On May 18, 1913, the people of Marshall County defeated the bond issue to construct a courthouse for thethirdtime.However,after three failed attempts to pass the bond issue, the proponents immediately returned to the drawing board and pushed for another election. Within days of the election, they began circulating a new petition. They presented their latest petition to the Marshall County Board of County Commissioners on June 2, 1913, just two weeks after the third failed attempt.
On June 2, 1913, the County Commissioners met to consider the petition, and after a discussion, they issued the following proclamation. “WHEREAS, after a consideration of said statement this board is of the opinion that the entire amount of the taxable property, and the entire amount of outstanding indebtedness of each and every character is such that an election upon the question of the issuance of the bonds of Marshall county to the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) for the construction of a courthouse shouldbeheld.ITISTHEREFORE ORDERED that an electionbeheldonthe5thday of August A. D., 1913, upon the question of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of constructing a courthouse…” So, for the fourth time since November 8, 1910, the citizens of Marshall County would head back to the polls for another vote on whether thecountyshouldissuebonds and raise taxes to build a county courthouse However, one issue that flew under the radar during the previous three elections was where the courthouse would be located. At that time, the county did not own any property in Madill, and the question of the cost of the property needed for the courthouse had never been sufficiently answered. The proposed courthouse would require a sizable parcel of land with sufficient room for the building and parking for wagons, buggies or cars. Because the cost of the property needed for the courthouse was not part of the bond issue, there had been questions throughout the process regarding how the county would pay for the necessary land. Some supporters of the courthouse bond issue believed this may haveplayedaroleinthethree failed attempts to pass the bond issue. So, in hopes of improving the chances the bond issue passed, the City of Madill offered to donate land to the county for the courthouse.
Since Madill’s founding, the downtown portion of the town was known as “Market Square.” The square appeared much as it does today, but in the center was a large grassy area approximately 230 feet square, covering a little over one acre, where each weekend during the spring, summer and fall, farmers could come to town and sell their produce, meats, grains and other products in a fashion similar to what today we call a “Farmer’s Market.” The only permanent structures on the grassy portion of the square were twowaterwellsthatprovided water to the merchants on the square and any citizens in Madill without their own water wells.
On June 13, 1913, the Madill City Council met to discuss the issue of selling or donating the lot in the middle of the square to the county for the proposed courthouse. After some discussion, the council voted and passed City Ordinance Number 238, which provided “An Ordinance Conveying to the County of Marshall, State of Oklahoma, Block 168 in the City of Madill for a Court House Purpose.”
“Be it ordained by the Mayor and Councilmen of the city of Madill paragraph, Section 1; that block No. 168 oftheCityofMadill,Marshall County, State of Oklahoma, scheduled as a park containing 1.21acres, being 230 feet square according to the official plat of said town be and the same is hereby granted and conveyed to Marshall County, State of Oklahoma, for a courthouse purpose only; said property to revert to the city if said county does not build a courthouse thereon within three years from date hereof.”
“Section2.ThattheMayor of said city is hereby authorized to execute to the county of Marshall, with the attestation of the city clerk a deed conveying to said county of Marshall said block 168, of said city as above described: said deed to convey said property to said county for a court house purpose only with a limitation that if courthouse is not built on said property by said county within three years said property shall revert to the city.”
“Section 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are herepy repealed. Section 4. There being no valid and sufficient ordinance in force in the city of Madill, providing for the transfer of the abovedescribed real estate, and the peace, health and safety of the inhabitants thereof being in eminent danger it is deemed necessary that this ordinance become operative at once.”
“It is therefore declared that an emergency exist and this ordinance shall become operative from and after its passage and approval. Passed and approved this the 13th day of June, 1913. A. P. MARSH,Mayor.Attest:A.O. PELSUE, City Clerk.” With that, the City donated the land on which the courthouse now sits to Marshall County for the construction of the courthouse.
Asecondployusedbythose supporting the courthouse bond issue was to tie it to a bond issue improving county roads. Since statehood, the condition of the roads throughout the county had been a hot-button topic for farmers and others traveling through the county. There were not a lot of roads, and the roads that were present were in poor shape. This led to all sorts of issues for farmers trying to get their crops and livestock to market. For several years, farmers had been complaining about the roads throughout the county, and many favored delaying the courthouse construction to focus on improving the roads.
