The Oklahoma Constitutional Convention began in Guthrie on November 20, 1906, and adjourned on March 15, 1907, with two additional week-long sessions held to finish the proposed Constitution. The date for placing the document before the people of Oklahoma and Indian Territories was September 17, 1907. On the appointed date, the citizens of the two territories agreed, and 71 percent voted for its adoption.Then,onNovember 16, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the proper papers, proclaiming that 'Oklahoma is now a state.'
One of the major tasks of the writers of the Oklahoma Constitutionwastodesignate counties and county seats. The process was contentious, and everyone on the county committee had opinions about boundary lines and principal cities. In addition, thecommitteememberswere subjecttocompetingrequests from leaders of various towns being considered for the location of county offices.
While some of the most strident lobbying in the Constitutional Convention was over selecting county seats, the winners were often unpopular. While the delegates oversaw identifying where county governments would be located, there were, in some instances, solid disagreements and outright rebellion. Therefore, the committee declared that elections could be conducted in each county after statehood to satisfy these competing interests. However, at the final ceremony at Guthrie on November 16, 1907, officials designated the location of counties, their boundaries and the seat of each county government.
The Constitution established the new state's court system, including each county andcountyseat.ArticleVII of the Constitution provided for the State Supreme Court and the various District Courts across the State. Section 9 of the newly ratified Constitution provided that “Until otherwise provided by law, the state shall be divided into twenty-one judicial districts, and the qualified electors of each of the said districts shall elect a judge of the District Court as provided herein, except In the Thirteenth Judicial District, two judges shall be elected.” Originally, Marshall County was part of District Six, along with Bryan, Choctaw and McCurtain Counties.
Section 11 of the new Constitution provided that “There is hereby established in each county in the state a county court, which shall be a court of record: and at the election to ratify this constitution, there shall be elected in each county, a county Judge, who shall hold his office until the close of the day, next preceding the second Monday In January: nineteen hundred and eleven: and thereafter the term of office of the county Judge shall be two years and he shall be elected at each biennial general election. The county Judge shall be a qualified voter and a resident of the county at the time of his election, and a lawyer licensed to practice in the courts of record of the state. The County Judge shall be Judge or the County Court.”
Section 18 then created a Justice of the Peace office. Section 18 provided: “The office of justice of the peace is hereby created, and, until otherwise provided by law, courts of justice of the peace shall have, co-extensive with the county, jurisdiction as examining and committing magistrates in all felony cases, and shall have jurisdiction, concurrent with the county court in civil cases where the amount involved does not exceed two-hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and concurrent jurisdiction with the county court in all misdemeanor cases in which the punishment does not exceed a fine of $200 or imprisonment…” Following Oklahoma’s statehood, Marshall County had a District Judge who presided over Marshall, Bryan, Choctaw and McCurtain counties;aCountyJudgewho resided in Marshall County, and a Justice of the Peace who was also a resident of the county.
The District and County Court systems remained unchanged until 1969 when the Oklahoma Legislature completely restructured the court system in response to the Supreme Court scandal of the early 1960s. In that scandal, three justices of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma were forced out of office and disgraced.
On Jan. 21, 1965, state Representative G.T. Blankenship addressed the Oklahoma House of Representative members about “something of great concern.” Blankenship then read a summary of a sworn statement by former Supreme Court Justice N.S. Corn, who was serving a federal prison term for income tax evasion.
In the sworn statement, Corn admitted that he and two other justices had taken bribes for twenty-five years to rig votes on appeal cases. In a 1957 case, Corn took $150,000, paid in $100 bills, to influence the Supreme Court’s decision in the Selected Investments Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission case. Corn said he paid Justices Earl Welch and Napoleon Bonaparte Johnson $7,500 each to help him form a majority. The conscience of leaders in the state Capitol and the citizens was shocked.
