On September 29, 1913, thevotersofMarshallCounty went to the ballot box for a fifth time to determine if the Marshall County Commissioners could issue bonds to pay for the construction of a countycourthouse. Thebond issue failed in the four previous elections because the “yes” vote could not achieve the 60 percent threshold for passage. However, in the fifth election, the bond issue finally exceeded the 60 percent threshold necessary for passage. The proposition to build a courthouse received 29 votes over the 60 percent required for passage.
Following the election, the county commissioners duly canvassed the election returns, and the proposition was declared to be carried by the requisite constitutional majority. In October 1913, the board of county commissioners issued bonds in said sum, and the county treasurer was directed to sell the bonds and deliver them to the purchasers.
Following the county commissioners’ approval of the bond sale, D. F. Faulk, H. H. Delay, D. T. Wooten, E. H. McDuffie and George Hendrick filed a protest of the election in the District Court of Marshall County. Faulk, Wooten, McDuffie, and Hendrick were from Kingston, and Delay was from Woodville.
Upon filing their protest, the plaintiffs also requested the court issue an emergency injunction to enjoin the county commissioners from issuing the bonds until the protest was heard. The plaintiffs alleged gross irregularities and fraud in the September 29th election, particularly in the precincts of Lone Elm, Powell and Aylesworth, and therefore, the proposition was not carried by the necessary 60 percent, and therefore, the election was void. An injunction was issued prohibiting the sale of the bonds until thematterwasheardandthe cause was set for hearing in the district court.
The case was initially assigned to Judge Jesse Hatchett of Durant. Hatchett granted the temporary injunction and set the protest for hearing on Monday, November 10, 1913. However, after the initial protest was filed, the plaintiffs hired the Durant law firm of Hatchett and Ferguson as their attorneys for the trial. This required Judge Jesse Hatchett to recuse himself from the case because the plaintiffs hired his brother Claude Hatchett. TheOklahomaSupreme Court then appointed the Honorable Judge R. C. Allen of Muskogee to preside over the case.
Thecountycommissioners were represented by F. E. Kennamer, George Sneed, George March, J. O. Minter, former Judge, Isaac Overton Lewis all of Madill and V. B. Hayes of Durant. However, the attorneys leading the defense of the commissioners were two politically connected, all-star lawyers and one other that turned heads. One of the two political heavy weights was William Isaac Cruce from Ardmore. Cruce was the brother and former law partner of Lee Cruce, who was then Oklahoma's governor. Lee Cruce was elected Oklahoma’s second Governor in 1910 and served from 1911 to 1915. of Madill also represented the county. The other political heavy weight was State Senator William Franklin of Madill. Franklin played a significant role in the county seat election in 1909, which awarded Madill the county seat.
However, in a strange and surprising twist, the county commissioners were also represented by Elbridge Seawell (E.S.) Hurt, also known as “Judge Hurt.” He was a lawyer from Durant who traveled throughout Oklahoma, speaking on behalf of the Socialist Party. As a speaker, Hurt was in massive demand by various socialist groups throughout Oklahoma.Hewassopopular that the Sayer Sun newspaper once said, “Those who have heard Hurt will scream with delight on hearing he is to speak.” Another newspaper reported this about Hunt; “Judge E. S. Hurt of Madill. Everybody knows him. His law practice will only allow him to make a few special dates and you better hurry if you want him. Judge Hurt needs no introduction to the Socialists of the Southwest.” In fact, Hurt was so popular that people went out of their way to hear him speak, even though he was known to talk for up to two hours at each appearance.
In 1908, Hurt became involved in the county seat fight in Marshall County when Kingston hired him as the leading proponent of Kingston’s award of the county seat. As you recall from part eight of this series, Hurt was incapacitated after drinking “Tarantula Juice.”
As previously reported, when it was learned that Hurt was to ride the train from Durant to Madill and then over to Cumberland, a group of Madill supporters paid a man from Madill to ride the train with Hurt and attempt to get him drunk to disrupt the speaking and get Hurt off the platform, It was well-known that Hurt enjoyed consuming whiskey, so the Madill man was provided with some bootleg whiskey to share with Hurt.