So, to improve the chances of the passage of the courthouse and jail bond issues, the county ordered an election to issue bonds for road improvements. This election was to occur on the same day as the courthouse bond election. The proposal stated, “Good Roads for Marshall County at a Very Small Cost. TO THE VOTERS OF MARSHALL COUNTY: Are you interested in getting good roads for Marshall County. Believing you are, we the undersigned committee appointed for the purpose of investigating the tax records and ascertaining the facts as to the actual cost of voting bonds for the purpose of building good roads for the different townships of Marshall county respectfully submit to the voters the following figures and facts: The respective township boards have called an election for the 5th day of August, 1913, for the purpose of submitting the question of issuing a bonds in the following amounts for the purpose of building good roads, to-wit: Holford township, good road bonds, $20,000, Willis township, good roads bonds, $20,000, Odell township, good roads bonds, $20,000 and Taliaferro township, good roads bonds $20,000.00” “These bonds will bear interest at the rate of five per cent per annum and are payable principal and interest in twenty-fiveyearsfromdateof issue. For the first ten years of the life of these bonds only the interest of these bonds will have to be paid. Then on the remaining fifteen years both principal and interest will have to be paid by public taxation…Now as the amount of the bonds are the same in each township, the amount of the interest will be the same on the bonds in each township…” “Surely this is a very insignificant sum to pay for good roads throughout our county for the next ten years to come. As in the case of the Bridge and Court House bonds we have not figured the cost for the last fifteen years of the life of the bonds, for we have no way of knowing the assessed valuation of the townships or the county ten years hence. But we are safe in saying there will be a large increase in the assessed valuation of Marshall County. With the naturalgrowthofourcountry and the Indian lands coming infortaxationwithinthenext ten and twelve years which is now exempt from taxation there will be a good chance for reduction on the rate as herein set out during the last fifteen years of the life of the bonds when they will be paid in full.”
“The man who votes against the building of public improvements is voting against his own interest and that of his neighbors. We have one of the richest and best counties in the State of Oklahoma and the time is at hand when as a good citizen it is our imperative duty to develop her resources and lend a helping hand to every move which will make Marshall County a better place to live. Good roads are indispensable to the future progress of our county let us all vote for the bonds on August 5th. Respectfully submitted, David Russell, Madill, Okla. Jas. King, Aylesworth, Okla. J. S. Jagers, Oakland, Okla. W. Y. Wiley, Woodville, Okla. Jeff Bishop, Powell, Okla. F. E. Kennamer, Madill, Okla.”
The third thing the courthouse supporters presented to the county's citizens was a new, redesigned courthouse that was larger and much grander in scale. The newly designed courthouse was neoclassical, with four floors and a basement with large porticos on all four sides. Each portico was fronted with four large Corinthian columns, presiding over large stairways from street level to the courthouse's second or main floor. A gabled roof also topped each portico, and a pyramid-shaped roof capped each corner of the building. Finally, the building was topped by a large dome supported by Corinthian columns. All in all, it was a fabulous and majestic building. One that would be the envy of any county in Oklahoma.
Over the next six weeks, the supporters of the courthouse bond issue went all out to press the point that a courthouse was needed. And one last tactic they used was fear—the fear of a fire. The Marshall County News-Democrat wrote the following. “MARSHALL COUNTY NEEDS COURT HOUSE IN INTEREST OF ECONOMY PRESERVATION OF RECORDS OF VITAL INTEREST TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS INMARSHALLCOUNTY-AVOTE FORCOURTHOUSE BONDS IS A VOTE FOR ECONOMY” “The time is drawing nearer each day when the voters of Marshall county will settle, with their ballots, whether or not we are to have a courthouse. The measure looks now like it will carryand it should by all means. If the property owners of this section will pause to consider all the phases of the courthouse question-if they will stop long enough before casting their votes to digest all the benefits accruing to all the people of the county by having a courthouse and allthedangerswhichmenace the safety of the public records-the records of court proceedings-the record of real estate transfers-the records of every kind-it seems that there will be little question of the result of the election.”
