The McLennan County Courthouse is awash in history, including a grand old architectural style. It has stood as a symbol of beauty and justice in downtown Waco since 1902. County commissioners have once again applied for state funds to restore the old courthouse to its glory days. No one would like to see that more than Judge Matt Johnson of Waco’s 54th State District Court.

Johnson has gone on a historical binge, of sorts, and researched nearly all there is to know about the architectural background of this 107-year-old structure. He’s studied original drawing plans, photographs, newspaper articles, and even interviewed descendants of the building contractor and consulting architect.

He recently shared with the Trib his thoughts on why this building should be restored to its original state. Here’s some of what he had to say:

Q Why should the McLennan County Courthouse be renovated to its original style?

A The courthouse is a historical landmark recognized by the state of Texas and the National Historic Registry and during its 107 years of use, the building has endured some wear and tear. There are problems with the roof leaking. Although my court is on the second to the top floor, last year there was water leaking into my courtroom because it was leaking so badly on the top floor in the county law library above.

The design and the layout of the courthouse also has been changed from its original plans over the years and there are some issues with functionality. The jurors, when they go to the jury room to deliberate, have to go out of the courtroom. Original plans called for jury rooms within the courtrooms that were under direct control of the courts. This was so jurors didn’t have to walk past witnesses or victims and family members of defendants. Those jury rooms have been changed to accommodate office space for court staff.

There is a concern that our jurors are exposed to witnesses and victims and family members because they have to use (public) restroom facilities. It’s a real concern that they might overhear a conversation about a matter that was not allowable in trial.

Q Would proposed renovations allow jurors their own deliberation space off the courtrooms?

A They would have a room to the side of the courtroom. It wouldn’t be in the courtroom but it would be in direct control of the court.

However, before any renovation plan can be approved, it must be approved by the Texas Historical Commission, and the commission is a real stickler for taking it back to its original concept and design before a grant would be funded.

Q If the courthouse was renovated back to its original state, after 107 years, there are some things that can’t revert back, such as air-conditioning systems and technology, correct?

A There are firms which specialize in retrofitting old historic buildings with new modern electronics.

Q What kind of research have you done on the courthouse?

A The heirs of McLennan County Courthouse architect, J. Riely Gordon, deposited all of his plans and drawings for all of his projects with the Alexander Architectural Archives at the University of Texas Architecture School in Austin. There is a full file of all the preliminary plans and drawings for the McLennan County Courthouse. I was able to obtain copies of those. I’ve also researched newspaper accounts of all the significant events, researched the key players, like the architect, builder and consulting architect. And I’ve been in contact with some of the descendants of the contractor and the consulting architect.

Q Why have you gone to these lengths?

A This courthouse is a treasure. It’s one of a kind, and I just have a real affinity for it. McLennan County should be very proud of it. It’s served as a symbol of justice here in the county for a long time and still functions today as the primary courts building and it holds a lot of historical value.

Q Were there major changes from the original building plans to the finished structure?

A There were some changes to the building. The consulting architect, Wesley Dodson, commented to the commissioners court in his letter of recommendation that the original plans had the dome and the supporting stonework for the dome at too low of a profile and he thought the dome was out of proportion for the size of the building. He recommended that the dome be elevated and put on a higher level.

Also, there was to be a fountain in the middle of the opening of the rotunda. It also called for very ornate statues and adornments to the building that the commissioners recommended be trimmed back. There also was to be a driveway underneath the front steps. And the courtrooms were to be oval because the best theatres at the time were rounded for acoustics because they didn’t have PA systems then. The courtrooms were made square, but the corners of the courtrooms were rounded.

Q Weren’t there theatre balcony seats as well?

A They referred to it as a gallery. There were about three or four rows of seats available on the third floor to look down into the three district courts.

Q Did Gordon, the architect, design other similar courthouses in Texas?

A McLennan County’s is very unique in comparison with most of his other courthouses. There are some others that he designed with a dome, but ours is still different. He had a standard set of plans that he would sell to counties — I believe at a lower cost — and a lot of those courthouses look similar. We bought an original plan.

Q What else have you found in your research?

