David Hall passed away this Spring. He has been living quietly since he left public life on his way to prison.
After the terrible governorships of the late 20s & early 30’s, it wasn’t until the 1960s that major scandals again surfaced, and then they did so with a vengeance. Three justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court were removed from office by impeachment or resignation arising from IRS investigations of reports that justices were taking kickbacks for favorable decisions. A powerful former speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, who had been a dominant figure in state government, was convicted and sent to jail as a result of IRS investigations arising from charges that he failed to report income received in return for political favors. Then in 1975 a former governor, David Hall, was convicted, shortly after leaving office, of misusing his powers of office by trying to direct a state retirement fund to help a friend with a loan. Again, federal officials were the chief agents in cleaning up the corruption.
Harry Holloway, of the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Fifty years ago, Oklahomans were humiliated by revelations that three state Supreme Court justices had accepted bribes. Former Justices N.S. Corn, Earl Welch and N.B. Johnson served jail time for their criminal actions. Judicial Scandal In 1965, scandal burst forth in an unusual setting, the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Three judges were implicated in taking payoffs to decide cases before the court. These three judges were either convicted in court or impeached. IRS inquiries laid much of the groundwork. One of the guilty judges, N.S. Corn, became contrite and publicly described his misbehavior. He admitted that over about 20 years of taking payoff, he could not recall one single year in which he had not taken a payoff. Professor Phillip M. Simpson of Cameron University has researched one spectacular payoff case in which “Corn swore that he had received $150,000 in $100 bills … in a downtown Oklahoma City meeting …. The attorney who had established the pattern with Corn was O.A. Cargill, former Oklahoma City mayor and Corn’s friend for 50 years.” This corruption obviously reached into the highest levels and included citizens usually deemed quite respectable. Corn, Welch and Johnson had been elected, and re-elected, to their high positions by the people. The shame cast on our state by their misconduct was the fuel for a judicial reform movement led The Sneed Plan, calling for the appointment, not election, of our appellate judges, passed as a constitutional amendment in 1967. Missing from the Sneed Plan were district court judges who remain elected officials to this day. The Sneed Plan established the Judicial Nominating Commission, composed of 15 members. It has six lawyers, elected by the lawyers, six laypersons appointed by the governor, plus three more laypersons, one selected by the members of the commission, one selected by the House speaker and one selected by the president pro tem of the Senate. When a vacancy occurs on any court, the commission carefully screens all applicants and submits a list of three qualified people to the governor who must name one person from that list. All appointed appellate judges are on a retention ballot every four years. A bad apple can be removed. If a district court judgeship becomes vacant by death, resignation or removal, that vacancy is filled in the same manner by the commission. Why were district judges not included in the Sneed Plan? The answer is simple, political sausage. In 1967, rural Oklahoma was suspicious of a commission in Oklahoma City and the governor having a big say in who their local judges would be. That opposition was deemed substantial, so supporters of the Sneed Plan decided that half a loaf was better than none and, as a political expedient, they excluded the district judges from the plan submitted to the voters. The time has come to further amend the law to provide for the appointment of district judges in the same manner as appellate judges. The 1967 compromise has served its purpose. At least 12 members of the commission must live in what was formerly our six congressional districts so the rural vs. urban tension is reduced. The practice of law has changed and lawyers now routinely travel statewide to appear in court. Half of the presidents of the Oklahoma Bar Association have historically come from counties other than Oklahoma and Tulsa. It is a different world from 1967. Electing judges is simply a bad idea. In Tulsa County we recently elected five district judges. Incumbent judges had to take time from their important work to campaign and, yes, raise money. It is not surprising that some candidates raised and spent more than $100,000 campaigning. Most of these campaign funds come from lawyers who practice before those same judges. This is an unfortunate byproduct of electing judges. Unlike most political races, ethical restrictions limit what judicial candidates can do in a campaign, e.g., they cannot say “verdicts are too high (or too low)” or “I’m for the little guy.” When we have judicial elections, lawyers get many questions from good people who ask how they should vote. The average conscientious voter has no reliable means of making an informed decision on who will be a good judge. Judges go to work every day and handle the cases they are assigned. Most of their work is without fanfare or notoriety. Occasionally, a judge will draw a case that gets media attention but that is the exception, not the rule. Oklahoma is one of 32 states that still elects some or all judges. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently said, “in too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prize fights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution.” Or, as Alexis de Tocqueville predicted more than a century ago, the election of judges will “sooner or later, have disastrous results.” For these and other reasons, it is time to change our laws, get it right and provide for district judges to be appointed, and be subject to removal, in the same manner as appellate judges. Oklahoma Supreme Court, a 1965 scandal of bribery and betrayal, of fixed decisions, impeachment and prison terms. On another level, it is a story of legal reform fueled by impressive moral courage and tenacity, the story of Harlan Grimes, the lawyer who was disbarred on May 8, 1960, for publicly accusing a Supreme Court justice of taking bribes The Daily Oklahoman said; On Dec. 9, 1964, 80-year-old former Supreme Court Justice N.S. Corn, who was serving an 18-month sentence at the federal prison in Springfield, Mo., for income tax evasion, gave his 84-page sworn statement to the government. In it, he detailed his involvement in bribery, implicating Justice Earl Welch, Justice N.B. Johnson and others. Ten days later, Corn was freed early. That statement found its way to federal judge Stephen Chandler, who shared it with William Berry, a new justice. Berry got G.T. Blankenship, a new Republican representative, to present it to the state legislature. Denying his guilt and refusing to leave quietly, Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Napoleon Bonaparte Johnson was impeached by the Oklahoma Senate . The evidence presented against Johnson was Corn’s uncorroborated testimony and a $7,902 discrepancy between Johnson’s income and his bank account in 1960 and 1961. Other evidence presented was that, shortly after allegedly receiving a bribe, Johnson had opened a safety deposit box to which his wife did not have access, and that, having previously paid his household bills with cashier’s checks, he stopped doing so after March 1962. The Senate also heard that on April 12, 1962, attorney Harlan Grimes had written Johnson accusing him of taking a bribe. What are the conditions that led to this corruption? The authors suggest that it was both the populist method of electing justices with its campaigns and political contributions, and the influence of the legislature derived from their control of judicial salaries. There was also a system of rules which caused Harlan Grimes to be disbarred for publishing the truth about justices and bribery. Inadequate campaign financing laws, the lack of a retirement plan for justices and meager salaries exacerbated a natural human tendency to dishonesty and greed. In the wake of all the publicized corruption, the impeachment, the convictions for perjury and tax evasion, the anti-populist forces that had failed to have their way in the drafting of the original Oklahoma constitution did have their way on July 11, 1965. No longer would the people be able to elect their appellate judges from the field of all qualified lawyers. Interposed would be a judicial nominating commission and the governor. The people would be allowed to vote on retention of justices. The complete story still has not been told and perhaps it never will be. One thing is certain, however. Harlan Grimes stands for the best in the profession of law. He didn’t let the threat of losing his license to practice law stop him from telling the truth. On a case-by-case basis, some Supreme Court decisions which were proved to have been bought were subsequently set aside. Those cases were reopened . After the terrible governorships of the late 20s & early 30’s, it wasn’t until the 1960s that major scandals again surfaced, and then they did so with a vengeance. Three justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court were removed from office by impeachment or resignation arising from IRS investigations of reports that justices were taking kickbacks for favorable decisions. A powerful former speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, who had been a dominant figure in state government, was convicted and sent to jail as a result of IRS investigations arising from charges that he failed to report income received in return for political favors. Then in 1975 a former governor, David Hall, was convicted, shortly after leaving office, of misusing his powers of office by trying to direct a state retirement fund to help a friend with a loan. Again, federal officials were the chief agents in cleaning up the corruption.
Unfortunately for McCarty, he lost his reelection bid from his district in 1966, and the IRS descended upon him with tax evasion charges. His critics unkindly claimed that he failed to report his many bribes. In any event, he was convicted and sent to jail. Thus, in a few short years, leading state judges and the powerful former speaker had proven to be corrupt.