“Marshall County is a growing county, and the people of Marshall County are a progressive people. Our farmlands are among the best in Oklahoma, and the strangers from other states are finding this out and investing their money in them. Our home people are adding to their holdings daily. The record of deeds for the present month bears this out. From the 2nd day of June to the 26th, inclusive of both dates, there were 69 transfers of real estate involving $45,539 recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Marshall county. One destructive fire would wipe out these, together with the record of prior transfers and would also wipe out of existence all court records-all the evidence of the proceedings in probate matters, in civil matters and in criminal matters. One courthouse with fireproof vaults will cost the taxpayers of Marshall County in thirty years time$75,000. One destructive fire will cost the taxpayers of Marshall County several million. It is up to the votersto the people interested in their own individual welfare and the welfare of the general community to decide. It will be readily seen that we have much to gain by adopting the measure and much danger of loss by voting it down.
In another effort to persuade voters to support the issue, the Marshall County News-Democrat printed an article from the Dallas News, whichwouldlaterbecomethe Dallas Morning News. The article was titled “Groundless Fear and Prejudice.” In sharing this article, the editor of the News-Democrat wrote, “Under the caption of 'Groundless Fear and Prejudice' the Dallas News of the 15th, comments in a masterful manner upon the bondissuequestion,notalone in Texas, but as it appears applicable to all states and localities. This is a subject in which the people of Marshall County should feel at this time when we are confronted with the question of the building of a courthouse and the building of a large number of bridges-the money raised by the voting of bonds.”
“The News-Democrat would suggest that every reader into whose hands this paper falls, should read carefully and fully digest the words which follow before he makes up his mind to cast his vote against the bond issue against the COURT HOUSE and against the bridges. We believe that every thinking man every voter who is interested in the future growth of the county and of the protection of the county's property-its records and other valuable papers filled for all time in the county archives will vote-after reading the words below as taken from the News-vote YES on both COURT HOUSE and BRIDGE bonds questions.”
The Dallas News article stated, 'The policy of borrowing money on the security of bonds with which to make permanent improvements is one of almost universal practice. It is practiced by most states and probably by every county and city in the country. It is a policy practiced also by public and private corporations. A policy so universally practiced must have some very sound reasons to urge its adoption. What are they?”
“The first, and the one that alone would be sufficient to commend it to intelligent and fair minded men, is that since the improvements are expected to survive many if not all of those who order the making of them, it is only just that those who are to inherit the improvements should inherit also some part of the cost of them. Any other policy can only have the effect of making a vicarious sacrifice of the present generation for the benefit of future generations. Another reason for preferring this method is that if we attempt to get the money for such work by means of taxation, we shall neverhaveenoughinhandat any one time to do the work in the way that it ought to be done. We shall scrimp here and there, with the inevitable result that such buildings as are erected will be cheap, flimsy structures.' 'The cost of keeping Buildings in that way in repair, to say nothing of the cost of replacing such as burn and crumble away, will probably sum up more than the total interest charge. The wisdom of the policy of borrowing money at a low rate of interest to make necessary permanent improvements cannot be combated by any reasonable argument whatever.”
“The 'pay as you go' shibboleth sound swell to simple ears but the man of understanding will have no difficulty in detecting its sophistry and folly. If we had for the last ten or twenty years pursued the policy of providing buildings as fast as the need of them arose and of maintaining them in a perfect state of repair, some slender argument might be made in favor of the 'pay as you go' policy.'
But despite the apparent uptick in support for the courthouse bond issue, many in the county still opposed the idea. As before, those against the courthouse were primarily from Kingston, Willis, Lark, Lebanon, Shay, Linn and Cumberland. And the rallying cry of those opposed was that the courthouse was only for the folks in Madill. This position harkened back to the fight over the county seat. Those opposed continued to connect the two issues, and the Kingston folks were still determined to oppose whatever the Madill people wanted. Interestingly, the Kingston Messenger newspaper took a neutral position and mainly remained silent through this fourth election process.
