Story of the Session 
 
 of the 
 
 California Legislature 
 
 of 
 
 1909 
 
 By 
 Franklin Hichborn 
 
 The well-being of the State requires that the opponents 
 to the machine in Senate and Assembly, regardless 
 of party label, organize the Legislature. But back 
 of this is the even more important requirement that 
 there be elected to the Legislature American citizens, 
 with the responsibility of their citizenship upon them, 
 rather than partisans, burdened, until their good pur- 
 poses are made negative, by the responsibility of their 
 partisanship. :,-..- 
 
 San Frd^f.isico, ' ' * ' ' *, 
 Press of The James H. Barry Company 
 1909 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Chapter Page 
 
 I. Breaking Ground 7 
 
 II. Organization of the Senate 15 
 
 III. Organization of the Assembly 28 
 
 IV. The Machine in Control 37 
 
 V. Election of United States Senator 43 
 
 VI. The Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill 52 
 
 VII. Passage of the Anti-Racetrack Gambling 
 
 Bill ." 59 
 
 VIII. The Direct Primary Bill. ! 68 
 
 IX. The Machine Defeated in the Senate 80 
 
 X. Fight Over the Assembly Amendments. . . 95 
 
 XL Machine Amends Direct Primary Bill., . .112 
 
 XII The Railroad Regulation Issue 121 
 
 XIII. Machine Defeats the Stetson Bill 133 
 
 XIV. Railroad Measures 145 
 
 XV. Defeat of the Commonwealth Club Bills.. 158 
 
 XVI. How the Change of Venue Bill Was 
 
 Passed 168 
 
 XVII. Passage of the Wheelan Bills 178 
 
 XVIII. Defeat of the Local Option Bill 184 
 
 XIX. Defeat of the Initiative Amendment 192 
 
 XX. Defeat of the Anti-Japanese Bills 202 
 
 
Chapter 
 
 XXL 
 
 XXII. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Page 
 
 The Rule Against Lobbying. 217 
 
 The Machine Lobbyist at Work 226 
 
 Influence of the San Francisco Delegation. 237 
 Attacks on and Defense of the Fish 
 
 Commission 247 
 
 XXV. The Rewarding of the Faithful . .259 
 
 XXVI. The Holdover Senators 271 
 
 XXVII. The Retiring Senators 279 
 
 XXVIII. Conclusion 287 
 
 Appendix 297 
 
 Tables of Votes ix 
 
 Postal Direct Primary xxvi 
 
 Dr. Montgomery's Report xxx 
 
 The Anti- Japanese Resolution xxxi 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In writing the Story of the Session of the California 
 Legislature of 1909, the purpose has been, not only to 
 show what was done at Sacramento last Winter, but, what 
 is by far more important, how it was done. To this 
 end, the several measures are divided under three heads, 
 namely, those dealing with moral, with political and 
 with industrial issues. Instead of scattering on all the 
 measures introduced, or even a considerable part of them, 
 the principal issue of each group, that which meant the 
 most to The People, and upon which the machine cen- 
 tered its efforts, has been selected for detailed considera- 
 tion. On the score of the moral issues, the Anti-Race- 
 track Gambling bill has been taken as the most impor- 
 tant; while the Direct Primary bill is dealt with as the 
 chief political issue, and the railroad regulation measures 
 as involving the chief industrial issue. The story of the 
 fight over these bills is the story of the session of 1909. 
 The events attending the passage of the Anti-Racetrack 
 Gambling bill, the amendment of the Direct Primary bill, 
 and the defeat of the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill, 
 with the attending incident of the passage of the Wright 
 Railroad bill, show, as nothing else can, how the machine 
 controls and manipulates a Legislature and such is the 
 purpose of this little volume. 
 
 The efforts of justice-loving men to simplify the crim- 
 inal codes, to the end that rich and poor alike may have 
 equal opportunity in the trial courts not in theory alone 
 but in fact and the successful efforts of the machine to 
 block this reform, have made detailed consideration of the 
 defeat of the Commonwealth Club bills and the passage 
 
of the Wheelan bills, and the so-called Change of Venue 
 bill timely. And the story of these measures illustrates 
 again how the machine element defeats the purpose of 
 The People, and overrides what are the constitutional 
 rights and should be rights in fact of every American 
 citizen. 
 
 Measures which involved no particular contest between 
 the good government and the machine forces measures 
 patched up by interested parties and slipped through the 
 Legislature without opposition and generally without 
 comment although many of them of great importance, 
 are not touched upon. The histories of those selected for 
 consideration show the machine, or if you like, the system, 
 at its work of passing undesirable measures, and of block- 
 ing the passage of good measures. If the Story of the 
 Session of the California Legislature of 1909 assist the 
 citizens of California to understand how this is done ; if it 
 give them that knowledge of the weakness, the strength, 
 the purposes, and the affiliations of the Senators and As- 
 semblymen who sat in the Legislature of 1909, a knowl- 
 edge of which the machine managers have had hereto- 
 fore a monopoly; if it point the way for a new method 
 of publicity to crush corruption and to promote reform 
 a way which others better prepared for the work than I, 
 may, in California and even in other States, follow the 
 labor of preparing this volume for the press will have 
 been justified. 
 
 FRANKLIN HIGHBORN. 
 
 Santa Clara, Cal., July 4, 1909. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 BREAKING GROUND. 
 
 Although the Reform Element had a Majority in Both 
 Senate and Assembly, Good Bills Were Defeated, and 
 Vicious Measures Passed Three Reasons for This: 
 
 (1) Reform Element Was Without Plan of Action, 
 
 (2) Was Without Organization; (3) The Machine 
 Was Permitted to Organize Both Senate and Assem- 
 bly. 
 
 The personnel of the California Legislature of 1909, 
 was, all things considered, better than that of any other 
 Legislature that has assembled in California in a decade 
 or more. There were, to be sure, in both Senate and 
 Assembly men who were constantly on the wrong side 
 of every question affecting the moral, political or indus- 
 trial well-being of the State, but a majority of each House 
 labored for the passage of good laws, laws which would 
 not only silence and satisfy constituents, but prove effect- 
 ive and accomplish the purpose for which they had been 
 drawn. Just as earnestly as they worked for the pas- 
 sage of good laws, a majority of the members of the 
 Senate as well as a majority of the members of the 
 Assembly opposed the passage of vicious measures, and 
 of measures ostensibly introduced to work needed reform 
 but drawn in such a manner as to be, from a practical 
 standpoint, ineffective. 
 
 And yet, regardless of the purpose of this majority, 
 
8 Breaking Ground 
 
 the so-called "Change of Venue" l bill was passed, and 
 the "Judicial Column" bill, intended to take' the judiciary 
 out of politics, was denied passage. The infamous 
 "Wheelan bills," aimed at the complication of the Grand 
 Jury system, went through both Houses, while the Com- 
 monwealth Club bills, drawn to simplify the methods of 
 criminal procedure, were held up and eventually de- 
 feated. The ineffective Wright Railroad Regulation bill 
 became a law, while the Stetson Railroad measure 
 effective as finally amended was rejected. The pro- 
 vision in the Direct Primary bill for the selection of 
 United States Senators by State-wide vote was stricken 
 out, and the meaningless advisory, district vote plan 
 substituted. 
 
 Certainly, the accomplishment of the Legislature does 
 not line with the purpose of a majority of its members. 
 The voter is naturally asking why the majority in both 
 Houses standing for good legislation and opposing bad, 
 
 1 One of the best witnesses to the viciousness of this measure 
 is Governor Gillett, surely an unprejudiced observer. In giving 
 his reasons for vetoing the bill, Governor Gillett said: 
 
 "I have several reasons for saying that I will veto the bill. 
 One reason is that I have always been opposed to it. When 
 I was in the Senate in 1897 I was against it and again in 1899 
 I fought it in the Judiciary Committee. Two years ago I ignored 
 another such measure that had passed through the Legislature, 
 so that I would not be living up to my policy of the past if I 
 should sign this bill. 
 
 "But even if I had never had the opportunity to record my 
 opposition on these different occasions, I should have vetoed the 
 bill anyway, because it is a vicious bill. The bill is not a change 
 of venue bill in the strict sense of the word. It simply gives the 
 man on trial the right to disqualify the Judge on the ground of bias 
 on the slightest pretext. 
 
 "The worst feature about the bill is that it grants this right to 
 the accused after the jury has been secured. Why, if the defend- 
 ant didn't like the adverse rulings of the Judge he could easily 
 claim bias and the law would uphold his demand for another Judge. 
 Think of how that would operate in the Calhoun trial in San Fran- 
 cisco. Such a law would cost the State thousands of dollars. It's 
 vicious and I will not sign it." 
 
Breaking Ground 9 
 
 accomplished so little; how it was that a minority, at 
 practically every turn, defeated a majority. 
 
 There were three principal reasons for this outcome. 
 
 ( 1 ) The machine, as its name indicates, is a definite 
 organization, with recognized leaders. The anti-machine 
 element was without organization or recognized leaders. 
 