Unless you’re a 3rd generation Oklahoman, you probably don’t know that prohibition didn’t end in the mid 30s, in Oklahoma. The demise of Prohibition deserves more than passing mention. Oklahoma was one of the last states to allow strong drink. By the time of repeal in 1959, open saloons serving whatever customers wanted flourished in urban centers, and bootleggers provided fast arid efficient home service for those in dire need. No more prohibition. A make believe liquor casket containing ‘Old Man Prohibition’ is hauled jubilantly through the streets with a police escort here, April 7th. The occasion was an election victory that ended 51 years of prohibition in the state. The widespread flouting of the law in itself became one of the strong arguments in favor of repeal. By this time the state had voted on the liquor issue six times. Finally, on the seventh time, repeal carried the day and thereby reduced a significant source of corruption.Governor Edmondson won on Prohibition.
John Russell was a graduate of the Oklahoma Military Academy, in Claremore. He served in WW2. He then went to OU law school and served in the Oklahoma House during that time. At the young age of 26, he was named Speaker Pro Temp. He departed soon after, to serve in the Korean Conflict. In 1952 he was elected to the Oklahoma Senate. In 1956, he faced a primary challenge from Tom Payne Jr.
John W. Russell Jr. won the Democratic nomination in the 1956 Democratic Runoff Primary Election after recount of absentee ballots. This was challenged in District Court by Tom Payne Jr., and the court ruled invalid all absentee ballots, thus giving the nomination to Payne.
The State Supreme Court later ruled that the District Court had no jurisdiction in the election and declared Russell the winner. But the Election Board didn’t post either candidate on the November ballot.
On November 23, 1956, Governor Raymond Gary declared the office vacant since neither candidate’s name appeared on the General Election ballot and ordered a Special Election on December 22, 1956. This was won by Payne over his Republican opponent after Russell refused to be a candidate, maintaining the election was illegal. He contested the Governor’s authority for such an election in the Supreme Court.
Citing previous rulings, the Supreme Court said the Legislature was the sole judge of its membership and on January 15, 1957, the Senate voted unanimously to seat Payne.
State Sen. John Russell,; angered because the State Election Board won’t call off a special election in his senatorial district, threatened Saturday to punch the chairman in the nose. George D. Key, Oklahoma City,; the board chairman, declared it is untrue he told Russell that a favorable Supreme Court decision in the Russell-Payne election lawsuit would automatically give the senator another term in office. Russell, when told of key’s statement, took it to mean Key was calling him a “liar.” “I don’t want him calling me a liar, or I’m going over there and punch him in the nose,” Russell! said. The senator was in Sallisaw’ Saturday conferring with his attorney, Fred Green, on whether legal steps will be taken next week to halt the special election Dec. 22 in Wagoner and Okmulgee counties to fill a “vacancy” in the Senate post. Gov. Raymond Gary called the election because no nominee name appeared on the Nov. 6 general election ballot. Russell Friday finally won a lawsuit which, in effect, gave him the nomination over Rep. Tom Payne Jr., in the July 24 runoff primary’. He said the State Election Board had told him that if he won the lawsuit, he would win the senatorship. But Key, when contacted at Leedey, where he is visiting, replied: “Every word that Senator Russell said is wholly untrue. I never talked to Senator Russell in my life, and I never saw him until he made that ridiculous argument before the State Election Board.” Russell told the election board
One must be mindful that the Oklahoma Senate selects the Election Board Secretary, and Russell’s open accusations of the director probably was not well-taken by the senate leadership.
Gov. Gary used the experience to call for election process reform laws, so that absentee ballots are handled in a secure manner.
John Russell went on to practice law in Wagoner County, serving as County Attorney, then State District Attorney, until 1983. He was a Mason, and died in Ponca City, in 2015.