A statewide uproar occurred after Blankenship made former Justice Corn’s confession public. Because influential people were accused, Governor Henry Bellmon was concerned about Blankenship’s safety. The Oklahoma Bar Association then created a special investigating committee recommending that charges be filed against Justices Welch and Johnson. The committee cleared other sitting justices of any wrongdoing.
Time magazine called the scandal one of the worst in American history and referred to the quality of justice in Oklahoma as “the best money can buy.” Against corruption, Governor Bellmon insisted that the Legislature pass sweeping justice reform measures. However, Democratic leaders such as House Speaker J.D. McCarty killed any meaningful judicial reform bills.
A federal grand jury in Oklahoma City then indicted Justices Corn and Welch and prominent attorney and former Oklahoma City Mayor O.A. Cargill Sr. One count accused Cargill of orchestrating the payment of at least $1,000 to certain justices as a campaign contribution in exchange for the justices’ agreement to vote in favor of cases in which Cargill was interested.
Ultimately, Cargill was convicted on three counts of perjury. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed two counts, but one conviction was affirmed.
Meanwhile, a special investigating committee of the Oklahoma House of Representatives filed articles of impeachment against Justices WelchandJohnsononMarch 18, 1965. Justice Welch, the longest-serving justice, immediately resigned. Justice Johnson was defiant and would not resign. The full House approved the articles ofimpeachment.StateRepresentative Larry Derryberry, later the state’s attorney general, said Johnson was a traitor to the judiciary, the profession and the people of Oklahoma.Twodayslater,an OklahomaCountygrandjury indicted Johnson on bribery charges.
Following an impeachment trial before the Oklahoma Senate, Justice Johnson was convicted by one vote. His downfall during the trial was his inability to explain why he deposited $20,000 morethanhisSupremeCourt salary in four years.
Otis Sullivant, a legendary reporter for The Daily Oklahoman, summarized the sentiment of most Oklahomans: “It has been a dark week for Oklahoma and its reputation nationally in government and politics. The state hasn’t received so much bad publicity in such a short timesincetheswashbuckling politics of the 1920s when our state was looked upon as a raw young one, still in its growing pains.” An article in Newsweek called Oklahoma’s judicial system “Cash-and-Carry Justice.
On July 11, 1967, voters approved two state questions. The justice of the peace system was abolished. County and special courts were abolished. District courts would handle trials; civil appeals would go to the SupremeCourt,andcriminal law appeals would be heard by the Criminal Court of Appeals, now called the Court of Criminal Appeals. Politics was taken out of the state’s two highest appellate courts. The governor would appoint Supreme Court justices and Court of Criminal Appeals judges from names submitted by a Judicial Nominating Commission.
The Legislature then took most of the 1968 session and instituted a new judicial system. The changes took effect Jan. 13, 1969. The district courts were organized based on judicial districts rather than counties. The number of District Court Districts was increased from 21 to 27. The old superior court judges became district judges, and county judges became associate district judges. Through that change, Marshall County became part of District 20, alongwithLove,Carter,Murray and Johnston Counties.
Lastly, the new State Constitution provided in Section 13 that “The County Court shall be held at the county seat, but the Legislature may providefor holding sessionsof the County Court at not more than two additional places In the county: Provided, that alternate sessions of County Court in LeFlore County shall be held at Talihina.” Such an arrangement was created in Seminole County, Creek County and Kay County. It was not until the last several years that these arrangements were ended.
Based on this provision in Section 13 of the Constitution, Marshall County State RepresentativeStumpAshby proposed to divide Marshall County into two County Court Districts, designating Court Towns, terms of court and class of cases to be tried in each district. Ashby’s act created County Court District No. 1 and County Court District No. 2. County Court District No. 1 would be based in Madill and cover the north half of the county. County Court No. 2 would be based in Kingston and cover the south half of the county.