 (2) The reform-advocating majority, except in the 
 anti-racetrack gambling fight, was without definite plan 
 of action. The majority was, for example, for the pas- 
 sage of a direct primary law that would, first, take the 
 control of politics out of the hands of political bosses 
 big and little, and, second, give the people of California 
 the privilege of naming their United States Senators, a 
 privilege already enjoyed by the people of the more 
 progressive States of the Union. But the reform ele- 
 ment knew little or nothing of the details of direct pri- 
 mary legislation. 
 
 They were equally unprepared on other reform issues. 
 They recognized the necessity of passing an effective rail- 
 road regulation law, for example, but had little or no 
 conception of what the provisions of the measure should 
 be. They recognized that the criminal laws cannot be 
 impartially enforced against rich and poor alike until the 
 methods of criminal procedure be simplified, put on a 
 common sense basis. But even here they had no definite 
 policy and when told by machine claquers that the pro- 
 posed reforms were revolutionary, even the most in- 
 sistent of the reform element were content to let the 
 simplifying amendments to the codes die in committees 
 or on the files. 
 
 On the other hand, the machine element, even before 
 
io Breaking Ground 
 
 a member had reached Sacramento, had their work for 
 the session carefully outlined. This session the bulk of 
 the machine's work was negative ; that is to say, with a 
 majority in both houses opposed to machine policies, the 
 machine recognized the difficulties of passing bad laws 
 except by trick and spent the session in amending good 
 measures into ineffectiveness, or, where they could, in 
 preventing their passage. Down to a comma the machine 
 leaders knew what they wanted for a direct primary law, 
 for an anti-racetrack gambling law, for a railroad regula- 
 tion law. From the hour the Legislature opened until 
 the gavels fell at the moment of adjournment the machine 
 element labored intelligently and constantly, and as an 
 organized working unit, to carry its ends. There were 
 no false plays ; no waste of time or energy ; every move 
 was calculated. By persistent hammering the organized 
 machine minority was able to wear its unorganized op- 
 ponents out. 2 
 
 (3-) The third reason for the failure of the reform 
 majority is found in the fact that the minority was per- 
 mitted to organize both Senate and Assembly. In the 
 Assembly the machine element named the Speaker with- 
 out serious opposition. The Speaker named the Assem- 
 bly committees. It developed at the test that the 
 important committees of the Assembly were, generally 
 speaking, controlled by the machine. 
 
 The Lieutenant-Governor is, under the State Con- 
 stitution, presiding officer of the Senate, under the title 
 of President of the Senate. But the Senators elect the 
 President pro tern., who, in the absence of the President, 
 
 2 Most suggestively shown in the amendment of the Direct 
 Primary bill. 
 
Breaking Ground n 
 
 has the same power as the President. The reform ele- 
 ment, although in the majority, permitted the election 
 of Senator Edward I. Wolfe as President pro tern. 
 Wolfe was admittedly leader of the machine element in 
 the Senate. At critical times during the session, the fact 
 that both the President and President pro tern, of the 
 Senate were friendly to machine interests gave the ma- 
 chine great advantage over its anti-machine opponents. 3 
 The reform majority in the Senate made the further 
 mistake of leaving the appointment^f the Senate com- 
 mittees in the hands of Lieutenant-Governor Warren 
 Porter. Governor Porter flaunts^his machine affiliations ; 
 is evidently proud of his political connections ; indeed, in 
 an address delivered before the students of the University 
 of California, Porter advised his hearers to be "perform- 
 ers" in politics rather than "reformers." It was not at 
 all surprising, then, that the Senate committees were 
 appointed, not in the interest of the reform element, but 
 of the machine. And yet, the reform element, being in 
 the majority, could have taken the appointment of the 
 committees out of Porter's hands. In the concluding 
 chapter it will be shown there is ample precedent for such 
 a course. But the reform element let the opportunity 
 
 3 The seriousness of the mistake made by the reform element 
 in acquiescing in Wolfe's election, was emphasized at the time of 
 the deadlock in the Senate over the Direct Primary bill. The 
 President of the Senate, Lieutenant-Governor Porter and in his 
 absence the President pro tern., Wolfe, was charged with the duty 
 of calling the Senate to order. Inasmuch as it did not suit the 
 machine's interests that the Senate should be called to order, the 
 Senators were obliged to sit in idleness for hours at a time, while 
 the machine leaders and lobbyists were working openly on the 
 floor of the Senate to force certain of the pro-primary Senators 
 to join the machine forces. Had the President pro tern been one 
 of the group of Senators who were opposing the machine he would 
 have called the Senate to order, thus permitting the regular work 
 of the session to proceed. See Chapter 10, "Fight on Assembly 
 Amendments." 
 
12 Breaking Ground 
 
 pass, and Warren Porter named the committees. Thus 
 in both Senate and Assembly the strategic committee 
 positions were permitted to fall into machine hands. 
 
 The importance of this on legislation can scarcely be 
 over-estimated. Under the system in vogue in California, 
 the real work of a legislative session is done in commit- 
 tee. When a bill is introduced in either House, it is at 
 once referred to a committee. Until the committee re- 
 ports on the measure no further action can be taken. 
 Thus a committee <*an prevent the passage of a bill by 
 deliberately neglecting to report it back to the main body. 
 
 When a measure passes either Senate or Assembly, it 
 goes to the other House, and is once again referred to a 
 committee. Again does the fate of the bill hang on 
 committee action. Thus, every measure before it can 
 pass the Legislature must, in the ordinary course of leg- 
 islation, pass the scrutiny of two legislative committees, 
 either one of which may delay its passage or even deny 
 Senate or Assembly, or both, opportunity to act upon it. 
 
 To be sure, one of the rules of the Assembly of 1909 
 required that all bills referred to committees should 
 be reported back within ten days, while the Senate rules 
 provided that committees must act on bills referred to 
 them as soon as "practicable," with the further provision 
 that a majority vote of the Senate could compel a report 
 on a bill at any time. But these rules were employed to 
 little advantage. In the Assembly, for example, the 
 Commonwealth Club bills, referred to the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee on January 15, were not acted upon by the com- 
 mittee at all. These bills, in spite of the ten days' rule, 
 remained in the committee sixty-seven days. The Direct 
 
Breaking Ground 13 
 
 Primary bill was held up in the Senate Committee on 
 Election Laws from January 8 until February 16, and at 
 that late day came out of the committee with practically 
 unfavorable recommendation. It was noticeable that 
 few, if any, important reform measures were given favor- 
 able recommendation by a Senate committee. Thus the 
 Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, the Direct Primary bill, 
 the Local Option bill, received the stamp of Senate com- 
 mittee disapproval. They were returned to the Senate 
 with the recommendation that they 'do not pass. The 
 same is largely true of the action of the Assembly Com- 
 mittees. 4 
 
 If machine-controlled committees could delay action 
 on reform measures, they could at the same time expe- 
 dite the passage of bills which the machine element fa- 
 vored, or which had been amended to the machine's liking. 
 Thus the Change of Venue bill, which reached the Senate 
 on March 15, was returned from the Senate Judiciary 
 Committee the day following, March 16, with the recom- 
 mendation that it "do pass." The Wheelan bills reached 
 the Senate on March 17, and were at once referred to 
 the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee that 
 very day reported them back with favorable recommen- 
 dation. Had they been delayed in the committee even 
 48 hours, their final passage would have been improbable. 
 
 Curiously enough, the Judiciary Committee was the 
 one Senate committee whose members President Porter 
 did not name. Following a time-honored custom, every 
 attorney at law in the Senate was made a member of 
 
 4 The action of the Assembly Committee on Public Morals on 
 the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill was a notable exception to this. 
 See chapters 6 and 7. 
 
14 Breaking Ground 
 
 the committee. It so happened that ten of the nineteen 
 lawyers in the Senate were on the side of reform as 
 against machine policies, eight generally voted with the 
 machine, while the nineteenth gave evidence of being in 
 a state of chronic doubt. This gave the reform element 
 a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Pres- 
 ident Porter had the naming of the chairman of the 
 committee, and the order of the rank of its members. 
 The Lieutenant-Governor's fine discrimination is shown 
 by the fact that the Chairman of the Committee and the 
 four ranking members were counted on the side of the 
 machine. 
 
 The Assembly committees acted quite as expeditiously 
 on measures which had passed the Senate in a form 
 satisfactory to machine interests. Thus, the Wright 
 Railroad Regulation bill, which reached the Assembly on 
 March 12, was reported back to the Assembly by the 
 Assembly Committee on Common Carriers the day fol- 
 lowing, March 13. 
 
 It w T ill be seen that the reform majority unquestion- 
 ably weakened its position by permitting the machine 
 minority to organize the Legislature. This phase of the 
 problem which confronts the State will be dealt with in 
 the concluding chapter. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 ORGANIZATION OF THE SENATE. 
 
 Anti-Machine Republicans, Led Into a Caucus Trap, 
 Surrendered the Appointment of President Pro Tern., 
 Secretary and Serge ant -at -Arms to the Machine 
 Machine Given the Selection of the Standing Com- 
 mittees. 
 