However, the whiskey the man gave Hurt was a concoction popularly known as “tarantula juice.” In the American Old West, “Tarantula Juice” was a colloquial term for a potent and often adulterated form of whiskey. This concoction typically consisted of raw alcohol, burnt sugar, water, chewing tobacco and sometimes, strychnine. Strychnine was a bitter-tasting poison primarily used as a pesticide, but it was occasionally added to whiskey as a stimulant, giving it an extra “kick.” Other dangerous substances, such as kerosene or turpentine, would also be mixed into these adulterated whiskeys to enhance their potency or stretch the supply. Strychnine affects the central nervous system by interfering with neurotransmitters, particularly glycine, which inhibits nerve transmission in the spinal cord. When strychnine blocks this action, it leads to uncontrollable muscle contractions and convulsions.
The Madill man rode the train with Hurt and got him to drink some tarantula juice and Hurt was paralyzed. The Madill News-Democrat reported, “The distinguished speaker and lawyer of Durant, whom the Kingston 'farmers' had employed to presenttheircasetotheCumberland picnic, got tarantulas in his boots and was unable to show up. We would suggest that you send someone along to keep him straight or not give him quite so much 'expense money.'
But now, four years later, JudgeHurtwasrepresenting the county commissioners, thus representing Madill against Kingston. This substantiated whattheMarshall County News-Democrat said when they learned to Judge Hurt’s involvement with the Kingston supporters. In an editorial, the News-Democrat had this to say about Judge Hurt. “Judge Hurt, one of Kingston's imported spellbinders, has been frank enough to tell that he gets $200 for the 'spells' he has had. But our curiosity will gnaw like an imprisoned rat, until their imported editor tells the sum total he gets for his warped and envenomed lucubrations.”
The first allegation from the plaintiffs was that there were “gross and numerous frauds” perpetrated in Madill and in other communities, and they made a demand that certain boxes be opened and the ballots therein recounted. At the hearing, the Court ordered the election boxes of these precincts to be opened and counted. The result of this count showed only slight variations from the tabulated reports made by the election officials of the several precincts. Therefore, the whole count, as given out by the election board, was not vitally changed by the recount. The evidence failed to substantiate the complainant’s allegations of irregularity and fraud. An agreement was reached between counsel acknowledging the correctness of the election returns as found by the several precinct election officers and the County Election Board.Thequestionthen turned to the law governing the qualifications of voters entitled to vote in bond The Plaintiff’s second and main argument was based on the wording of Section 26 of Article 10 of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma and Section 1625 of the Laws 1910. Section 26 of Article 10 of the Constitution states as follows: 'No county, city, town, township, school district, or other political corporation, or subdivision of the state, shall be allowed to become indebted, in any manner, or foranypurpose,toanamount exceeding, in any year, the incomeandrevenueprovided for such year, without the assent of three-fifths of the voters thereof, voting at an election, to be held for that purpose, nor, in cases requiring such assent, shall any indebtedness be allowed to be incurredtoanamountincluding existing indebtedness, in the aggregate exceeding five per centum of the valuation of the taxable property therein, to be ascertained from the last assessment for state and county purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness: Provided, that any county, city, town, township, school district, or other political corporation, or subdivision of the state, incurring any indebtedness, requiring the assent of the voters as aforesaid, shall, before or at the time of doing so, provide for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due, and also to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof within twenty-five years from the timeofcontractingthesame.'
Then, the plaintiffs tied Section 1625 of the Laws 1910totheirargument. They alleged that only propertyowning andtax-payingvoters could vote on the proposition and that those who did not own property in the county should have been barred from voting. They based their argument on Section 1625 of the Laws 1910, which provided that 'the bonds (referring to those issued by the county for the construction of a courthouse, etc.) shall not be issued until “…a majority of the qualified tax-paying voters voting at any general election, or special election called by the board of county commissioners for the purpose, shall have declared by their vote in favor of issuing such bonds.'