The announcement of Ashby’s proposal was met with praise from the people of Kingston and ridicule from the people of Madill. The opposition in the media, led by the Marshall County Democrat newspaper, was harsh and ugly. The editor of the paper was W. G. Draper. Interestingly, Ashby had defeated Draper just months earlier in the election for the office of Marshall County State Representative. The defeat still haunted Draper, who, from then on, took every chance possible to attack Ashby.
In the March 20, 1908 edition of the Marshall County Democrat, Draper wrote an editorial entitled “Against the Proposed Double Barreled County Court Bill.” Draper wrote, “Stump Ashby has introduced a bill in the House providing the holding of county court one-half time in Kingston. We wonder if he will not provide holding the other half in Mannsville, Johnston County, his home.”
Draper then seemed to challenge Ashby to a fight when he wrote in the same issue, “From press reports, it seems that the Honorable StumpAshbyhashisfighting clothes on. He is reported to have said on the floor of the House a few days ago that he would lick any man in or out of the House who dared to say anything disrespectful of him. If he lives up to this he has an all summer job.”
ThenDraperwrote,“When Stump Ashby gets his bill through the legislature, providing for the holding of the county court in various parts of the county and Judge Faulkner gets his portable office arranged, all you will have to do if you have a case to try or want a marriage license will be to send the Judge word and he will come around and attend to your wants. He can hold court out under a tree in the summer time if necessary.”
The following week, in his paper's March 27, 1908 issue, Draper continued the attack on the proposed law supported by Kingston. In that issue, Draper wrote, “We want it understood now that we have no fight to make on Kingston or anyone who lives there for trying to get all they can for their town. Kingston is a good town, and it seems to us that she has an excellent citizenship. We have said here to fore and are here willing to repeat it: that Kingston has some of the most loyal citizens we have ever known. She has live, energetic, progressive businessmen, men who are ever on the alert, looking to the interest and up building of their town; and these men are backed by a live newspaper, the Messenger. We might add that Madill and Marshall County is proud of Kingston.”
Draper continued, “The Constitution provides for holding a session of the County Court at not more than two additional places in the county other than the County Seat. This provision was doubtless placed in the constitution on account of the fight that was made by some towns over the state for county seats. The question now to be considered is this; Would it be to the best interest of the people of our county to have our County Court divided and to hold one half time in Kingston? The County Court is a court of record. Would you provide eachofficewithacompleteset of records, dockets, etc? Or would you only have one set and have them transported from one place to the other as needed? This in the course of time you could not do, you wouldbecompelledtofurnish two offices and each office must be provided with fire proof vaults for the protection of these records. If you equip two offices why not have a Clerk of the County Court at each office to file papers, issue marriage licenses and to transact all necessary business during the absence of the County Judge, and make the Judge a kind of Circuit Judge.”
“If this was a very large county and inconvenient and expensiveforthepeopleofthe county to get to the county seat, this scheme to divide the County Court might appeal to them as being reasonable, but as our county is small and the County Seat is accessibly located to all parts of the county, no one being so far distant but that can reach the seat of government in this county in a half day’s ride this proposition, this scheme to divide the holding of the County Court with Kingston will fall to the earth and die among her worshipers.”
Up to this point, Draper’s editorial seemed conciliatory and reasonable. However, that tone would not last, and from this point forward, the fight was on in this article and in articles and editorials to come over the next few months. It would get ugly, and it would get personal.
Draper then wrote: “The people will not stand for the extra expense of equipment and maintaining an extra County Judge’s office to satisfy a community of people who expect to have the value of their personal property enhanced and for their own convenience at the expense of the taxpayers. We say as Marshall county is small and the taxes will be heavy enough at best, why incur this extra expense. If Madill is not the most centrally and conveniently located for the County Seat, Kingston and the people over the county have their remedy.”
Draperconcluded:“Letthe County Seat be moved where it will be the most convenient for the majority of the people of the county. But as long as Madill has the County Seat she wants all that goes with it. If Kingston wants the County seat let her come out in the open and go after it and quit beating around the bush.”