 In the light of the events of the session, the division 
 between the machine or "organization" and anti-machine 
 forces in the Senate for purposes of organization may 
 be regarded as follows : 
 
 Anti-maChine Anthony, 5 Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boyn- 
 ton, Burnett, 5 Cutten, Estudillo, Hurd, 5 Roseberry, Rush, 
 Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker (labeled Repub- 
 licans), Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Holohan, Mil- 
 ler, Sanford (labeled Democrats) 21. 
 
 Machine Hare, Kennedy (labeled Democrats), Bates, 
 Bills, Finn, Hartman, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCart- 
 
 5 Anthony's vote was in the majority of cases cast on the 
 side of the machine. But the determined stand that he took on 
 the Direct Primary bill issue, demonstrated that Anthony, had 
 the anti-machine forces maintained any sort of organization, or 
 had they had definite plan of action, would have been found con- 
 sistently on the side of good government. Burnett was unquestion- 
 ably misled by the machine leaders. Neither Burnett nor Anthony 
 can be justly classed with Hartman, Wolfe, Leavitt, Bills, etc., etc. 
 Hurd, who toward the end of the session voted constantly with 
 the machine, and is considered hopeless by many observers, never- 
 theless took active part in the anti-machine caucus on the Direct 
 Primary bill, and, had the organization of the Senate been in 
 the hands of the anti-machine element, the writer firmly believes, 
 would have continued with the reform forces. At any rate, he 
 was available for any anti-machine movement that might have 
 been started to organize the Senate. Hurd, like Burnett, will have 
 his opportunity in 1911. Both Senators hold over. 
 
16 Organization of Senate 
 
 ney, Reily, Savage, Weed, Willis, Wolfe, Wright (la- 
 beled Republicans) 16. 
 
 Doubtful Curtin ( Democrat ) . 
 
 Seekers of the winning side Price and Welch (la- 
 beled Republicans). 
 
 Curtin is put down as doubtful because, justly or 
 unjustly, he was at the opening of the session so re- 
 garded. But Curtin's record shows that generally speak- 
 ing from the beginning to the end of the session he voted 
 with the anti-machine element. Had the anti-machine 
 forces made a determined effort to organize the Senate 
 and demonstrated a strength of twenty-one votes, which 
 would have been enough to organize, Curtin would cer- 
 tainly have been with them. The same is true of Welch, 
 and it is probably true of Price. This would have given 
 the anti-machine forces from twenty-two to twenty-four 
 votes, a safe margin to have permitted them to organize 
 the Senate to carry out anti-machine policies. 
 
 The machine claquers will no doubt point gleefully to 
 the fact that when the test on the Railroad Regulation 
 bills came, Anthony, Burnett, Estudillo, Hurd and 
 Walker strayed from the anti-machine fold. This ob- 
 jection would have more weight had there ever been 
 an anti-machine fold. As a matter of fact, the anti- 
 machine element in the Senate from the day the session 
 opened until it closed was unorganized, and without lead- 
 ers or detailed plan of action. 
 
 Admittedly Estudillo and Burnett strayed on the 
 railroad regulation question, but they did so believing 
 the absolute rate provided in the Stetson bill to be un- 
 constitutional. All this will be brought out in the chap- 
 
Organization of Senate 17 
 
 ters on railroad regulation measures, but in passing, it 
 may be said that Burnett, in the closing hours of the ses- 
 sion, stated on the floor of the Senate that he had voted 
 against the Stetson bill and for the Wright bill on the 
 understanding that a constitutional amendment would be 
 passed setting at rest all question of the constitutionality 
 of the absolute rate. The machine leaders misled Sena- 
 tor Burnett. Machine votes defeated the amendment. 
 
 Anthony, Estudillo and Walker stood out against the 
 machine in the direct primary fight which followed the 
 defeat of the Stetson bill, and before the fight was over, 
 Burnett had returned to the anti-machine forces. 
 
 The case of Senator Hurd is not at all creditable to 
 the machine. But Kurd's instincts and sympathies are 
 not those of Gus Hartman, Hare, Wolfe and Leavitt. 
 Had the anti-machine forces had even semblance of or- 
 ganization there would have been no straying, and the 
 accomplishment of the legislative session of 1909 would 
 have been more satisfactory to the best citizenship of 
 the State. 
 
 The fact that the anti-machine forces, without lead- 
 ers and without organization, stuck together so well as 
 they did is one of the most extraordinary and at the same 
 time encouraging features of the session. 
 
 Although the anti-machine forces numbered a ma- 
 jority of the Senate, nevertheless a bare majority of the 
 regular Republican Senators those who were eligible 
 to admittance to the Republican caucus were with the 
 machine. The division in the Republican caucus, count- 
 ing Welch and Price with the machine element, was 
 on machine and anti-machine lines as follows: 
 
1 8 Organization of Senate 
 
 Anti-machineAnthony, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, 
 Burnett, Cutten, Estttdillo, Hurd, Roseberry, Rush, Stet- 
 son, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker 14. 
 
 Machine Bates, Bills, Finn, Hartman, Leavitt, Lewis, 
 Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed, 
 Welch, Willis, Wolfe, Wright 16. 
 
 By time-honored custom it has become a rule for 
 the majority 5a in the Senate and the same holds in the 
 Assembly to meet in caucus to decide upon the details 
 of organization. This is done on the theory that the 
 House should be so organized as to permit the major- 
 ity to carry out its policies as expeditiously and with as 
 little friction as possible. By the unwritten rule of the 
 caucus, the majority governs and each member who at- 
 tends the caucus is bound in honor to vote regardless 
 of his individual views or wishes on the floor of the 
 Senate or Assembly, as the majority of the caucus de- 
 cides. Thus, by going into caucus with the sixteen ma- 
 chine Senators, the fourteen anti-machine Senators were 
 placed in a position where they were, under caucus rule, 
 compelled to vote on the floor of the Senate as the 
 sixteen machine Senators dictated. This gave the ma- 
 chine on the floor of the Senate thirty votes out of 
 forty on questions affecting organization, and permitted 
 it to name the President pro tern., the Secretary of the 
 Senate, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and gave it final voice in 
 the appointment of the various attaches. 
 
 5a In this instance, the Republican Senators. The Senate 
 minority was made up of the Democratic Senators, if we make 
 the division on party lines. But as a matter of fact, when it 
 came to the real business of the session, the Senate did not divide 
 on party lines. The actual division was between the machine and 
 the anti-machine Senators. Thus the real majority consisted of 
 anti-machine Senators, and the minority of the Senators controlled 
 by the machine. 
 
Organization of Senate 19 
 
 Had the line of division in the Senate been Republi- 
 can and Democratic, the Republicans in the Senate might 
 very properly have caucused. But inasmuch as the ma- 
 chine Republicans stood during the entire session for 
 one set of policies, and the anti-machine Republicans for 
 another, the caucus was at best an incongruous affair. 
 Especially is this true when it is considered that the 
 anti-machine Republicans immediately after they had left 
 the caucus united with the anti-machine Democrats in a 
 three-months contest with the united machine Democrats 
 and machine Republicans. But having surrendered the 
 organization of the Senate to the machine, the anti- 
 machine Senators, although in the majority, fought under 
 a handicap, finally lost the weaker of their supporters, 6 
 and in the end went down in defeat. Had the real ma- 
 jority, rather than the artificial majority, of the Senate 
 caucused on organization, that is to say, had the anti- 
 machine Republicans and the anti-machine Democrats 
 caucused, and organized to carry out the policies for 
 which they stood and for which they fought together 
 during the entire session, the Republican-Democratic- 
 machine element would have been defeated at every turn. 
 But no such policy governed, and the anti-machine Re- 
 publicans waddled after precedent into the caucus trap 
 that had been set for them. Later on in the session the 
 anti-machine Republicans and anti-machine Democrats 
 did go into caucus together, and by doing so won the 
 hardest fought fight of the session. 7 
 
 In the Republican Senate caucus on organization, the 
 machine Senators, under the crafty leadership of Wolfe 
 
 6 Kurd's case illustrates this very well. 
 
 7 See chapter nine Machine defeated in the Senate. 
 
2O Organization of Senate 
 
 and Leavitt, worked their unhappy anti-machine asso- 
 ciates much as a playful cat, with a sense of humor, toys 
 with a mouse. As the cat lets the mouse think that it 
 has escaped, the machine let the anti-machine forces 
 think they were organizing the caucus. Leavitt had been 
 leader of the Republican caucus at previous sessions, but 
 he suffered "overwhelming defeat" at the hands of a 
 "reformer." The "reformer" in question was Senator 
 Wright, who had been well advertised as the father of 
 the reform Direct Primary law. Before the session 
 closed, the anti-machine element was to learn just the 
 sort of "reformer" Wright is. Wright, however, in the 
 interest of "harmony," was nominated for caucus lead- 
 ership by Senator Wolfe. Leavitt's name was not 
 even mentioned. The unanimous vote went to Senator 
 Wright, who was duly declared elected Chairman of the 
 Senate Republican caucus for the Thirty-eighth Session 
 of the California Legislature. 
 
