the government entitling him to such consideration. Yet, he and an associate left on May 11,1945, three days after V-E Day, aboard a plane of the Air Transport Command. When they returned, they brought with them 41 kilos of perfume essence, valued at $53,405. Bennett was granted at least two other trips to Europe, which gave him a jump-start on business after the war. It was also uncovered that John Maragon, as an agent of the Verley Company, flew to Paris on July 1 aboard ATC. When he returned, he declared only perfume worth $47 and a camera worth $8.40. He carried two other packages -- one addressed to Miss Margaret Truman and the other to George Drescher, then White House secret service chief. Maragon claimed they were gifts from "the embassy." Upon opening the packages, customs officers found designer dresses and perfume essence in champagne bottles marked "champagne for Mrs. Truman from the American Embassy." During the search, Maragon waved a White House pass under the noses of the customs agents. Maragon was never prosecuted far smuggling, a criminal violation, and the perfume essence was turned over to the Verley Company. Committee members noted caustically that military planes were carting Vaughan's friends and their perfume oil while GI's, including hospital cases, were stranded in Europe for lack of transport. The entire freezer investigation would probably never have come to light had it not been for a flight sergeant aboard the plane during one of Bennett's trips to Europe. The soldier, Walter E. Rhodes, Jr., after reading accounts about the five percent investigation, wrote to his father, a Baltimore attorney, expressing amazement that civilians, showing White House letters, were traveling while his buddies were left abroad. His father, in turn, contacted Senator Mundt, one of the Senate investigators. "Five percenters" and "deep freezers" became odious new catchwords, to the extreme pleasure of the Republicans. At one point, General Vaughan issued a statement that it was all his fault, but he was innocent. ..there was nothing improper regarding the gifts of said freezers-that there was no law against public officials accepting gifts from grateful admirers and constituents. Why, the President himself was constantly receiving and accepting gifts of all kinds - paintings, prize turkeys, country hams, Havana cigars, liquor, even a Ford automobile. But there was one big difference here-rather than being open presents, publicly given and publicly received, the freezers had been clandestine gifts. Vaughan seemed to have no realization of the harm he had caused the administration. Truman, far too kind and loyal to certain old friends who took advantage of him, interpreted the heat on Vaughan as a personal attack on himself. Beneath everything, Truman not only liked Vaughan, but also liked how Vaughan conducted himself, particularly with respect to the press. When, in the midst of the hearings, Vaughan was confronted by reporters, he warned them to go easy on him. "After all," Vaughan was quoted as saying, "I am the President's military aide, and you guys will all want favors at the White House some day." Asked about his connection to the five percenters, he said, "That's nobody's goddamn business and you can quote me," a response that so warmed Truman's heart when he read, it that he pinned a mock decoration on his old friend. By August 1949, David Bennett was under doctor's care and too ill to go to Washington to testify. The investigations closed in the early autumn 1949. No legal action was ever taken. However, David Bennett was never able to shake off the stigma. Bennett's offers to satisfy Saugatuck Township and the Road Commission, in return for dropping their case against him and abandoning any claim of a public highway across his land on the north side of the river, were rejected for the following reasons. The village of Saugatuck held title to the Oval Beach NOT Saugatuck Township. Saugatuck Township did not own any land on the south side of the harbor to convey in order to link up with Bennett's land. Further, while very interested in the dunes lying to the south of the harbor, the state of Michigan was in no position at the time to accept Bennett's land as there were not sufficient funds to even develop the sites the state already had. The Saugatuck Township board suggested that the land between the old and new channel be deeded to Saugatuck Township until such time as the state could accept it. This was unacceptable to Bennett, as by this time he wanted local officials to have no say over the land in question. Attempts at settlement having failed, the case went to trial in mid-December, 1949. The Road Commission brought 26 witnesses; Bennett offered nine. The trial lasted for two weeks. Here is some of the testimony as reported in the Commercial Record: The first witness called for the Road Commission was Edwin House, who testified that the only way of hauling wood and lumber was down the lakeshore and over the dunes through Singapore and the dug way. This practice continued through a period before the Cooks owned the property and up to 1945 when Bennett bought the property. Clayton Van Leeuwen testified the same use of the land saying it was definitely laid out and traveled, and that at no time was there any question that the road belonged to the public. Mr. Van Leeuwen further testified that he had traveled the road hundreds of times, not only hauling wood out but also peddling supplies to the cottage people in this area from 1910 to 1940. Charles Headley stated that he had many times traveled that right of way, hauling supplies to cottages and wood and lumber out, as well as equipment for the raising of a shipwreck. Henry Randall testified that he was born in Singapore and lived there until he was 16 years old, and that the dug way from the Ward School connected with River Street, the front street of the Singapore plat, and had been in constant use up to the present time except since Mr. Bennett had obstructed the road. His sister, Mrs. Carpenter, also testified that before Mr. Bennett closed the road, there was no question about the right of way to the pier. Charles Gilman appeared with township records showing that since 1930 the board had made inspection trips over Singapore road. Louis Schultz, highway commissioner, testified that he at one time hauled 30 loads of gravel to the roadway. James Sheridan, whose father had been light keeper, testified that he had spent much time in the area since 1915. He and his family had known the Cook family well and they never claimed exclusive right to the road. He further stated that the Cooks built their own road north of the dug way in order not to interfere with the public's use of the right of way to the pier. Colonel Christophal of Milwaukee, a United States engineer, when questioned on the matter of the pier's being exclusively government property, stated that the "No Trespass" sign did not mean that the public could not use the pier for fishing and so forth, but that they did so at their own risk. John Scarlett, who was township supervisor from 1924 to 1933, stated that in 1918 he drove his car all the way to the east end of the