Not to be outdone, the Madill News newspaper joined the fray. In their paper, on the same day, Editor C.F. Hartwroteaneditorialunder the title of “The Signs of the Times” the following: “Indicate to us that our neighbor town, South, has dropped the glove at Madill's feet and that it is up to us to accept the challenge or surrender completely.”
“Kingston wants the county high school. Kingston wants the county court. She wants the county seat. Just now we think of nothing else she wants, other than the earth and the fullness thereof. Indeed, the whole matter gets itself together as we see it in one proposition of the final location of the county seat of Marshall County.”
“Butwiththesmallermatters, she proposes to become “Teddy” and wave “the big stick” over us. (The phrase “walk softly and carry a big stick” is a proverb often associated with U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who described it as a guiding principle for foreign policy. It means that one should strive to be diplomatic and avoid unnecessary aggression (“walk softly”), but also be prepared to use force or show strength if necessary (“carry a big stick”).)” Hart continued: “If you don't give us these things, we will bring about a contest for the county seat. Right here, we wish to go on record once and for all that when it comes to the test, we know who is the stronger and as well the victor.”
“It has been our desire not to agitate this question and felt that we ought to make any reasonable concession in order to stay on amicable terms with our neighbor. But we have heard the rumblings of distant thunder for some time past and as it comes nearer and nearer, we feel it our duty to sound a note of warning to our people before a storm breaks upon us.”
“It may be said of our citizens that they are anxious for the matter to be tried in a final adjustment of the matter made, and if it must be tried, we too say let it be once at once and let us be relieved of suspense.”
Hart concluded his editorial: “On the present issue, we wish to say that we cannot see any good reason why our county court should be divided or in any other county as to that matter, whose area is no more than that of Marshall. A citizen living in the remotest corner of the county may come to Madill, transact any ordinary business and returnthesameday.Further, the proposed change would mean an increased expense to county and county officers. We have many advantages and accommodations of which no other town in the county can boast – not only have them now, but will always have them and will always be the metropolis and the county seat of Marshall County, Oklahoma.”
Then in the next issue of the Marshall County Democrat, Editor Draper took a personal shot at Stump Ashby by reprinting an offensive quote from Guthrie’s Oklahoma State Capital newspaper. The Guthrie papers wrote: “Famous ‘Stump’ Ashby is a lineal descendant of the illustrious Adam, who played such a brilliant part in the Garden of Eden during the days of the decollete.”
The gist of this offensive statement is Stump Ashby’s role in the legislature was as unimpressive as Adam’s folly in being shamefully led astray by Eve. A “decollete” is a woman wearing a dress with a low neckline exposing the upper chest. It is used metaphorically or humorously to suggest a time of exposure or revealing shame. It was a personal attack against Ashby and his former opponent, Draper, clearly had no respect for him.
Then, finally, the Marshall County Democrat and Editor Draper took a shot at the people of Kingston. In a previous issue of the paper, there was the announcement ofthemarriageofR.C.Maxey of Kingston to Stella Harris of Madill. Draper took the occasion of this marriage to go after Kingston once more. In his paper, Draper wrote the following: “Kingston tried hard during the Sequoyah election to defeat Madill for the County seat. She has striven hard several times since to gain a supremacy over her neighboring town but has always met her ‘Waterloo.’ Now she is coming at us in another way. Her gallant young men are making proposals to our fair young ladies. These proposals are being accepted by our girls are being led to the hymeneal alter by the knights of Kingstonandarebeingtaken there for their future homes. We would like to know if our young men are going to stand with folded arms and let the ‘golden opportunity’ pass.” In a bit of contrition Draper did at least say: “Claude we do not hold an grudge toward you, but which you and your beautiful bride a happy and prosperous journey through life.”
The fight was now on, and it wouldn’t be pleasant. Two towns were fighting for the right to be the county seat. The gloves were off and it was going to create a rift that lives to this day.
Next week, Kingston’s response.