Books can be written about Alfalfa Bill Murray. But with his populism there was also a bravado which got him into trouble. Harry Holloway, of the Oklahoma Historical Society said; After the two failed governorships of Walton & Johnson, the next governor, elected in 1930 at the onset of the Great Depression, was William H. Murray, better known as “Alfalfa Bill.” A couple decades earlier, Murray had chaired Oklahoma’s constitutional convention, leading to statehood. He acquired a national reputation of sorts partly because of his oddball behavior. Like Jack Walton he was a great showman. He presented himself as one with the common farmers in language and in dress. He dressed in rumpled clothing, including the trademark long johns that extended conspicuously below his pant legs. His language could be crude, even obscene. That he was mostly an opportunist interested in electoral gain is suggested by his background. He had worked as a teacher and reporter, had read law, and had gained recognition as expert in tribal land claims. The woman he married was related to a tribal chief. These are high-status traits, not those of an unlettered, rumpled farmer. In office he did champion ordinary farmers and others in distress. Nevertheless, his own state programs did not get far, partly because of the Great Depression and partly because of his irascible personality. He clashed with Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, feeling that FDR had ridiculed him. Federal officials bypassed Murray and thus cut him out of much patronage. Murray became enraged and consumed by vindictiveness in his opposition to FDR and the New Deal, an attitude that stayed with him after he left office. To the end of his days he railed against the New Deal, communists, and “International Jewry.” Worst of all was his willingness to invoke martial law, which he did a total of thirty-four times. Psychics have always had their opponents and their adherents. One fan of such things was a former governor in the 1920s Harry Holloway, of the Oklahoma Historical Society said; After Walton was thrown out in his first year, through impeachment, the next freely elected governor in 1926 was Henry S. Johnston, who suffered a fate similar to Walton’s, although not because of criminal misconduct. He spent much time in his office reportedly engaged in solitary meditation and consultation with his personal astrologer. His administrative assistant had a room full of caged canaries with whom he claimed to communicate. The governor’s personal secretary ran a tight ship that effectively cut off legislators wanting to discuss vital patronage matters. Legislators became furious and, in keeping with these turbulent times, ousted Johnston from office in January 1929. Thus by this early date the young state had removed two sitting governors from office, a record not matched by any other state until much later.
Some say this man should have been in the entertainment business, or perhaps an evangelist? But his antics led to his quick exit from state high office.
Harry Holloway, of the Oklahoma Historical Society said; The period of the 1920s and 1930s was one of bitter political strife. Martial law was invoked repeatedly, and two sitting governors were removed from office. Jack Walton was the first to be removed. Elected in 1920, he ran a spectacular campaign heavy in showmanship. But in office he was a disaster. He publicly fought the Klan yet unofficially colluded with them. He wildly extended patronage powers to appoint college presidents and professors, arousing intense opposition.He invoked martial law and at one point had the whole state under martial law. Inaugurated on January 9, 1923, he was impeached and was removed from office in the same year on November 23. Not many years after 1907 statehood, a race riot in 1921 convulsed Tulsa. The triggering event, inflamed by local newspaper reports, was an accusation that a black man had sexually assaulted a white woman. Racial tensions, abetted by growing Ku Klux Klan activities, had been on the rise for some time. Some commentators have described the riot as one of the nation’s worst. The body count is uncertain but ranges from seventy or eighty to as many as three hundred. A destructive fire raged through the Greenwood District, destroying homes and a prosperous business section. Thousands of blacks were rounded up as “suspects” and jailed, some for a week or so. At the time, many whites reacted with horror. But a veil of denial, created mainly by public officials, descended. History books usually gave this episode only passing mention. Not until the late 1990s was the riot reexamined and made the subject of the Tulsa Race Riot Commission that undertook further inquiry, including consideration of possible reparations. Whatever else might be said, the veil of denial had been lifted.Here’s a research paper, presented by an undergrad student at the University of Tulsa, nearly 70 years later. THE TULSA RACE RIOT OF 1921BY
|
Corruption ChronicleA retelling of the dubious escapades our past state leaders have been exposed for their role in. Archives
January 2024
Categories |