They argued that the Constitution fixed the required number of votes and that the statute fixed the qualification of those who could vote at the election on the proposition, and, therefore, the bonds could not be issued until the question had first been submitted to the people of the county and sixty percent of the qualified property tax-paying voters, voting at any general election, etc., approved the measure.'
They also reasoned that those who did not own property would not be burdened with the increasing tax burden, and therefore, their votes should not be considered. At the election, 2,524 voters participated; of that number,2,054werepropertyowning, tax-paying voters. Of that number, those voting for the proposition were 1,222 property tax-paying voters and 303 non-tax-paying voters. Of those voting against the proposition, there were 820 property tax-paying voters and 149 non-property tax-paying voters. Therefore, if the only votes counted were those of property-owning, tax-paying voters, the proposition would fail as the “yes” vote only reached 59 percent, just short of the required 60 percent.
So, the question before the court was who the voters were referred to in Sections 1 and 4a of Article 3 of the Constitution. Section 1 of the Constitution stated, 'The qualified electors of the state shall be male citizens of the state, and male persons of Indian descent, native of the United States, who are over the age of twenty-one years, who have resided in the state one year, in the county six months, and in the election precinct thirty days, next preceding the election at which any such elector offers to vote.” In 1913, only men were allowed to vote, as it would be seven more years before the passage of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution granted women voting rights. Only men voted in the election for the county seat and the five bond elections.
At this point, the judge adjourned the court until 7 o'clock that night to give the attorneys time to present their arguments and authorities. In reporting on the evening hearing, the Madill Timeswrote:“TheComplainants’ attorneycontendedthat only property tax paying voters were qualified in bond elections and that it required three-fifths majority of such qualified voters to vote the courthouse bonds. Very skillful, not to say artful pleadings on the part of attorneys FergusonandHatchettfailed to impress the court with the soundness of their contention. After a brief analysis of their position by attorneys HayesandCrucemadeinthe light of the plain and explicit provisions of the constitution, the judge ordered the temporary injunction dissolved, taxing the costs against the complainants. The judge also denied a motion for a new trial and ordered that in case of appeal, the same be perfected within thirty days, with a bond for $500 to be given by complainants.” The judge then stayed the dismissal of the injunction for 20 days to allow the plaintiffs the opportunity to file an appeal should they decide to pursue one.
While the Madill Times took a more moderate approach to their report of the case, the Marshall County News-Democrat continued its attack on the people of Kingston. In the November 14th issue of the paper, the Editor went on the attack.
“It seems that the courthouse bonds election is at last and for all time settled and that Marshall County is to have a structure wherein her offices will be maintained and the public documents, the court records and the deeds to real estate, cared for in Fire-proof vaults. For a long time the ones who have realized the need of all the people of Marshall County for this building have fought a losing battle. People who were just as sincere and just as honest in their belief that we did not need a courthouse building, have opposed the issue of bonds for the purposes named. And unfortunately, there have been people who have been opposed to the building of the courthouse just because Madill is the seat of the county's government. These people have left no stone unturned to defeat the measure, by fair means or otherwise, and have kept up the fight when there really was no fight.
But now, pending the possibility of an appeal at the hands of those who have contested the last 'courthouse election'-the election in whichthefriendsofthebonds were successful- it has been finally settled that Marshall County will take her place with the other wealthy counties of Southern Oklahoma andhaveacountycourthouse of which every citizen of every part and section of the county may feel proud.”
“To enter briefly into the history of the case which was settled at a special term of the district court, held in Madill on Monday of this week, Judge Allen of Muskogee, presiding, it may be well to state that during the past four or five years a majority of the qualified voters of Marshall have said as many times that the county should have a courthouse. Under the laws of this State, an election of this kind requires, not a naked majority of all the votes cast, but sixty percent of those votes. Up until the last election the bonds have always carried by a majority vote but lacked the necessary sixty percent. At the last election, however, the required percent was cast in favor of the bonds and the election declared a victory for the bonds adherents.”
“Within a few days of the date of holding this election several Marshall County citizens who were opposed to