Perhaps you remember the headline: "Brawl in Senate Chamber, Members Walk Out." Or this one: "Alamo Guardians Enjoin Each Other." There was even a pointed statement printed in newspapers statewide about the matter by an extremely proper lady, disclaiming that she was the president of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas.

The headlines didn't make it into print in that exact form, since the activities happened in 1907, when headlines (and many other things) were more genteel. That was a time when the names of women whose forbearers were among the founders of the Republic of Texas made it into newspapers only when they were christened, married and buried, or when they hosted noteworthy social gatherings. However, when their beloved Alamo Shrine was the subject, propriety be damned.

The brawl occurred on April 19, 1907, in the Texas Senate Chamber of the Capitol building, in Austin, during the sixteenth annual convention of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas (the "Daughters"). Having "heard that there was going to be a row between the [competing] factions, and never having seen a ladies convention in a muss" several senators, joined by a group of news reporters and businessmen, later testified that they "decided to remain when the senate adjourned, and see how it came out." While a screaming brawl certainly wasn't what anyone would have expected from looking at the convention program, that appears to be what occurred.
The ruckus began shortly after the meeting was called to order when Miss Adina De Zavala (president of the De Zavala Chapter No. 7 of San Antonio) and Mrs. Looscan objected to the current leadership's efforts to appoint a new slate of officers claiming that parliamentary procedure and the organization's bylaws required them to be elected. After their objection was overruled, Governor Thomas M. Campbell gave a short welcoming speech urging the Daughters to observe the "cooperation and harmonious actions" by which the pioneers of Texas independence succeeded in their glorious quest to establish the Republic. Austin Mayor Frank Maddox also welcomed them.

During the program portion of the convention speeches were given and poems read, welcoming the groups assembled and calling for heroic and selfless action in preserving the memory of the sacrifices of the founders of the Republic. Some remarks even foreshadowed the upcoming brawl. For example, one speaker took the opportunity to remark that the "apple of discord entered our ranks in an effort for supreme control of the Alamo property," which others should take care to avoid in their great devotion to the work of honoring and preserving their sacred history.
After the planned program concluded, First Vice President Rebecca J. Fisher of Austin opened the meeting up to business by appointing Mrs. I.B. Alford of San Antonio to preside over the meeting. Miss De Zavala and Mrs. Looscan again objected from the floor, arguing that the appointment was inappropriate, but their objection was ruled out of order after Miss Fisher said that she could choose whoever she wished to conduct the parliamentary portion of the meeting. Supported by some of the men observing the meeting, Miss De Zavala and her supporters continued objecting to efforts to move forward with the group's business. Their efforts created considerable disorder and the meeting adjourned for lunch.

Things did not improve after lunch when Mrs. Fisher informed the members that she had conferred with several excellent parliamentarians, who agreed that she could appoint anyone she chose to conduct the meeting. Mrs. Alford thereupon resumed officiating. In an effort to regain control of the meeting, an elected officer read a list of restrictions on who could speak, when they could speak, how long they could speak, and on what topics they could speak. Suffice it to say, the list could barely be heard over the screaming pandemonium in the chamber. The numerous parliamentary objections of the De Zavala faction were summarily ruled out of order.

The minutes of the meeting note the active and vigorous participation of various men, identified to the chair as senators and senate pages, who were adding to the general noise and confusion, apparently annoying the Fisher faction by urging on the De Zavala faction. A scuffle ensued over the gavel. After Mrs. Fisher regained control over the gavel, but not the meeting, she crashed the gavel onto the rostrum and declared the convention adjourned sine die and walked out with 46 of the 68 members present.

Asserting that the meeting was not properly adjourned, the De Zavala faction decided to continue the meeting and attend to business. This included electing a new slate of officers, including electing the ailing Mrs. Anson Jones (widow of the President of the Republic) as president of the De Zavala group. Upon hearing that she was elected as president of Adina De Zavala's group, Mrs. Jones took the unusual step on June 15, 1907, of sending a letter to newspapers around Texas, disclaiming the position.

So what was that wild, undignified shrieking melee about? What was behind all the calls for sweetness and harmony? Why were the senators encouraging the Daughters to riot in the senate chamber? Was this a power grab? More to the point, what happened next?