 The reformers were also permitted to name the Secre- 
 tary of the caucus. This time a genuine anti-machine 
 Senator was selected, A. E. Boynton. 
 
 And then came a question which brought out the 
 gleam of the machine's teeth. Senator Boynton moved 
 that Senator Bell, of Pasadena, be admitted to the cau- 
 cus. Somewhat to the discomfiture of the reformers, 
 Bell was not admitted. 
 
 Senator Bell's case is a suggestive one. He is a 
 Republican, having been elected from one of the strong- 
 est Republican districts of the State, the Thirty-sixth 
 Senatorial District, which takes in Pasadena. But Sen- 
 ator Bell was not named by the machine ; in fact, he was 
 
Organization of Senate 21 
 
 % 
 
 elected as protest against machine methods. The Pasa- 
 dena Republicans tolerated machine domination as long 
 as they could. Then, in 1906, they induced Bell to run 
 against the "regular" machine nominee for the State 
 Senate. Bell ran as an independent Republican. He 
 overwhelmingly defeated his machine opponent. Ar- 
 rived at Sacramento at the session of 1907, he applied 
 for admittance to the Republican caucus. 
 
 There was ample precedent for his admittance, but 
 curiously enough no anti-machine Republican who had 
 defeated a machine Republican had ever been admitted 
 to caucus privileges. In 1902, however, Charles M. 
 Shortridge, having failed to receive the nomination for the 
 State Senate from Santa Clara County, ran as an inde- 
 pendent candidate against the regular Republican nomi- 
 nee. The machine supported Shortridge's candidacy, and 
 by most questionable methods succeeded in defeating the 
 regular Republican. But Shortridge was admitted to 
 the Senate caucus of 1903 without question. Senator 
 Bell, however, was denied admittance to the Republican 
 Senate caucus of 1907, on the grounds that he had de- 
 feated a regularly nominated Republican. Shortridge 
 had defeated a regularly nominated Republican. But 
 Shortridge stood for machine policies ; Bell stands opposed 
 to machine policies. The machine's policy is to keep the 
 caucuses of the dominant party in the Legislature as 
 much a close corporation as possible. So in 1907, Bell's 
 application was rejected. Bell, throughout the session, 
 opposed machine policies. Both for the session of 1907 
 and of 1909, Senator Bell's record is absolutely clean. 
 
22 Organization of Senate 
 
 The machine does not approve such men, nor want them 
 to participate in party caucuses. 
 
 Senator Bell, who had, although refused admittance 
 to his party caucus, done very well in 1907, did not pro- 
 pose to apply for admission to the caucus of 1909. But 
 the reform element in the Senate insisted upon present- 
 ing his name. From machine sources it was intimated 
 to Senator Bell that if he would make his peace with 
 Walter Parker, the Southern Pacific lobbyist who acts 
 as machine leader south of the Tehachepi, no opposi- 
 tion would be offered his admission to the caucus. Bell 
 rejected the offer with characteristic promptness. So the 
 anti-machine Senators, since they had "organized the 
 caucus," proceeded to admit Bell in the face of machine 
 opposition. 
 
 But the inexperienced political mouse discovered that 
 it was not out of the reach of the claws of the experi- 
 enced political cat. Boynton's motion to admit Bell to 
 the caucus was lost by a vote of 16 to 14. 
 
 Had the reform element been organized, however, 
 Bell would have been admitted to the caucus. Three 
 Senators, Reily, Savage and Welch, who ordinarily voted 
 with the machine, because of personal friendship voted 
 to admit Bell to the caucus. But their votes were offset 
 by those of Burnett, Estudillo and Kurd. 8 The vote was 
 as follows: 
 
 To admit Bell to the caucus Anthony, Birdsall, Black, 
 
 8 Burnett, of San Francisco, voted against Bell on partisan 
 grounds, and inability to grasp the situation. Estudillo's vote was 
 inconsistent with the majority which he cast during the session, 
 while Kurd's was inconsistent with those which he cast up to 
 the time of his vote with the machine forces against the Stetson 
 bill. 
 
Organization of Senate 23 
 
 Boynton, Cutten, Reily, Roseberry, Rush, Savage, Stet- 
 son, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker, Welch 14. 
 
 Against admitting Bell to the caucus Bates, Bills, 
 Burnett, Estudillo, Finn, Hartman, Kurd, Leavitt, Lewis, 
 Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Weed, Willis, Wolfe, 
 Wright 16. 
 
 The Bell matter out of the way, the real work of 
 organizing the Senate was taken up. Curiously enough, 
 the only contest came over the election of the Chaplain 
 of the Senate ; the naming of the President pro tern., of 
 the Secretary of the Senate and of the Sergeant-at-Arms 
 was not opposed. Senator Price moved that Lewis A. 
 Hilborn be the caucus nominee for Secretary of the Sen- 
 ate, and J. Louis Martin for Sergeant-at-Arms. His 
 motion carried unanimously. Price also nominated Sen- 
 ator Wolfe for President pro tern. Not an anti-machine 
 Senator protested. Wolfe was accordingly declared the 
 caucus nominee, with the thirty Senators present, ma- 
 chine and anti-machine, obligated to vote for him on the 
 floor of the Senate. 
 
 The election of a Chaplain was then taken up and 
 several candidates nominated for the office. Rev. Father 
 H. H. Wyman being finally selected, which, of course, 
 was equivalent to election. 
 
 The caucus was held at 9 o'clock of the morning of 
 January 4. At noon of the same day a second caucus 
 was held at which it was decided that the division of 
 patronage 8a should be on the following basis: That $18 
 
 8a Up to the session of 1909, the members of the Legislature 
 fixed the amount of patronage. At the session of 1907, the pay- 
 roll of the officers and attaches of the Assembly alone ran up to 
 nearly $10,000 a week, or more than $1300 a day. But in 1908, 
 the people adopted a constitutional amendment limiting the amount 
 
24 Organization of Senate 
 
 a day should be set aside for the Secretary, Sergeant-at- 
 Arms and Chaplain ; that the Lieutenant-Governor should 
 be allowed $22 a day, and each of the thirty caucus Sen- 
 ators $15 a day. This practically concluded Republican 
 caucusing for the session. At previous sessions the Re- 
 publicans caucused practically every day. But before 
 the session of 1909 had advanced far, the real line that 
 divided the Senators, the line that separated the machine 
 from the anti-machine members, had become so pro- 
 nounced that caucuses of machine and anti-machine Re- 
 publicans became impracticable. Senator Wright, toward 
 the end of the session, made frantic efforts to get the 
 caucus together; but he failed. The caucus on organ- 
 ization was about all that the anti-machine Republicans 
 could stand. 
 
 As they had left the election of the officers of the 
 Senate to the machine, the anti-machine element left the 
 appointing of the Senate committees to the machine 
 Lieutenant-Governor. 9 
 
 How well the machine, given the appointment of the 
 
 of patronage, the money to be expended for legislative officers 
 and attaches, to $500 a day for each House. This cut the pat- 
 ronage down something more than one-half, which gave the Sen- 
 ators and Assemblymen who divided it great concern. 
 
 The development of the patronage scandal during the last 
 decade is interesting. At the session of 1901 the Assembly pat- 
 ronage ran about $580 a day, the Senate patronage about $610. 
 This was only $80 a day more in the Assembly, and $110 more 
 in the Senate than the limit now fixed by the Constitution. 
 
 In 1903, the patronage in the Assembly totaled $6312.50 a week, 
 more than $900 a day. In the Senate it was $5612.50, or $800 a 
 day. 
 
 The increase continued in 1905. In that year Assembly pat- 
 ronage totaled $7956.50 a week, or $1135 a day, while the Senate 
 patronage was $6002.50 a week, or $857 a day. 
 
 The climax came in 1907, when the Assembly patronage went 
 to $9660.50 a week, or $1350 a day, and the Senate patronage to 
 $6893.50 a week, or $985 a day. What it would have been in 1909 
 had there been no Constitutional restriction placed upon it, is a 
 matter for speculation. 
 
 9 See concluding chapter as to how this could have been avoided. , 
 
Organization of Senate 25 
 
 committees, fortified itself is shown by consideration of 
 practically any one of the committees. A few examples 
 will suffice. 
 
 There were, for example, three great issues before 
 the Legislature; namely, the Anti-Racetrack Gambling 
 bill, a moral issue ; the Direct Primary bill, a political 
 issue; and the Railroad Regulation bills, a commercial 
 issue. 
 
 The Anti-Gambling bill was to come before the Public 
 Morals Committee, and the machine took good care that 
 not an anti-machine Senator should be given a place on 
 that committee. The committee consisted of Weed, 
 Wolfe, Leavitt, Savage (labeled Republicans), Kennedy 
 (labeled Democrat), all machine men. The committee 
 reported back the Anti-Gambling bill under pressure, 
 with the recommendation that it "do not pass." Public 
 opinion was such at the time that Savage and Kennedy 
 did not vote for the unfavorable recommendation. But 
 Weed, Wolfe and Leavitt, a majority of the committee, 
 stood out against the bill until the last. 
 
