On November 8, 1910, the citizens of Marshall County returned to the voting booth to cast their ballots for a bond issue to raise funds for constructing a county courthouse in Madill. When the polls closed and the votes were counted, Kingston got its revenge. The bond issue was defeated by a vote of 633 to 586, meaning that no courthouse could be built in Madill for the time being.
However, within weeks, those supporting the construction of a courthouse went back to the drawing boardtoconvincethecounty's citizens that a new, modern courthouse was essential to the county's progress.
The initial steps in the movement towards building a courthouse were taken at a meeting of citizens held at the office of J. I. Henshaw in early January 1911. David Russellwaschosentopreside, and Mr. C. F. Hart acted as secretary.
The question of building a courthouse and the means of securing funding were fully discussed. It was decided that before any definite move was made, it was necessary to secure information and data regarding the cost and plans of a courthouse suitable for the county. With this end in view, a committee consisting of M. Scott, D. B. Taliaferro and David Russell, with C. A. Cookley as Secretary, were selected.
They were instructed to communicatewithArchitects to obtain information regarding the cost of a building, visit and inspect courthouses recently built in Norman, Marietta and other county seats, and report the results of their investigations. The committee was particularly instructed to visit the new courthouse in Marietta with the Marshall County Commissioners and other county citizens.
This would enable those interested in a courthouse to conduct an intelligent and effective campaign. They believed that if the information sought was presented correctly to the county's people, there would be little opposition to the movement.
The sentiment for a courthouse in Madill was growing stronger. Supporters believed all that was needed was another petition signed by enough voters for the Board of County Commissioners to call for another election. Words of encouragement were expressed throughout the county, and another bond issue was expected to prevail. New County Courthouses were being built all over the state, and the supporters did not want to be left out of the courthouse building craze.
Additionally, Samuel Isaac Lazarus, the owner of the Lazarus Building, which was currently serving as the county courthouse, raised the rent the county paid for the use of his building. It was reported in the Madill Times that “The building which the County is renting for a Court House is owned by one Sam Lazarus, a jew. Since the voting down of the Courthouse bonds, Mr. Lazarus has served notice that on the first of the year he will increase the rent of the building $50 per month and that unless the part now occupied by the Register of Deeds be vacated the rent will be advanced still another $50 per month.
So much for the county being without a building of its own for officers, courts and records. What are we going to do.”
“TheCountyCommissioners this month paid the $120 rent on the present court quarters. In addition to this $150 paid to Mr. Lazarus the county is now paying $30 additional rent each month. That makes $180 per month the county is paying rent. HowaretheCountyCommissioners going to be compelled to pay such rents and receive such poor accommodations? The Board of Commissioners did not sign up a two year's contract on the present court building for the reason that they considered the rent too high.TheCommissionerssay that there is but one thing to do, and that is to vote bonds and build a county courthouse. ‘Strike while the iron is hot.’” The Marshall County New-Democratthenreported the following. “Sign or Get Out! This is the way it was put to our Commissioners last Monday. A contract for the Lazarus building for a term of two years with the condition that if the courthouse is built anytime prior to its expiration the contract is void.”
“A courthouse can be built now and no taxpayer would ever feel the burden of taxation. More lands becoming taxable with more and varied businesses increased would mean a lower rate of taxation rather than an increased rate and money put in an up-todate courthouse would be an investment while that, that is being paid as rent is gone from the county forever. Even Sam Lazarus is willing to pay the taxes provided a courthouse is built, at the same time surrender his rental contract for the building.”
“Thousands and thousands of dollars worth of records would be destroyed should this Lazarus building be destroyed. Business transactions and deeds and mortgages and court records. The businessmen and farmer alike are affected.” By March 1911, a new petition was being circulated throughout the county for another bond election. The MarshallCountyNews-Democrat reported, “Petitions are being circulated asking the county commissioners to call an election for the voting of $65,000 bonds for a county courthouse and $15,000 for a jail. The petitions are being circulated in both town and county and almost everyone is signing.”” “The sentiment seems to be much stronger for the bond issue than before and it is believed that it will carry by a large majority. The recent rise in rent on the present courthouse is making people see the extravagance and real loss of money paid out by the county as courthouse rent.”
After several weeks of investigation, the committee of M. Scott, D. B. Taliaferro and David Russell reported their findings regarding a possible courthouse plan. During their investigation, they visited several courthouses around the area and retained the services of an architect to design a proposed courthouse. Their findings were reported in the local papers.
Those findings were reported as follows. “On this page, we print a cut of a modern courthouse building suitable for the needs of our county. This building is three stories high and covers a floor space of 21,500 square feet. It is estimated that such a building can be built for a cost of $65,000 fireproof construction.”