The story picks up in early July 1907 when the Fisher faction, represented by the Houston firm of Lane, Jackson, Kelley & Wolters, appeared before the Honorable Norman Kittrell in the 61st District Court in Houston to file a petition for a permanent injunction. They sought to prevent Adina De Zavala and other leaders of the De Zavala faction, by name, from holding themselves out as officers of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, or in any other way asserting that they were entitled to control the property, accounts, rental income, and relics of the slain heroes given in sacred trust to the Daughters by the State of Texas.

You may ask, "Why Houston, when the Alamo, as even non-Texans know, is in San Antonio?" It was because Mrs. Fisher and her supporters wanted the case heard before Judge Kittrell. Although he declined to enjoin the De Zavala fraction, he immediately issued a "temporary stay" of any action by the De Zavala group to assert control over the Alamo-related property and relics (including a gold snuff box which had belonged to General Santa Ana).

Adina De Zavala did not take kindly to Judge Kittrell's actions, nor to the contents of the Petition for Injunction in which the Daughters referred at length to the Hugo-Schmeltzer property operating in the Alamo shrine precincts, describing it as a run-down and disgusting wholesale whiskey warehouse on the inside and a bill-posting site on the outside, which deserved no better than to be ripped down to provide space for a park to surround the Shrine.

The answer and crossclaim by Miss De Zavala and her comrades in arms reveals that the whiskey warehouse was not in fact attached to the Alamo mission church, but shared a common wall with one of the other historic buildings on the Alamo property. Since the Daughters lacked funds to maintain the Alamo buildings, the one adjoining the Hugo-Schmeltzer warehouse was slowly decaying, except to the extent that the Hugo-Schmeltzer management made repairs at their own expense to maintain their portion of the structure.

Judge Kittrell knew far more about this than he let on in issuing the stay order against Adina De Zavala and the other defendants. At an executive committee meeting held before the annual meeting, Judge Kittrell presented to the leadership of the Daughters a business proposal from a close friend of his who represented the Vandeventer Hotel Company of St. Louis. The hotel company proposed to remove the buildings occupied by the Hugo-Schmeltzer whiskey warehouse, and to create and maintain for a period of years a park around the Alamo mission. It also agreed to pay the salary of a custodian for the Alamo mission church for five years. They would use the cleared site, exclusive of the park area, for a very nice hotel.

Claiming they lacked authority until after the deal was raised as an item of new business at the annual convention, the executive committee chair made a counterproposal, demanding major funding for renovations to the mission along with payment of all costs for removal of the Hugo-Schmeltzer business premises and other "new" construction "attached" to the mission. The counterproposal went so far as to describe the decorative vines to be planted against the walls and the content of a brass plaque to be erected at the shrine. Apparently, the St. Louis group was not eager to get into the sort of transaction the Daughters' executive committee contemplated and withdrew its offer.

Adina De Zavala found out about the efforts to evict the Hugo-Schmeltzer Co. from the Alamo ground from Mrs. Looscan, who was at the meeting with Judge Kittrell. Determined to thwart these efforts, she then instructed the Hugo-Schmeltzer Co. to send the monthly rent to the San Antonio De Zavala Chapter instead of the statewide organization. She also instructed the Daughters' bank not to issue any checks unless authorized by her.

Although the executive committee was aware of De Zavala's actions, it met again before the convention to consider a new proposal from a group of San Antonio businessmen. This group proposed to remove the offending Hugo-Schmeltzer building and other barns, warehouses and galleries that had been built up around the old mission church, and to build a park around the original buildings. Noting that Hugo-Schmeltzer was now approximately four months behind in paying its rent to them, the executive committee voted to increase their rent.

Back at the 61st Court in Houston, the De Zavala group, represented by Houston attorneys W.G. Love, J.T. Guinn and Donald A. Bliss, filed their answer and counterclaim against the Fisher faction. In their pleadings, they pointed out in detail that Judge Kitrell–the judge presiding over the injunction hearing–was a direct participant in the attempts by the executive committee to exclude the De Zavala group from discussions of a potential business deal directly affecting the integrity of the Alamo buildings. In their counterclaim, they cited specific provisions of the organization's constitution and bylaws (as amended) that provided for the vice presidents to preside over the meetings of the membership in their numerical order. They also stated that the organization's constitution was amended at the 1905 convention to give direct management of historic sites to the local chapters. It was amended in contemplation of the possible purchase and preservation of the San Jacinto battleground and other smaller historic sites by their respective local chapters, since those could not be funded by the statewide organization. The De Zavala group also complained that the negotiations by the Fisher group's executive committee directly thwarted their control over the Alamo and its income-producing whiskey warehouse, the Hugo-Schmeltzer property.