 The Direct Primary bill was to be considered by the 
 Election Laws Committee and the machine took good 
 care to keep hand upon that committee. The commit- 
 tee was made up of seven machine and two anti-machine 
 Senators, as follows : 
 
 Machine Senators Leavitt, Hartman, Wolfe, Sav- 
 age, Wright (labeled Republicans), Kennedy and Hare 
 (labeled Democrats). 
 
 Every one of the seven opposed the State-wide plan 
 for the selection of United States Senators. 
 
26 Organization of Senate 
 
 The anti-machine Senators on the committee were 
 Estudillo and Stetson. 
 
 It is an open secret that the machine expected to 
 control Estudillo through Walter Parker, the Southern 
 Pacific political agent. Its failure brought some con- 
 fusion upon machine circles. Thus, the machine really 
 thought when it picked the Committee on Election Laws 
 that it controlled eight of the nine members. 
 
 The Railroad Regulation measures were to be passed 
 upon by the Committee on Corporations. The machine 
 took care to be in control of that committee. It con- 
 sisted of eleven members. Seven of the eleven, if Bur- 
 nett who voted with the machine on this issue be counted 
 with them, were machine, one was "band wagon," 10 
 which is a trifle worse than machine, and three anti- 
 machine, as follows: 
 
 Machine Bates, Wright, McCartney, Burnett, Bills, 
 Finn (labeled Republicans), Kennedy (labeled Demo- 
 crat). 
 
 Band wagon Welch. 
 
 Anti-machine Walker, Roseberry (labeled Republi- 
 cans), and Miller (labeled Democrat). 
 
 But here again the machine was more generous than 
 it intended to be. It figured on controlling Walker. But 
 in the committee Walker stood out manfully for the Stet- 
 son bill and against the Wright bill. On the floor of 
 the Senate, however, Walker made his one slip of the 
 session, by voting for the Wright bill and against the 
 Stetson bill. 
 
 10 The term "band wagon" was applied during the session to 
 those members who were in the habit of joining the winning side 
 at the last moment. 
 
Organization of Senate 27 
 
 It is not necessary to continue consideration of the 
 committees. Enough has been said to show how thor- 
 oughly the machine minority, given the appointment of 
 the committees, strengthened itself in the Senate by seiz- 
 ing every strategic position. Indeed, the machine forti- 
 fied itself with such far-seeing intelligence, that one mar- 
 vels that the anti-machine majority was able to offer 
 even temporarily effective opposition. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Independent Movement to Resist the Machine's Pro- 
 gram Failed Reform Element Rallied and Rejected 
 Rules Prepared by Committee Appointed by Stanton, 
 Which Would Have Placed Majority at Mercy of 
 the Machine-Controlled Minority. 
 
 The machine-free members of the Lower House at 
 least did better than the reformers in the Senate; they 
 made an attempt to organize the Assembly independent 
 of the machine. The effort was, however, as uncertain 
 as that of a nestling taking its first lesson in flying. 
 Nothing came of the venture; but it indicates what may 
 be done in future. 
 
 The organization of the Assembly hinges on the 
 election of the Speaker. The machine ordinarily picks 
 the Speaker before the November elections, so his elec- 
 tion need not stir up any particular enthusiasm. But 
 there is always something of a contest started for the 
 sake of appearances, probably. 
 
 This year the machine had picked Phil Stanton, of 
 Los Angeles, for the job, but Bob Beardslee, of Stockton, 
 was permitted to give Stanton "a run." 
 
 The San Francisco newspapers along in November 
 and December recorded the political ripple of the con- 
 test, but the fight was a -dead affair, and nobody enthused. 
 The play came to a tame ending when Beardslee nomi- 
 
Organization of Assembly 29 
 
 nated Stanton for the Speaker's job and got the Chair- 
 manship of the important Committee on Ways and 
 Means for being good, or taking program, however 
 one may view it. 
 
 But at one time a real fight for the Speakership 
 threatened. Assemblyman Drew, of Fresno, and other 
 stanch anti-machine men, conceived the radical notion 
 that it was idiotic for them to sit around like lambs wait- 
 ing to have their throats cut, while the machine organ- 
 ized the House. They accordingly decided to take a 
 hand in the organization of the Assembly themselves by 
 refusing to vote for any man for Speaker who was known 
 to be under the influence of the machine. 
 
 Forty-one votes are required to elect the Speaker. 
 The reformers figured on the nineteen Democratic mem- 
 bers as with them. The Lincoln-Roosevelt League had 
 elected Assemblymen from several counties, including 
 Alameda. These were naturally counted on. Other 
 reputable Republican members were expected to join the 
 movement in numbers sufficient to secure the necessary 
 forty-one votes. 
 
 The purpose of the leaders of this departure from 
 the regular rules of the political game should have com- 
 mended itself to every good citizen. Their idea was to 
 organize the Assembly, not for self-advancement, or the 
 promotion of special privileges as the machine leaders 
 do year after year, but that good bills might be passed 
 and bad bills defeated ; that the waste of the public 
 funds might be stopped ; that worthy citizenship might 
 be placed above predatory partisanship. And yet, they 
 were compelled to proceed with the utmost caution ; were 
 
30 Organization of Assembly 
 
 discouraged at every turn, and abused like pickpockets, 
 even by those upon whom they depended for support. 
 Gradually it dawned upon them that not a few of the 
 Democratic members were not in sympathy with reform 
 legislation. But more discouraging still was the fact 
 that certain Republicans elected to the Assembly by the 
 Lincoln-Roosevelt faction of the party were as little to 
 be depended upon. By consulting the tables "B" and 
 "C" of Assembly votes in the appendix, it will be seen 
 that Democrats like Baxter, Collum, Hopkins, O'Neil and 
 Wheelan, and Lincoln-Roosevelt Republicans like Mott, 
 Pulcifer and Feeley, as a general thing voted with the 
 machine Republicans. There were, to be sure, Demo- 
 crats like Gillis, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Maher, 
 Mendenhall, Polsley, Preston, Wilson, Odom and Stuck- 
 enbruck, who were against the machine on every issue, 
 but the record shows the utter foolishness of regarding 
 either party free of machine influences. Without being 
 able to understand just how it was, Mr. Drew and his 
 associates failed to secure the encouragement for their 
 independent movement which they expected. The stealthy 
 move upon the Speaker's chair was found in some un- 
 accountable way to be blocked. Then some cautious soul 
 suggested that if they should fail the machine would 
 hold up the appropriation bills of those identified with 
 the movement. That settled it. The attempt to elect 
 as Speaker some member free of machine influence ended 
 right there. The reformers skurried for cover. 
 
 The part which the appropriation bills play in the 
 enactment of bad laws is one of the least understood of 
 a legislative session. Each session money must be appro- 
 
Organization of Assembly 31 
 
 priated by legislative enactment for the maintenance and 
 enlargement, where necessary, of the various State insti- 
 tutions, such as hospitals for the insane, reform schools, 
 normal schools, and the like. These institutions are not 
 local at all, but State. But the Senators and Assembly- 
 men from the counties in which they are situated are, by 
 custom, charged with the responsibility of securing the 
 appropriations necessary for their support. The San Jose 
 Normal School, for example, and the Agnew Asylum 
 for the Insane, are situated in Santa Clara County. They 
 are no more Santa Clara County institutions than they 
 are Del Norte or San Diego institutions, but the Senators 
 and Assemblymen from Santa Clara County are held 
 responsible for the passage of the appropriation bills 
 affecting them. Too often, the ability of the Assembly- 
 man or Senator is measured, not by his real work in the 
 Legislature, but by the size of the appropriations which 
 he manages to secure for his district. Under the present 
 system by which the machine organizes the Legislature, 
 it is in a position to defeat or materially reduce prac- 
 tically any appropriation bill. The member of the Leg- 
 islature who would oppose the machine thus finds him- 
 self between the constituents at home, who demand that 
 he secure generous appropriations for his district, and 
 the machine, which he understands very well requires 
 support of its policies as one of the prices of the con- 
 stituent-demanded appropriations. Thus those who 
 would have opposed the machine in the organization of 
 the Assembly realized that failure would probably mean 
 a hammering of their appropriation bills, which would 
 result in their political undoing at home. So the inde- 
 
32 Organization of Assembly 
 
 pendent movement to organize the Assembly came to a 
 sorry ending. 
 
 Stanton was elected Speaker without opposition. 
 The "defeated" Beardslee placed him in nomination. 
 Complete harmony prevailed. Stanton started proceed- 
 ings by appointing the Committee on Rules. This com- 
 mittee was charged with drafting rules for the govern- 
 ment of the Assembly during the session. It was made 
 up of Assemblymen Johnston of Contra Costa, Transue, 
 Johnson of Sacramento, Beardslee and Stanton. 
 