“Should our citizens decide to build a courthouse of this size and character at the above cost, and to pay for same in a 20-year bond bearing 5 percent interest, the total cost of the building at the end of the 20 years period would be $115,375. This calculation assumes, that no sinking fund will be accumulated until the first 10 years of the life of the bond has elapsed and then at the rateof$6,500perannum.The principal of the bond would be $65,000.”
“The interest during the 20 years period would be $50,375 for a total of $115,375. Let us compare the cost of our present arrangement with the above figures. We are now paying in rents for Court house accommodations the sum of $2,200 per annum. This in 20 years would amount to the sum of $44,000; assuming rents would be the same during the 20 years, which is not at all likely. Now, this sum is within $6,375 dollars of the total interest charge on the money necessary to build a courthouse. Hence the real cost to our people for absolute protection of the county and court records, the proper accommodation and convenience, of the public during 20 years would be $6,375 dollars, a mere bagatelle, when you consider the gravity of the risk we are now running and the wholly inadequate facilities we have for the transaction of the public's business.”
A courthouse at the above price will cost us an average sum of $5767 per year for the 20 years period. Applying this sumtothevaluationassessed for taxation purposes at the present would require but a little in excess of one mill additional in the rate to cover the cost, but it is fair to assume the taxable values will increase, and increase largely in the next few years. Only about one third of the land acreage is now under taxation. The past year has witnessed the sale of a large number of acres by original allottees all of which now becomes taxable. The alienation of Indian lands will go on in increasing volume, until it is fair to assume, in the next four or five years the greater portion of the land in the county will become taxable.”
“This will add largely to our taxable values, and in consequence reduce the rate, so that with an assessed valuation of $10,000,000 the rate necessary to pay for our courthouse in 20 years would be slightly in excess of 1/s of one mill or say 60 cents on the $1000 of taxable values. Then there is the probability of the Supreme Court deciding the Indian Tax case favorably to the contention of the State. Should this occur then the rate of taxation necessary to pay for the courthouse would be small indeed.”
“It seems to us the very essence of economy and good business judgment to build a county courthouse now. To delay or put off the building longer is to tempt fate. For should the disaster of fire overtake us, in our present condition, our loss would be well nigh irreparable, nor should we be unmindful of what is due in comfort and conveniences to jurors, witnesses and all others having business with our public officers. They are entitled to comfortable and sanitary accommodations. Under the present courthouse conditions this is simply out of the question. To deny or longer defer providing safety for our public records and comfort and convenience for those who we compel to attend our courts, is little short of criminal neglect. Let us get busy and build a courthouse without further delay.”
The committee also released an architectural rendering of the planned courthouse and specific details about the structure. These details described the courthouse: the building would have a “Length 85 ft., breath 85 ft., height 40 ft.” with the “height of tower about 60 ft.” The building would have 3 stories with a total floor space of about 21,500 square feet. The main floor will contain theRegisterofDeeds,County Clerk, Clerk of County Court, and County Treasure. Each office would have a fireproof Vault. The County Commissioners offices would also be on the main floor.
The second floor was to house the District Court and courtroom, covering 3000 square feet. There would be a second courtroom for the County Court covering 1100 square feet. There would also be a Grand Jury room, two Petit Jury rooms, and offices for the District Judge office, District. Clerk and the County Attorney. Each of these offices would also contain fireproof vaults.
The basement floor would containtheSheriff’soffice,the County Surveyor’s office, and the County Superintendent’s office. It would also house the steam heating plant and storage rooms. Restrooms and all necessary lobby space would be constructed on each floor.
The estimated cost, complete with fireproof construction and brick walls with stone trimmings, was $65,000.
However, the support for the second bond issue was not universal. TheKingstonMessenger responded with the following, “Ponder well the proposition to increase the county indebtedness, before you vote on such a proposition. Theburdenoftaxationis just about as heavy, it seems to us, as the people are able to carry. Fine court houses, fine jails and public buildings, make towns attractive, and are good to look upon, but whentosecurethemitmeans an impoverished people, the protection of these people is more important to the prosperity and welfare of the county than fine buildings.”
“Be Careful. Petitions are in circulation in the county calling on the County Commissioners to call an election for the issuing of bonds in the aggregateamountof$80,000. $65,000 for a courthouse and $15,000 for a jail. Let our people consider well what there is in the proposition, before they sign the petition. The expense will not stop at the $80,000. Investigate before signing the petition.”
Once again, if the petition being circulated is successful, the citizens of Marshall County will be going to the polls for the third time in just overtwoyearstovoteagainon an issue involving the county seat dispute between Madill and Kingston.
Would the pro-courthouse side be victorious this time, or would Kingston again succeed in blocking the county seat courthouse? Time would tell.