16 TEXAS
|
Vo l u m e 3 2 0 1 3
“Somebody Around Here Wants to Start a Fire” Austin’s O. Henry Honeymoon Cottage Controversy The smell of burned wood cut through Austin’s dry winter air on Christmas Eve 1956. As the sun rose, its light revealed the fire-ravaged remains of a cottage in a park setting along Shoal Creek north of downtown. Two chimneys, disembodied relics, stood amongst a crime scene of stones and charred lumber that for some nearby neighborhood residents marked a welcome end to a controversy over the O. Henry Honeymoon Cottage.
By Bonnie Tipton Wilson
Opposite: Left to right: Athol Porter, daughter Margaret, and William Sydney Porter (O. Henry). Photo courtesy of the Austin History Center, Austin Public Library.
Vo l u m e 3 2 0 1 3 |
TEXAS
17
In 1888, before William Sydney Porter became O. Henry, the famous short story writer, he and bride Athol rented a small frame cottage on East 11th Street in Austin. Porter came to the capital city four years earlier from North Carolina, and after working briefly as a pharmacist, bookkeeper, and draftsman, he became a teller for First National Bank. For Porter, the job was temporary while he continued to submit short stories to national publications; ironically, the position had profound implications on the rest of his life as the institution came under federal indictment in 1896, and a court found Porter guilty of embezzlement. The sensationalism of the local scandal publically disgraced the young writer, and he fled the city. Porter returned to Austin the following year to care for Athol, who was stricken with tuberculosis. After her death, a federal jury sentenced him to prison in Ohio, where, with more time to devote to writing, he took the pen name O. Henry. Released in 1901, he moved Above: Edmunds Travis, to New York City, and his left, an Austin newspaper fame as a short story writman, and attorney Trueman er soon grew. By the time O’Quinn, right, stand in front of his death in 1910, he of the O. Henry Honeymoon had published more than Cottage. Image courtesy of 600 stories and gained inAustin History Center, Austernational praise. tin Public Library.
18 TEXAS
|
Vo l u m e 3 2 0 1 3
Preserving Porter’s Legacy
For many people, O. Henry’s literary acclaim overshadowed Will Porter’s alleged improprieties. Trueman O’Quinn, Austin city attorney from 1936 until 1950, was a foremost authority on Porter’s life and writings and was an avid collector of related artifacts. In 1949 O’Quinn and a business partner purchased the dilapidated house at 505 East 11th Street, which was designated the O. Henry Honeymoon Cottage because it was the first home newlyweds Will and Athol shared together. Although Porter rented several homes in the area, O’Quinn recognized the significance of this structure as the place where the author fathered two children and sold his first commercial writing. Although the businessmen’s purchase saved the home from impending destruction, the structure sat deteriorating for six more years. In June 1955, the nascent Heritage Society of Austin ambitiously chose the O. Henry Honeymoon Cottage as one of its first preservation efforts. The group favored civic-minded projects that perpetuated “those customs of the people, their traditions and folklore that seem to beautify and enrich the community life.” At that time, Austin already had an O. Henry Museum—also a former rental property—donated to the city in 1934 by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, and that factored into the HSA’s planning.
The idea to preserve the cottage as part of a historical center on a new site originated from within the Heritage Society of Austin’s ranks and municipal connections. In 1955, Beverley S. Sheffield, recreation director of the Austin Parks and Recreation Board and an HSA member, expressed hope in a financial and curatorial partnership between the city and the preservation organization. By the fall of 1956, the HSA had put together a cohesive proposal that unintentionally sparked a controversy. Zachary T. Scott, founding member and Heritage Society director, bought the house and donated it to the group. The Honeymoon Cottage and the existing O. Henry Museum were to form the historical nucleus of a new center devoted to the life of William Sydney Porter. Architectural designs for the complex showed the two buildings attached to a new structure dubbed the Austin Historical Trove. Befitting the natural preservation aims of the HSA, members hoped the complex would find a home in one of the city’s public parks. Under Sheffield’s guidance, the HSA approached the city council to seek approval to place the historical center in what was then Wooten Park (now Shoal Creek Greenbelt). The site appeared ideal because it provided a beautiful natural setting by Shoal Creek and was easily accessible to tourists along a primary thoroughfare, Lamar Boulevard. In October, Mayor Tom Miller and the council approved the plan. Despite Sheffield’s support, the decision came under fire by the Austin Parks and Recreation board. That group claimed the proposed complex encroached upon one of the city’s few greenbelts and breached the deed made by the park’s land donor Dr. Goodall Wooten. Regardless, with apparent council blessing, the HSA arranged to move the cottage in late November. In response, residents with homes adjacent to the park, principally those living along Gaston Avenue, organized in opposition. At a November 15 city council meeting, the home owners argued that the historical complex would adversely impact the value of the neighborhood. The council responded by noting that the ultimate decision was with the Heritage Society of Austin. In a private meeting at the home of President Elizabeth Gardner, HSA members voted to proceed. Learning of that decision, attorney Wright Stubbs, husband of one of the opponents, threatened to file an injunction to abate the nuisance and deter the HSA’s actions.