The Fisher group was forced to amend their petition and answer, acknowledging Judge Kittrell's participation in their business dealings, but praised his lifelong patriotism and support for the Daughters in their sacred mission to protect the shrine of Texas heroes. Their amended petition delicately dances around the dispute and the actions of both sides in protecting the Alamo. Ultimately, the groups narrowed their factual disputes to the question of what was meant by the term "Alamo." Did it mean the central structure—the mission church? Or did it mean the entire group of buildings associated with the church building at the time of the war for independence, one of which had a "new" addition, the whiskey warehouse?

In response to discovery, copies of the program booklet that were produced after the convention, which included the minutes of the various executive committee meetings prior to the convention—including at least one in which Judge Kittrell attended to present his friend's business proposal—became a part of the case file. In addition, witnesses who were deposed on written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories described the convention in colorful terms. Senator E.I. Kellie, in responding to interrogatories about whether there was an actual motion and vote to adjourn, said, "I could not say positively, the confusion about this time was getting so great, and looked very much like there was going to be a scrap, and I being of small stature, weighing 114 pounds, I left my seat and went to the rear of the chamber near the door, so that I could run if necessary."

Several of the senators and businessmen admitted to coaching the De Zavala group in parliamentary procedure from the sidelines, and joining in the general uproar. None could say with certainty whether there was an actual motion and properly conducted vote to adjourn sine die prior to the Fisher group walk-out, due to the volume of the shouting and the fact that most of the women were on their feet. Indeed, the mere physical possession of the gavel was a matter of some sport among the women, according to the senators' depositions.

The case file does not reflect an additional interesting piece of information. At one point, Adina De Zavala was reported to have barricaded herself in the disputed building, although it was not clear which side of the common wall she was on—the whiskey warehouse side or the original Alamo building side.

The injunction suit finally went to trial in the 61st District court in Houston on June 1, 1908. A handwritten Motion for New Trial by the defendants is dated that day. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were issued on June 9. That document is signed by Judge Leo W. Moore; Judge Kittrell, having read the handwriting on the wall, had recused himself pretrial.

Judge Moore's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law had very carefully recited the fewest possible facts to dispose of the suit, displaying a delicate balance between the feuding groups of prominent ladies. He found that the Daughters had indeed amended their constitution at the annual convention held at Goliad in 1905, to give responsibility for the Alamo property to the De Zavala chapter. He found that Adina De Zavala notified the tenant of the whiskey warehouse in November 1906 to pay the rent to the De Zavala Chapter, and that she notified the Daughters' bank at that time to honor checks on the Alamo account only if written by the treasurer of the De Zavala Chapter. He concluded as a matter of law, however, that the organization could not amend its constitution to change the terms of the legislation giving both the property and the responsibility to maintain it to the Daughters of the Republic of Texas' statewide organization.

Judge Moore found that the organization's constitution required that in the absence of the president, the vice presidents should preside in numerical order. He concluded that the adjournment sine die was effective and that any action taken by the remaining members after the Fisher faction departed was null and void. (This included two subsequent separate annual conventions at which officers were elected by the De Zavala faction.) The judge found that in compliance with the Daughter's constitution, the officers were elected to serve two-year terms and that the Fisher faction had been elected in 1906. As a result, no election of officers by the De Zavala group was proper in 1907, and the group's subsequently elected officers were without authority.

Judge Moore also concluded that Mrs. Fisher's appointment of Mrs. Alford to preside at the 1907 convention was not just irregular but null and void, and any action taken and business transacted after that appointment were also null and void.

Finally, Judge Moore found that by the time of the trial both factions intended to demolish the whiskey warehouse portion of the building that caused the rift, and replace it with a park.
A petition for writ of error was filed in September 1908. The Court of Civil Appeals at Galveston returned its mandate in due course on May 21, 1910, finding no error. By the time of the mandate, there had been two annual meetings of the respective factions, and the illustrious Mrs. Anson Jones, the president of both factions, had passed to her eternal reward.

You can read more of case file #43344 or other equally interesting bits of Houston's history. Check the link to the historical records project on the Harris County District Clerk's Web site, www.hcdistrictclerk.com. Many historical cases have been digitized as part of the county's historical documents preservation project. e.

Ann D. Zeigler is a senior consultant with Third Coast Consultants, specializing in electronic document discovery issues, and a former editor in chief of The Houston Lawyer.