The Old Courthouse Part II

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second in a series.)
New developments—and the first hints at a fiery debate—were the hallmarks of 1965 in the discussions of what to do about the old St. Mary Parish Courthouse and Jail.
In an April, 1964 meeting, Russel Bruno, Crowell-Foster School PTA president, who served on the prior grand jury, said that he thinks “the idea of making a museum out of the old courthouse is impractical…the City of Franklin can’t afford to put out a few hundred dollars for sidewalks to a public school.”
There had been some talk of moving the courthouse to Morgan City, but Bruno said that to remove the courthouse from Franklin would mean Franklin would have to “give more than a little, Franklin would have to give all” and with Morgan City “taking.”
Banner-Tribune publisher Bob Angers Jr. wrote in April, 1964 that “some citizens would like to tear the present building down and build a brand new one. There are others who would like to repair and renovate the present structure. Many ‘west enders’ want the courthouse to remain in the courthouse square. There are apparently as many ‘East St. Maryites who want a new facility built on the proposed new 4-lane highway because of the accessibility…the ten year old impasse on adequate courthouse facilities doesn’t seem to be any closer to solution. A modern day Solomon is needed.”
In May of 1964, the Banner reported: “The courthouse committee headed by newly appointed chairman Lee Champagne will (provide) facts on costs of building new facilities and citizens of the parish will probably be asked for either a property tax or a sales tax to finance the parish’s needs. The consensus at the meeting was that the tax be of limited duration and ‘extinguish itself’ as soon as the project is paid for.”
Champagne said there were no cost projections on either tearing down or renovating the existing building. Juror and committee member Joseph Rizzo promoted the demolition of the old buildings. Florence Blackburn, Chamber of Commerce manager, asked if an election call could “include two propositions, one for building on the new 4-lane highway and one in the courthouse square, with the costs shown for each proposal.”
Also, Mayor McKerall O’Niell objected to a plan for the new building that “was too large to fit on the present courthouse square.” The federal government did allocate $30,000 for a study, as mentioned when the grant was applied for in the last article. “Miss Blackburn said that each time anyone talked to (architect Lloyd) Guillory about remodeling the present building he had indicated that a preliminary study had been made and had opined that this showed that the building lacked sufficient steel framing for proper remodeling.”
Juror Rene Junca said he thought the parish would be “spinning its wheels” in “patching up” the present building. He said it would likely cost as much to repair it as build a new one.
In May, work began on a questionnaire that would be distributed to all citizens, asking their thoughts and opinions on the future of the courthouse, old and new.
The Banner reported in June that “The (police) jury decided to review its contractual obligation and responsibility before payment of an invoice for complete preliminary plans for a courthouse and jail drawn by architect Lloyd Guillory.”
Guillory presented his plans and sketch in September, 1961. “Guillory’s final sketch designated as a tentative proposed side a tract of land near Franklin on the new four-lane interstate highway under construction.”
Angers wrote in an editorial in July: “The latest status of the courthouse issue is a proposed…referendum to determine what the people want: Renovation of the present courthouse and construction of a new jail; razing the courthouse square and erecting a new complex—modern or otherwise; abandonment of the courthouse and site for some other use and construction of a new layout such as exists in the recently completed survey. Nobody can say what the people—or the police jury—will ever decide.”
A legal notice in August, 1964 indicated the police jury might pursue a 1-cent sales tax to be approved by voters, if “these means of financing same met with the approval of the Mayors of the five municipalities, the School Board and the Police Jury.”
October, 1964: Hurricane Hilda rages through St. Mary Parish and parish engineer Bob Miller said adjusters would study damage to the courthouse, including 15 broken windows, roof damage and “bending of the statue of Justice on the dome.”
Police Juror Champagne reported that architect Perry Segura of New Iberia is willing “to meet with the committee on the matter of the possibility of renovating the present structure (of the courthouse.)”
The police jury took advantage of Segura’s offer.
The grand jury, in December, recommended “the immediate construction of a new jail and courthouse and particularly recommend the same be constructed on the grounds of the present courthouse and public buildings in Franklin.”
Winter brought in 1965, and “steeplejacks” Vern Hibner and Gary Richardson of Houma were in Franklin in January surveying the statue of Justice, bent during Hurricane Hilda. “They are in the process of preparing a bid to straighten the statue, paint it, install new scales and fix the bent sword,” the Banner reported in January.