 Without the people knowing much about what is going 
 on, the rules governing legislative bodies are being 
 amended from time to time, so that the power of influ- 
 encing legislation is being taken out of the hands of the 
 duly elected representatives of the people and placed 
 with presiding officers and important committees. The 
 "system," or the machine, call it what you may, finds 
 it easier to control presiding officers and committees ap- 
 pointed by presiding officers, than to control Legislatures. 
 This stealthy advance upon the liberties of the people, 
 seems to have reached its climax at Washington, where 
 the independent members of both parties are in open 
 revolt against "Cannonism." But "Cannonism" is not 
 confined to the National Congress alone ; in a small way 
 it has its hold on the California Legislature. The rules 
 prepared by Speaker Stanton's committee were well cal- 
 culated to give "Cannonism" a stronger hold in Cali- 
 fornia, which would have influenced not only the session 
 of 1909 but, as a precedent, many sessions to come. 11 
 
 11 If ever the People of California secure control of the State 
 Legislature through machine-free representatives with the courage 
 to dare and the ability to do, one of the most important pieces of 
 
Organization of Assembly 33 
 
 The proposed rules in saddling "Cannonism" upon the 
 Assembly were well calculated to strengthen the machine's 
 grip upon the Legislature. 
 
 The departure from the rules of 1907 was most radi- 
 cal. Under the rules that governed the Assembly in 
 1907, committees were required to report on each bill 
 referred to them within ten days after the measure had 
 been submitted. 
 
 The rules proposed by the committee provided that 
 the report should be made as soon as "practicable." 
 
 The rules of 1907 provided that a mere majority could 
 recall a bill from committee. 
 
 Under the proposed rules a two-thirds vote would have 
 been necessary. 
 
 Under the rules of 1907 a measure could be ad- 
 vanced on the files at the request of its author. 
 
 Under the committee's rules unanimous consent of 
 the Assembly was made necessary for such advancement. 
 
 The proposed rules would have enabled the machine 
 forces to smother in committee any measure the machine 
 wished to defeat. A two-thirds vote would have been 
 necessary to suspend the rules to have a bill recalled 
 from committee, that is to say, the votes of fifty-four 
 Assemblymen. Twenty-seven Assemblymen could then 
 have held the measure in committee until the session 
 closed. 
 
 work will be to sweep aside the mass of precedent which the ma- 
 chine has for years been gradually embodying into the rules of 
 Senate and Assembly. What is needed is a set of rules that shall 
 promote the expression of the wishes of the majority. The curse 
 of technicality does not hamper the judiciary alone; it hampers 
 the legislative branch of government as well. Note Wolfe's ability 
 to deadlock the Senate after the Assembly Amendments to the 
 Direct Primary bill had been rejected. Chapter XI. 
 
34 Organization of Assembly 
 
 Had the committee-prepared rules been adopted, the 
 probabilities are that the battleground of the session 
 would have been transferred from the Senate Chamber 
 to the Assembly. 
 
 But the proposed rules were not adopted. A fight 
 against adopting the committee's report was started by 
 Drew of Fresno. Mr. Drew introduced a resolution re- 
 jecting the rules submitted by the committee, and sub- 
 stituting the rules of 1907, to govern the session of 1909. 
 Johnson of Sacramento led the defense that rallied to 
 the committee's report. But Johnson's wit failed against 
 the argument which Drew, Callan, Preston, Young and 
 Cattell offered. The gentlemen denounced the rules 
 which the committee had offered as "vicious, despotic and 
 gagging." Drew's resolution was adopted by a vote of 
 41 to 32, the committee's report rejected and the rules 
 of 1907 accepted for the session of 1909. 12 It was a 
 decided victory for the anti-machine forces, and brought 
 gloom to the scheming machine leaders. But it developed 
 later that not a few who had voted for the Drew resolu- 
 tion were safely machine ; while many who ' had voted 
 against it were anti-machine, but had voted against the 
 
 12 The vote by which this was done was as follows: 
 For the Drew resolution and against the committee rules: As- 
 semblymen Black, Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, Collum, Cos- 
 tar, Cronin, Drew, Flint, Gibbons, Hammon, Hanlon, Hayes, 
 Hewitt, Hinkle, Hopkins, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Light- 
 ner, Maher, Melrose, Mendenhall, Odom, Otis, O'Neil, Polsley, 
 Preston, Rech, Rutherford, Sackett, Silver, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, 
 Wagner, Webber, Wheelan, Whitney, Wilson and Young. 41. 
 
 Against the Drew resolution and for the committee rules: As- 
 semblymen Barndollar, Beardslee, Beban, Coghlan, Collier, Cullen, 
 Dean, Feeley, Flavelle, Fleisher, Gerdes, Greer, Griffiths, Hans, 
 Hawk, Holmquist, Johnson of Sacramento, Johnson of San Diego, 
 Johnston, Leeds, Macauley, McClelland, McManus, Moore, Mott, 
 Nelson, Ferine, Pugh, Pulcifer, Schmitt, Stanton, Transue. 32. 
 
Organization of Assembly 35 
 
 resolution under misapprehension of just what it stood 
 for. 13 
 
 Although the reform majority in the Assembly could 
 prevent the adoption of the "gag rules," it could not, after 
 it had failed to elect the Speaker, govern the appoint- 
 ment of the committees. By and large, the Assembly 
 committees were controlled as were the Senate commit- 
 tees by machine standbys. The Election Laws Commit- 
 tee, which was to pass upon the Direct Primary bill, was 
 safely in machine hands. Grove L. Johnson, as Chairman 
 of the Judiciary Committee, herded the young lawyers 
 thereon like so many sheep. Johnson was in effect the 
 committee. 
 
 The Committee on Corporations and the Committee 
 on Common Carriers, before which railroad regulation 
 bills might come, were safely in majority for the machine. 
 
 One apparent exception to the rule was the Commit- 
 tee on Public Morals, which gave the Anti-Gambling 
 bill its start toward passage. But this committee, which 
 did so much to secure the passage of the Anti-Gambling 
 bill, held up the Local Option bill at Speaker Stanton's 
 
 13 A gentleman who for a number of years has been identified 
 with the reform element in the Assembly, writes of this feature of 
 the machine's hold on the Legislature as follows: "One of the 
 principal difficulties with the Legislature as it is now constituted 
 and has been for many years past, is that the machine or or- 
 ganization always endeavors to secure the election of young men 
 who haven't very fixed opinions and who are easily influenced; not 
 knowing the machine tactics and the real object behind the legis- 
 lation they do not seem to see the necessity for standing firm 
 and for that reason are often led into voting for or against measures 
 which they would not were they more familiar with the tricks of 
 the machine men. A new grist of legislators is what the organiza- 
 tion is always looking for. They want a certain number of old 
 "stand-bys" who will do their dirty work for a mere pittance or 
 some paltry reward, real or anticipated, and with these men to 
 influence and control the younger members their purpose is easily 
 accomplished." 
 
36 Organization of Assembly 
 
 request, until the last week of the session, thus making 
 its passage in the Assembly impossible. 
 
 A curious mistake was made by the machine, when 
 Telfer of San Jose was made Chairman of the Committee 
 on Contingent Expenses. Telfer is not only anti-machine, 
 but possessed of a non-political honesty which proved 
 very distressing to the machine before the session was 
 over. 
 
 Telfer as Chairman of the committee refused to 
 "O. K." extravagant charges for the materials furnished 
 the Assembly. As a result, bills for hire of typewriters 
 had to be reduced, pencils counted and other astonishing 
 reductions made. 
 
 Telfer saved the State several hundred dollars, but 
 caused many a heartache. Telfer's appointment to a com- 
 mittee which he made important, shows that the machine 
 element as well as the anti-machine sometimes makes 
 mistakes. But in spite of its minor mistakes, in spite 
 of the anti-machine majority, so admirably did the ma- 
 chine organize the Assembly for its purposes, that in 
 the closing days of the session not only were vicious 
 measures passed without much difficulty, but the Assem- 
 bly was made the graveyard of good bills. 14 
 
 14 See Passage of Wheelan Bills, chapter XVII; Passage of 
 Change of Venue bill, chapter XVI. Examples of good bills defeated 
 In the Assembly in the closing days of the session were the Judicial 
 Column bill, and the Holohan measure removing the party circle 
 from the election ballot. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 THE MACHINE IN CONTROL. 
 
 Deliberately Held Up Measures in Committees Until the 
 Close of the Session, When Senate and Assembly 
 Were Fdrced to Take Snap Judgment on Hundreds 
 of Measures In the Confusion Thus Created, Good 
 Bills Were Defeated and Bad Ones Passed. 
 
 The Legislature organized, the machine and anti- 
 machine forces settled down to the work of the session. 
 The situation was unique. The anti-machine element 
 had a comfortable majority in the Assembly and at least 
 a bare majority in the Senate. But the machine con- 
 trolled the committees of both Houses, had selected the 
 presiding officers, and had dictated the selection of the 
 majority of the attaches. When, for example, it was 
 suggested that in the event of a close vote in the Senate 
 on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, it might be found 
 necessary to send the Sergeant-at-Arms after Sena- 
 tors who might attempt to dodge the vote, not a single 
 attache of the Sergeant-at-Arms' office could be named 
 who was in sympathy with the movement against the 
 gamblers. Incidentally, however, it was discovered that 
 the clerk of the important Senate Enrolling and Engross- 
 ing Committee had been an employee at Frank Daroux's 
 notorious Sausalito poolrooms. These were disquieting 
 discoveries for the reform element. 
 