A The general contractor, Tom Lovell, had a letterhead with the original watercolor proposal of the courthouse. I obtained a copy from the Alexander archives. From the watercolor proposal you get a real idea of how grand the original architects’ plans were for this place. Lovell was from Denton and he built the Hill County Courthouse and Corryell County Courthouse. He built many others.

Q Was architect Gordon later indicted on some charges in San Antonio?

A I was doing research on a newspaper database and I found in 1891 or 1892 — before the construction of this courthouse — that he was indicted with a couple of commissioners in Bexar County for some issues on some payments in connection with the construction of the Bexar County Courthouse. I contacted the district clerk in Bexar County to get a copy of the court’s file on that matter. They were unable to locate it. I don’t know what happened, whether it ever resulted in a conviction or was actually a civil dispute. My best guess is that the case went away and things were resolved.

Q Wasn’t there a slate roof originally?

A The original plans did have a slate roof, but I found a document in the county archives that in the 1930s County Judge D.Y. McDaniel issued an order for replacement of the slate roof with a metal roof at a time when the economy was in a downturn. That metal roof is still there.

Q Was there a space under the front steps for folks to drive their horse and buggies up to?

A There was never a space there. It was part of the original plan, but I found some notes from the commissioners’ records that indicated that the front stairs were an issue with regard to the dimension and size. In the original plans, the opening on each side of the steps was a lot larger. Also on the artist’s rendition there was a driveway. But I’ve never seen a photo with a driveway.

Q Weren’t there also spittoons in all the courtrooms that were cleaned out nightly by janitors?

A That’s before my time, but I understand there were.

Q Discuss the statues on the dome. Themis — the Greek personification of justice — is on top. Isn’t she missing her sword?

A Themis is missing her sword. She lost it in the late ’90s. They found it on the roof. I think the county still has it. I don’t know if rust or corrosion caused it to break free. The hilt of the sword remains in her hand.

Q Are there supposed to be seven eagle statues, except one is actually a snow goose?

A Yes, I don’t know who decided to replace one of the eagles on the dome with a goose, but someone did, and it’s been up there for quite a while. It wasn’t part of the original plan.

Q What else can you expound upon?

A The marble in the courthouse is from Georgia and the pink granite on the outside is from Burnett County.

The two-story courtrooms had high elevated ceilings with stained glass and leaded glass panels. Those panels are still visible in the court of appeals courtroom and in the grand jury room. Those panels were designed to be opened for ventilation.

The plans also called for the courtrooms to be finished in different architectural styles. One called for a Corinthian finish, as evident by the caps on the marble columns. One called for an Ionic style.

Q What other embellishments and designs lend it to the Victorian period?

A There are a lot of plaster rosettes. The folks who did the plaster work were directed to do so in a bold and artistic style and that was part of the original plans. If you look around, you’ll see a lot of ornaments made of the plaster and that’s something that lends itself to that Victorian time. The laurel boughs on each of the pediments and the bull’s eye window in the middle of the pediments are part of that style.

Q What is this courthouse most famous for?

A This courthouse and the 54th District Court was the location of the first live televised court in the United States in December 1955. Harry L. Washburn was tried for murder for rigging a car with dynamite and killing a prominent citizen near Abilene. He was convicted. The trial went three or four days. There was coverage from the opening gavel to the conclusion of each day, and I understand that during the trial Waco almost became a ghost town because everyone was inside watching the trial. Tom Moore, the D.A. at the time, told me that some merchants complained because no one was out Christmas shopping because everybody was watching the trial on TV.

Q Are you preparing a dissertation on this?

A No. I’m trying to put together a visual presentation that contains copies of old news stories, original plans, artist’s renditions and photos. I’m just trying to put it all in context. I’ll offer it to anybody who’d be willing to listen (laughing).

Q Some would argue that a better use of tax funds would be to build a new courthouse and level this.

A That would be a mistake. To destroy this piece of history would be a real tragedy. We could do what Bell County’s done. They have preserved their historic courthouse and built a new, modern court building.

This courthouse is worthy of full restoration to its original design, but there’s always the cost and expense associated with that. And that is something that has to be done at the right time when funds are available and when county commissioners believe it would be a prudent use of our taxpayer funds. I don’t think now is that time.

It’s still functional. If at any point in time we outgrow it, we wouldn’t need to move all the courts out of it because of its historic value.