Also, Champagne reported to the police jury that the committee is not “dragging its feet” on the issue of courthouse renovations and assessment but “attempted to gather as much factual information” as possible before presenting the issue for a vote. He added that if any jurors were not satisfied with the committee’s progress “they may assume charge of the committee.” The police jury assured the chairman it was “well satisfied with the work being done and that the committee was attacking the problems in a systematic way.”
In May, Clerk of Court Benny Blakeman told the police jury that “the court reporter needed a larger office…judges were agreeable to change the room they use with the petit jury to allow for larger quarters. The jury approved the move, as well as purchase of a four drawer file and a table for the court reporter. Blakeman said that his office was short of electrical outlets, and the jury asked the parish engineer to take care of the matter.”
Blakeman wasn’t the only public official to air complaints. Assessor F.D. Winchester reported to the courthouse committee that his office “is very crammed and more space is needed to carry out the functions of the office.”
And Russo brought up parking problems around the building, and that he was working with Franklin officials on a proposed plan to construct a bulkhead with a parking area on the bayou side. Also, the committee recommended that a contractor be authorized to repair the roofs of the courthouse and jail immediately.
In March, 1965, the Banner printed a photo of a temporary building erected in the courthouse square by the sheriff’s department to accommodate crowded personal.
In June, the grand jury again recommended construction of a new courthouse. The grand jury called for the demolition of the present jail and construction of a new jail. The grand jury “labeled the present building as being unsafe for prisoners, a fire hazard and ‘…a disgrace to our parish and to the citizens.’”
That month in 1965 turns up the first report we’ve found regarding unsafe conditions at the cold courthouse. The Banner reported on June 25 that “a cement block fell from the space…above a window of the Clerk of Court Record Room facing Willow Street. The block, approximately three feet long two feet wide at its widest margin, and ten inches deep at its deepest corner, damaged a 7½ ton air conditioning unit.” Damage was estimated at $50.
Two other blocks were found “dislodged from a firm foundation.” Blakeman believed the sidewalk facing the Blevins building should be blocked off and that “any kind of movement of the building could cause the cement block to fall.”
That same month, there was a report titled “Time to Tear the Jail Down?” in the newspaper that quoted the grand jury’s demand of “…immediate and urgent demolition of the existing jail.”
Though originally in favor of saving the existing building, by September Angers takes a hard-line approach in an editorial, in a tone that implies he was fed up with the delays:
“But the petty politics of the petty politicians notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that the courthouse is a public building that belongs to all the people…and St. Mary has a mighty sad excuse for a courthouse gracing the square. The longtime talk about renovating the building and making it functional has come to naught. Then, Hurricane Hilda came along and shook the old building to its toes and there have been structural problems ever since. The jail, of course, is a disgrace.
“In light of all factors that have come into play on this entire issue it seems the one and only logical step is to completely clear the courthouse square in downtown Franklin of all buildings and start from the ground with a modern new structure.”
Things got a bit more heated in October, when Russo disrupted a meeting, the Banner reported. Russo said he thought the jury had decided not to discuss a new courthouse until the issue of a voter-approved tax was settled. He also said there were many more cars in the parking lot than those with authorized parking stickers. “It’s negligence on somebody’s part!” Russo exclaimed.
The police jury also revealed that the site along the new four-lane “was a tract belonging to Leonora Foster Ross near the drainage canal.” When asked by Juror Wilson Gautreaux why they had voted for the new site, jurors Joe Rizzo and Charles Bowman “both replied this was due to the sentiment connected with the old building and other factors such as parking area.”
Russo, who had “jumped from his seat and left the building to stand on the front steps for a period…returned to say that, “I am not against a new courthouse, though the Banner-Tribune says I am.”
Jurors Berlin Hebert and Gautreaux “agreed that would best to make a clean sweep of all present structures, including the police jury building.”
Russo agreed. “Let’s go first class all the way.”
The article concluded, “Russo arose, went into Miller’s office and the ensuing loud tirade, lasting perhaps 15 minutes, was noisy enough to make hearing difficult in the outer room where the meeting was still in session.”
(To be continued)