In response to the “it’s Madill’s courthouse” mantra, the Marshall County News-Democrat argued, “Our Court House! Yes, it will be 'our' courthouse-not the 'Madill' courthouse, nor 'your' courthouse, but 'our' courthouse. Let every voter in Marshall County bear this in mind when he goes to the polls on next Tuesday morning. Let him know that his vote cast for the courthouse bonds will be a vote cast in the interests of every citizen in the county of Marshall-a vote which spells safety to the recorded papers of every man in the county. Therefore, let every citizen, before he casts his vote at the election on the morning of August 5th, bring himself to realize that when one votes 'YES' he votes for the Marshall County Court House and for economy and progress.”
After six weeks of campaigning, the courthouse bond issue election day arrived for the fourth time. When the polls closed, and all the votes were counted, the bond issue failed again. In addition, the jail bond issue failed, as did the county road bond issue. The “Yes” votes didoutnumberthe“No”votes on each issue, but none of the three reached the necessary sixty percent supermajority as required by law. As before, the communities that defeatedthecourthouseissue were Kingston, Willis, Lark, Lebanon, Shay, Linn and Cumberland. Once again, Kingston avenged the county seat rivalry and fight.
The Marshall County News-Democrat had this to say about the outcome, “VOTEON'EMAGAIN.Bya close margin, the courthouse bond issue was lost in Marshall County at the election last Tuesday. The margin was so small by which the bonds were defeated, lacked only so small a number of the required sixty percent of the vote cast, that it is very evident that the 'will of the people' was defeated at this election. This being the case the board of county commissioners will in all probability act at once in calling another election so that the matter of issuing courthouse bonds may be again voted upon. TheNews-Democratbelieves that the majority, the large majority of the QUALIFIED voters of Marshall County, believe we should have a courthouse. And believing this, and further believing that the will of the people should ever be the supreme law, we are heartily in accord with the movement which calls for another courthouse bond election to be held just as soon as it may be legally possible.
With the exception of one or two boxes the big majority of the property owners of Marshall County, as shown by the returns of the election just held, demand a courthouse. This being the case they should be afforded another opportunity to vote uponthematter.Anditmight be well advised, for those who are deeply interested, to get busy and see to it that everyone who is interested comes to the polls the next time. The history of the past courthouse elections shows that all who are opposed to the matter turn out, so let those who favor the bonds, who favor the courthouse do the same, knowing and realizing that votes and not good wishes will win the battle.”
And while the Kingston Messenger was mostly quiet through the last campaign, the editor did respond to the fourth defeat of the bond issue. Writing in the August 9, 1913 issue of the paper, the editor wrote, “The returns of the election of last Tuesday do not seem to indicate that the spirit of improvement is hovering in the by ways and hedges of Marshall County, and a majority of its people seem to think that granddads way is still good enough for them. Well, the people are supreme and sometimes their supremeness is not compatible with good sense and judgment, but it must stand just the same. We are sorrythemovementforbetter roads was crippled, but so it is. For the fourth time the people of Marshall County have said that they were not yet ready to build a courthouse. They do not like the looks of an increased rate of taxation-more added to what they already have to carry. It is not that they do not want a courthouse but that they do not believe this is the proper time to build it. Another thing is that the increased assessment made this year by the county officials caused the taxpayers to object to any further increase.”
“We believe the mistake has been made each time in asking for more than was really necessary at this time. A reasonable amount would possibly have been agreed to. We hope this will settle this question for a while. Give the people a rest on this bond issue business and let them get their breath. Right here we would drop this word. When another petition for an election on a bond issue comes to you for your signature, turn it down, unless you want the election held. We believe the law needs remedying on this point.Thereistoomuchprivilege given persistent bond election promoters.”
But just as the Marshall County News-Democrat requested, within days of the election loss, the courthouse supporters were once again circulating a fifth petition for a bond issue. They were not going to give the “people a rest.” The “Yes” group was determined to force the issue and pushed hard and fast.
Would the fifth time be the charm? Or would Kingston continue to play the spoiler in their rivalry with Madill? The citizens of the county would soon find out.