 Although the machine controlled the strategic posi- 
 
38 Machine in Control 
 
 tions of the organization of the Legislature, it was still 
 in the minority in each House. This meant that the ma- 
 chine could not, in open fight, pass a vicious or undesira- 
 ble measure, or put through any of its schemes. The ma- 
 chine's course soon became apparent. If the machine 
 could not put laws on the statute books to its liking, it 
 could block the passage of good measures. Having 
 crafty leaders in both Senate and Assembly, and, above 
 all, controlling the committees, the machine was admira- 
 bly prepared to do this. By employing delaying tactics 
 which would have done credit to a specialist in criminal 
 defense, the machine devoted the first two months of the 
 session to the blocking of legislation. 
 
 The methods employed were very simple. As soon 
 as a bill was introduced it was referred to a committee 
 of the House in which it originated. The committee 
 would hold the measure until the reform element gave 
 indications of protesting. 15 The bill would then be re- 
 turned. If possible it would be further delayed by amend- 
 ment on second or third reading. If finally passed by 
 the House of its origin, it would be sent to the other 
 House, where it would be referred to a committee. In 
 the majority of cases the committee could hold it in- 
 definitely. In such cases as the committees were forced to 
 report on measures that had passed the other House, the 
 measure would be amended, which necessitated its being 
 
 15 The Senate Committee on Election Laws, for example, held 
 the Direct Primary bill for thirty-eight days, and finally reported 
 it back so amended that it had to be re-written. See chapters VI 
 and VII on efforts of the machine to hold the Anti-Racetrack Gam- 
 bling bill in committee. 
 
Machine in Control 39 
 
 reprinted, and again acted upon by the House of its 
 origin, 16 all of which made for delay. 
 
 But it must not be thought that the Senate and As- 
 sembly were left in idleness during the first two months 
 of the session. Such is by no means the case ; Senators 
 and Assemblymen never worked harder. The machine 
 leaders during the first month of the session craftily 
 kept the members wrangling in committees. During the 
 second month the Senate was kept working day and 
 night passing comparatively unimportant Senate bills, 
 and the Assembly working as hard passing Assembly 
 bills ; but the Senate passed very few Assembly bills and 
 the Assembly very few Senate bills. As a measure must 
 pass both Houses to become a law, few bills were sent to 
 the Governor for his approval. Thus during the first 
 two months of the session many bills passed in one house 
 or the other, but pitifully few passed the Legislature. 
 
 The reform element, working sixteen hours a day not 
 unlike so many mice in a wheel, were apparently in com- 
 plete ignorance of the situation which they were creating. 
 Senators whose bills had passed the Senate began to 
 complain that they could not get the measures out of the 
 Assembly committee; Assemblymen whose measures 
 had passed the Assembly were as loud in their charges 
 that their bills were being held up in Senate committees. 
 The machine actually turned this early dissatisfaction to 
 its advantage. Soon it was being announced on the floor 
 of the Assembly : "If Senate committees will not act on 
 Assembly bills, then the Assembly committees will not 
 
 16 It was stated on the floor of the Assembly, that were the 
 Ten Commandments to be adopted by the Assembly, the Senate 
 would find some excuse for amending them. 
 
4O Machine in Control 
 
 act on Senate bills." The Senate made the same threats 
 as to Assembly bills. So, for about a week, Senate com- 
 mittees openly slighted Assembly bills, while Assembly 
 committees in retaliation slighted Senate bills. The situa- 
 tion was very amusing; it was, too, highly satisfactory to 
 the machine. 
 
 About the first week in March the Legislature ad- 
 journed March 24 the anti-machine members awoke 
 to the fact that in spite of their day and night sessions, 
 little had been accomplished. The further disquieting 
 discovery was made that the bulk of the Assembly bills 
 which had passed the Assembly were being held in 
 Senate committees, while the Senate bills which had 
 passed the Senate, were apparently anchored in Assembly 
 committees, and that the machine controlled the com- 
 mittees. The reform members of each House had good 
 cause for alarm. Every Senator and Assemblyman has 
 his "pet" measures. The reform Senators and Assembly- 
 men found that to get their bills out of committees they 
 would have to treat with the machine. Such a Senator 
 or Assemblyman, with his constituents clamoring for the 
 passage of a bill held up in a machine-controlled com- 
 mittee, had some claim to pardon if he turned suddenly 
 attentive to the machine olive branch. And the machine, 
 by the way, always has the olive branch out. Stand in 
 with us, is their constant advance, and we will see you 
 through. 
 
 As a result of these delaying tactics, literally hundreds 
 of bills which had needlessly been held up in committees 
 were forced upon the consideration of the Senate during 
 the last three weeks of the session. Each House made 
 
Machine in Control 41 
 
 records of passing more than 100 bills a day. There was 
 little pretense of reading the measures as required by the 
 State Constitution. The clerk at the desk mumbled over 
 their titles ; they were voted upon and became laws. In 
 the rush to get through, as will be shown by example in 
 other chapters, Senators and Assemblymen voted for 
 measures to which they were openly opposed. The ma- 
 chine minority was merely reaping the benefits of a 
 situation which the cleverness of its leaders had created. 
 Although machine-advocated and unimportant meas- 
 ures could be passed in such a situation, bills which the 
 machine opposed could not be. 17 Machine-opposed 
 measures were either held up in committees until their 
 passage was out of the question, or they were denied 
 consideration in Senate or Assembly, or their advocates 
 worn out. by the tactics of the machine leaders. Senate 
 Bill 220, which removed the party circle from the election 
 ballot, passed in the Senate after a bitter contest, was held 
 up in the Assembly until five days before adjournment, 
 and then denied a second reading. Boynton's Senate Bill 
 249, providing for the arrangement of judicial candidates 
 on the ballot without designation of party affiliations, in- 
 tended to take the judiciary out of politics, which after a 
 long contest passed the Senate, was held up in the As- 
 sembly until the day before adjournment, when it was 
 denied passage. This bill was introduced in the Senate 
 on January 12. So popular was it, such was the demand 
 for its passage, that it was not openly opposed. It was 
 finally defeated on March 23, the day before adjourn- 
 
 17 The most astonishing example of this was furnished by the 
 passage of the Change of Venue bill in the Senate. See chapter 
 XVI. 
 
42 Machine in Control 
 
 ment. Thus two months and eleven days were required 
 to wear out its advocates. 
 
 About March 1, the machine began to crowd the anti- 
 machine element for early adjournment. At that time 
 not far from 2000 bills were recorded in the Senate and 
 Assembly histories. The action had the effect of a good 
 stiff push to a man sliding down hill; the anti-machine 
 forces had the votes to prevent adjournment but the 
 machine's adjournment plans added considerably to anti- 
 machine discomfiture. Senator Wolfe actually gave 
 notice that on Friday, March 5, he would move that the 
 Legislature adjourn on March 13. This would have 
 given a fortnight for consideration of nearly 2000 bills. 
 At the time of Wolfe's motion, there were pending the 
 Direct Primary bill, the Railroad Regulation bills, the 
 Commonwealth Club bills, the Islais Creek Harbor bills, 
 and scores of other important measures, the passage of 
 which had unnecessarily albeit most cleverly been de- 
 layed. 
 
 As a result of clever manipulation, dating from the 
 first day of the session, the machine was thus in the 
 closing days, in spite of the majority against it, able to 
 pass, amend or defeat measures, pretty much as its 
 leaders desired. The anti-machine forces, Republican 
 and Democratic, were during those last days, merely 
 reaping the harvest which they had sown when they per- 
 mitted the Democratic-Republican machine to take the 
 organization of the Legislature out of their hands. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 ELECTION OF UNITED STATES SENATOR. 
 
 Opposition to Perkins Overcome by the Dead Weight of 
 the Machine Movement Against His Re-election 
 Failed for Want of Leadership Proceedings Without 
 Warmth or Enthusiasm. 
 
 No funeral was ever attended by greater somberness 
 than was the re-election of George C. Perkins to the 
 United States Senate, January 12-13, 1909. The nomi- 
 nating speeches were made without enthusiam; not a 
 cheer greeted Senator or Assemblyman charged with the 
 task of putting the aged Senator in nomination. Pulcifer 
 of Alameda, who made the nominating speech in the 
 Assembly, was received with icy calmness. Even when 
 the Alamedan referred to the veteran Senator as "one 
 whose hair has grown white and whose eyes have grown 
 dim in the service of his country," not so much as a ripple 
 of applause stirred the chamber. When the speaker con- 
 cluded his review of the Senator's life and political career, 
 the incipient murmur of approval which somebody started 
 died away for want of vitality. 
 