The Controversy Grows
Local papers covered the fervor of the controversy, and what might have been an innocuous disagreement among upper-middle-class Austinites became tabloid fodder, reaching national news outlets. Stubbs’ colorful
language describing the cottage as a “worn-out, vermininfested junk heap,” coupled with the threat of injunction, made for sensational copy, fueling the intensity of the dispute. The opponents argued the house lacked historical significance and that its presence in Wooten Park would adversely affect the environment and neighborhood setting. Stubbs equated the project with illegal dumping and questioned the author’s character, noting, “The way I hear it, Porter moved every time the rent was due.” For Stubbs, the HSA could find historical significance and “make shrines out of half the dumps in East Austin.” After several logistical delays, though, Mobilized House Movers relocated the timeworn structure to the city park in late November, and Stubbs filed for an injunction calling for the removal or destruction of the building. In the early night of November 26, 1956, witnesses saw two males entering the Honeymoon Cottage carrying a flashlight and candle. A policeman driving along Lamar Boulevard spotted the ensuing flames and alerted the fire department before any significant damage was done. Fire Marshal W.L. Heaton believed the blaze, caused by piles of burning paper, evidenced suspicious conditions but attributed the fire to pranksters. Three nights later, however, after a second attempt to burn the cottage, he concluded that the incidents might be the work of a serial arsonist. While the commotion caused by the two fires briefly deflected public attention, the HSA continued to face organized legal opposition from Wooten Park neighbors. On December 18, the Gaston Avenue residents, now working with attorney Andre Gerard, filed a district court petition questioning the legality of the City of Austin’s authority to permit placement of a building on designated parkland without holding a special election. The plaintiffs also argued that since the original agreement between the city council and the Heritage Society of Austin stated the cottage was to remain in its original dilapidated condition, restoration was not allowed. Further, they contended the HSA could not prove the structure was “vested with a cultural, and/or literary, and/or public interest” because O. Henry lived in several local homes. The Gaston Avenue homeowners were appalled by the public criticism as a result of their legal actions and used the local papers to respond to negative characterizations. Dr. George Stumberg, writing to the Austin American, rejected the implication “of the residents of Gaston Avenue as a group of ‘rich’ people who live in a ‘swanky’ neighborhood” and asserted his desire to preserve the natural integrity of the park. Such efforts of self-defense, though, remained largely unheard amid the cacophony of upcoming events. Vo l u m e 3 2 0 1 3 |
TEXAS
19
The rock walls in the foreground (now located along the Shoal Creek Greenbelt) were part of the entrance to a proposed historical center that would have focused on William Sydney Porter. Photo by Bonnie Tipton Wilson.
On December 23, 1956, six fire trucks responded to an alarm for the third reported fire at the O. Henry Honeymoon Cottage. In 20 minutes, the intense blaze leveled the house, leaving only two chimneys intact. The destruction of the residence the day before many families traditionally read O. Henry’s short story, “Gift of the Magi,” seemed a particularly tragic affront. Austin’s Mayor Miller showed his sentimentality for the author by placing a holly wreath on the smoldering remains. Later, he declared that the city’s entire police force would work to capture the guilty parties; noted historian Walter Prescott Webb offered financial support for the investigation. The aftermath of the arson played out in the newspapers well into 1957 as some openly blamed the loss on neighborhood residents, while others suggested retaining the remains as a memorial to the controversy. In February, two anonymous letters mailed to the Austin American and the police provided the surnames of three alleged culprits. A grand jury was convened to review those allegations. In March, three teenage boys appeared before that court-appointed panel and admitted guilt in setting the fire. Despite a lack of physical evidence, the insistence of their parents and the statement of a fourth boy, an accomplice, encouraged the teens’ confessions. Their attorneys substantiated that the “intemperate statements of adults” generated by the contentious public debate had indirectly inf luenced the boys’ actions. That assertion, along with the grand jury’s recommendation for leniency, led to a judgment that the parents of the three teenagers pay the Heritage Society of Austin for losses resulting from the fire. The HSA committee overseeing the controversial project regrouped to document the property dam-
20 TEXAS
|
Vo l u m e 3 2 0 1 3
ages and to address the pending lawsuit. Committee chair and HSA legal counsel Fred Morse filed a response to Gerard’s district court petition, calling for dismissal of the case in light of the destruction. Gardner, the organization’s president, observed that the opposition’s “prayer has been answered in that under cover of darkness...the house was destroyed by fire.” However, the petition remained on file for two more years until the plaintiffs felt assured the Heritage Society of Austin had discontinued any plans for Wooten Park. In retrospect, the O. Henry Honeymoon Cottage controversy clearly speaks to another era in the continuum of historic preservation. The Heritage Society of Austin’s preservation plan, for example, seems outmoded and today would invoke intense review. Current practices acknowledge the potential for opposition to historic preservation and provide measures for mitigation. Different, too, are the actions of the city council, which now formally seeks diverse voices in neighborhood issues. While time has erased many memories of the controversy, the facts remain a unique part of Austin history—with details that might someday serve as the backdrop for a good short story. H Bonnie Tipton Wilson, of Austin, recently completed graduate studies in the Public History program at Texas State University. This article is an edited version of Bonnie Tipton Wilson’s research paper published in Intersections: New Perspectives in Texas Public History, Volume 1, No. 1 (Spring 2012) http://publichistory.history.tx.state.edu/ student-research-projects/intersections.html.