pier. Homer Ward, county highway superintendent, presented a map showing which township roads had been turned over to the Road Commission in 1932. This map showed the Singapore road all the way to the government pier and Lake Michigan. Ward testified that work on this road had been done with county funds. Victor Egelkraut, highway commissioner from 1915 to 1925, testified that he had done work on the dug road all the way to the cement crossing and had many times inspected the road. Ralph Clapp, as supervisor, stated that when he made out and delivered the last order to the County Road Commission, he had personally written on the order that they were to take over the "Singapore" and "Cook" roads to keep them passable. Witnesses for David Bennett testified that they were well acquainted with the Singapore property, that at many different times they had wandered through to the Lake Michigan shore, but had never found any definite roads. A surveyor named Smith from Paw Paw, employed by Mr. Bennett, said that he had carefully surveyed the property and had found traces of what might have been old wagon roads, but that they amounted to little. He said he did not see much evidence of gravel ever having been put on the so-called right of way in question. When cross examined, he did admit that the dug way connected with the front street on the Singapore plat, called River Street. The Register of Deeds of Allegan County testified that the Singapore plat had been recorded in 1832 and although it had been carefully preserved all these years it had disappeared within the last 30 days from the Register of Deeds office. The staff reported that a thorough search had failed to discover the plat. James Schoeneich, caretaker for Bennett, said that it had become necessary to deny access to the public and put up "private property" signs because the public coming through to fish and picnic were noisy, untidy and littered the grounds with trash. The County's only hope of winning the suit hinged on proving the dug road had been in existence for over a hundred years, that it had been constantly improved and maintained and that closure was in violation of the rights of the public. Bennett's case mainly rested on the assertion that the road that once existed beyond his fence had long since been abandoned and that the dug road, which led to the fence and gates, was valueless without a destination. The trial provoked the greatest interest of any ever held in this part of the county. Judge Smith refused to decide the case immediately, announcing that he would take the case under advisement, review the written arguments when he had the time, and that a decision would be handed down probably in time for fishing season. Months passed. In a May 19,1950 editorial in the Commercial Record, Bob Crawford wrote; "Why is Bennett's fracas with the County Road Commission shrouded in mystery? Has litigation been buried in the sands of Singapore? Fishing season is here. Why the delay? Taxpayers of Saugatuck Township especially, but all people of Allegan County already have an investment in these suits. Yet nobody seems to know much about it. Is this kind of a `hot potato'?" More time passed. In Bob Crawford's July 14, 1950 editorial he again asked: "Is this kind of a 'hot potato'? There has been no activity and no court decision handed down. There are no comments from officials, yet both sides seem anxious for a decision. Taxpayers are footing the bill in the meantime and the public is left in a quandary. Judge Smith could not be reached for comment, reportedly gene on a fishing trip until August 2nd. If there are hopes for settlement, they'd better get into high gear. ..or they might bog down in the political ruts of the 'disputed passage'." Finally, on February 9, 1951, more than a year after the trial, to the surprise and chagrin of most of the public, Judge Smith found in favor of David Bennett. Not only was Bennett's right to maintain the gates and fence upheld, but also in addition, Judge Smith awarded Bennett all rights to the dug road as far as it passed through his property. The Court's opinion revealed that while convincing evidence was shown that there must have been a road leading from the end of the dug out road where Bennett's property began to Singapore and Fishtown, there was no evidence that any work was done on it by public authorities or that the use was accompanied by any act on the part of the public authorities, open, notorious or hostile to the private ownership which would give to the owner notice that his title was denied. This resulted in termination of the public's legal access to the government piers and the river mouth -- a condition that still exists today. David A. Bennett died suddenly in 1953 and was buried in Riverside Cemetery, Saugatuck. The estate was sold to Frank Denison who kept the property very much as it stood except that he developed a boat yard for the building of aluminum yachts on the Singapore site. Denison demolished a portion of the dug road so that it never again could be used in its entirety by any sort of vehicle. ****** Historical Society member Gene Schoeneich was personally acquainted with David A. Bennett. These are some of his memories of that time: The David Bennett that Gene Schoeneich remembers was a wonderful man. Gene's father had worked for Lincoln Decorators in Chicago and was foreman of the crew that worked on Bennett's Gold Coast apartment, a lavish place with black marble bathrooms and gold fixtures. Impressed with the eider Schoeneich, Bennett hired him as caretaker for his Saugatuck property in the summer of 1945. The Schoeneich family lived in a cottage on the estate for more than eight years. Since the Schoeneich family had previously resided in a Chicago working class neighborhood, it was quite something to move to the estate. It was also a big deal for Gene's high school friends to get an invitation to drive up that long winding road to visit. Gene recalls that after the war, Bennett bought three army surplus Willys Jeeps, one of which was for his family's use. These vehicles were quite a novelty around town. He also remembers that Bennett owned a maroon Chrysler Town and Country convertible with real wood side panels. Sometimes David Bennett arrived in Saugatuck by car, other times in a twin-engine seaplane that landed in a wide part of Lake Kalamazoo in front of the current Butler restaurant. Bennett also had an impressive motor sailer the Valerie V named after his eldest grandchild, Valerie Valentine, which was moored in front of a guesthouse at water's edge. Gene recalls that Bennett had two wives, the first of whom was very wealthy. He thinks both marriages ended in divorce. He doesn't recall ever seeing either wife around the property. Bennett's only child, Muriel Williams, her husband and their three children spent a good deal of time at the estate. Prominently displayed in the mansion was a large autographed photograph of Harry Truman. Frequent visitors included international and national dignitaries, including Major General Harry Vaughan, his wife and young son. Visitors played lots of backgammon. Steak and Blueberries, Mr. Bennett's favorite foods, were served often.