 In the Senate, the task of nominating Perkins fell to 
 Stetson of Alameda. But Stetson's nominating speech 
 was received with no more enthusiasm than was that of 
 the shifty Pulcifer. The "system," the "organization," 
 the "machine," have it as you will, returned George C. 
 Perkins to the United States Senate. The people of Cali- 
 
44 Election of Senator 
 
 fornia had no voice in it, nor, for that matter, the Legis- 
 lature, although the majority of the Legislature was 
 opposed to the machine. In carrying out the ignoble part 
 prepared for them prepared for them by the "machine" 
 which a majority of them opposed the members of Sen- 
 ate and Assembly went through the forms prescribed 
 without a hand clap and without a cheer. 
 
 But it must not be thought that the re-election of 
 Senator Perkins was without opposition. Indeed, it met 
 with the same sort of honest but ineffective resistance that 
 attended the election of Stanton to the Speakership of the 
 Lower House. And like the campaign against Stanton 
 the opposition to Perkins got nowhere because of the lack 
 of leadership, organization and plan of action on the part 
 of the resisting legislators. 
 
 The machine had been preparing for Perkins' re- 
 election for months; but the opposition to Perkins made 
 no move until after the November elections. 
 
 The first outward sign of opposition came from 
 Assemblyman E. J. Callan of the Thirty-ninth District, 
 the fighting reform district of San Francisco. Callan, 
 three or four weeks before the Legislature convened, fell 
 into a trap which the wily Alameda County politician had 
 set some time previous. Perkins had long before invited 
 criticism of his "record," which meant his votes on issues 
 that had been passed upon by the United States Senate. 
 As a matter of fact, such votes mean little, for the mis- 
 placed "courtesy of the Senate," under which schemers 
 betray the people, makes it possible for even recognized 
 "reformers" to be forced to vote against most desirable 
 measures. The other fellows of the Perkins stripe when 
 
Election of Senator 45 
 
 brought to book on their "record" can always give in 
 defense: 'Why, your reformer, Senator So and So, did 
 the same thing.' To be sure, a La Follette does kick 
 over the traces once in a while, in which event he usually 
 votes alone, while the solemn victims of "courtesy" vote 
 against him according to Senatorial custom, not to use 
 the more expressive word, stupidity. 
 
 Thus, when Perkins craftily invited his opponents to 
 attack him on his record, they dodged the trap gingerly, 
 all save Callan. Gallan didn't walk, he rushed into it, 
 sending a scathing letter to Perkins on that gentleman's 
 Senatorial record. Perkins' reply and explanation came 
 as a counter blow. The fire was tempered out of Callan's 
 letter. Callan had permitted Perkins to select the fighting 
 ground, and Perkins had exhibited admirable judgment. 
 
 The attack on Perkins had better been made on his 
 attitude toward the shipping interests of California the 
 development of the isthmian route to New York, for 
 example; on his attitude toward the machine, whose 
 strangle-hold upon the State is locked with federal pat- 
 ronage ; on his attitude toward the so-called "Roose- 
 velt policies"; on his attitude toward the Roosevelt ad- 
 ministration, upon which he hung with the dead weight 
 of crafty, persistent obstruction. There were plenty of 
 vulnerable points in the Perkins armor, but naturally in 
 selecting the point of attack, Perkins carefully avoided 
 them. So Callan's bolt rebounded harmlessly, to the 
 astonishment of the various well-meaning reformers, and 
 the intense satisfaction of the machine, whose some- 
 what anxious leaders recognized full well that Callan's 
 discomfiture would discourage attacks from other pos- 
 sibly effective sources. 
 
46 Election of Senator 
 
 The next move against Perkins came the week before 
 the Legislature convened. A number of anti-machine 
 Republicans met at San Francisco to canvass the situation, 
 and formulate a plan to defeat Perkins if possible, it was 
 found that on joint Senate and Assembly ballot, the 
 Democrats would have twenty-nine votes and the Re- 
 publicans ninety-one. Sixty-one votes are required for 
 the election of a Senator. The Republicans at the meet- 
 ing considered these twenty-nine votes as with them in the 
 selection of an anti-machine Republican for Perkins' 
 place. The anti-machine Republicans thus in revolt 
 against the machine, themselves numbered twenty Sen- 
 ators and Assemblymen, which made forty-nine votes 
 against Perkins. In addition, an even dozen Republican 
 Senators and Assemblymen were counted upon as willing 
 to vote against Perkins if his defeat could be shown to 
 be certain. This would have given the anti-Perkins ele- 
 ment sixty-one votes, just enough to elect. For one of 
 their number to fail, meant a deadlock; for two, if Re- 
 publicans, to fail meant Perkins' election. It was a 
 slender chance, but the possibility of success kept the 
 movement alive until the hour of the Senatorial caucus. 
 
 Those who were promoting the movement were not 
 at the time aware that six of the Democratic Assembly- 
 men and one of the Democratic Senators were governed 
 by such high conceptions of their duties as citizens and 
 responsibilities as legislators, that they were to cast their 
 votes in the Senatorial election for a San Francisco saloon 
 keeper, on the ground that he is a "good fellow" and had 
 "spent money liberally for the party." This of itself 
 made the defeat of Perkins impossible. 
 
Election of Senator 47 
 
 The anti-Perkins forces were also handicapped by the 
 fact that they had no candidate. The machine had been 
 craftily booming Perkins for years; the reformers had 
 boomed nobody. 19 They were, then, without material for 
 a positive fight ; all they could do was negative, which is 
 always confession of weakness. In addition, aside from 
 the Bulletin, there was no San Francisco publication that 
 could be counted upon to back their movement. The Call 
 was openly supporting Perkins. The movement against 
 Perkins, while it admittedly represented the attitude of 
 the majority of the electors of the State, and the feeling 
 of a safe majority of both Houses of the Legislature, was 
 without one element of real strength. 20 
 
 Under the United States Revised Statutes, the Legis- 
 lature was called upon, to proceed on the second Tuesday 
 after organization, to elect Senator Perkins' successor. As 
 the Legislature had organized on January 4, the second 
 Tuesday fell on January 12. The call for the Republican 
 caucus to go through the form of selecting a candidate 
 for the Senate, was circulated the third and fourth days 
 of the session. The Republican Senators all signed it, 
 not a few of them with the non-resistance of a wretch in 
 the hands of a hangman. 
 
 19 It is interesting to note that when a good citizen gives effect- 
 ive resistance to the machine, that the machine invariably starts 
 the cry "He is a candidate for the United States Senate." The 
 open candidacy and liberal advertising of a machine man for the 
 Federal Senatorship causes no adverse comment. For an anti- 
 machine man to so aspire or the suspicion in machine breasts that 
 he so aspires is heralded as evidence of his complete unworth and 
 irresponsibility. 
 
 20 But when the machine Republicans of a State unite with 
 Democrats to elect a machine man to the Federal Senate, no such 
 difficulties attend them. Note the election by a coalition of machine 
 Republicans and machine Democrats in Illinois, of "Billy" Lorimer, 
 the notorious "blond boss" of the stockyards, to the United States 
 Senate. 
 
48 Election of Senator 
 
 More opposition developed in the Assembly. Callan 
 and three or four others' kept up their resistance to the 
 last, but when the caucus assembled on Friday evening, 
 January 8, all the Republican Senators and Assemblymen 
 who could do so were in attendance. 21 
 
 The caucus was of course hopelessly programmed for 
 Perkins. Nevertheless, the better element of the party 
 endeavored to secure some expression from Senator Per- 
 kins as to his attitude toward the Western transportation 
 problem. This led to a heated debate which kept the cau- 
 cus in session until a late hour. The debate turned on 
 the celebrated Bristow letter. 
 
 For years, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company 
 has been able to prevent effective water competition by 
 way of the Isthmus of Panama. The Government has a 
 line of steamers running from New York to the Isthmus, 
 and a railroad line across the Isthmus. With an ad- 
 ditional line of steamers running from San Francisco to 
 Panama, the Government would have a through line 
 from San Francisco to New York. This would give 
 genuine competition with the Southern Pacific system, 
 and free the State from the grasp of the transportation 
 monopoly. 
 
 In August, 1907, Hon. J. L. Bristow, now United 
 States Senator from Kansas, was appointed a Special 
 Panama Railroad Commissioner, to investigate the neces- 
 sity and feasibility of putting on the Pacific line. Mr. 
 Bristow, in a report that fairly sizzled with criticism of 
 
 21 Senator Bell, although a Republican, was excluded because 
 he would not make his peace with Walter Parker, the Southern 
 Pacific boss of the political district lying south of Tehachepi. See 
 Chapter II, Organization of the Senate. 
 
Election of Senator 49 
 
 Southern Pacific and Pacific Mail Steamship Company 
 methods, recommended that the government line be estab- 
 lished. When Pacific freight rates were arbitrarily raised 
 just before the Legislature convened, shippers of the 
 State appealed, not to Senator Perkins or to Senator 
 Flint, but to Senator Bristow from interior Kansas, ask- 
 ing that he concern himself with having government 
 steamers put on the San Francisco-Panama route. Bris- 
 tow replied that he would do what he could, that he was 
 receiving many letters from Western shippers who 
 favored the plan, but that the chief difficulty in the way 
 was the opposition of the California delegation in the 
 Senate. 
 
 This Bristow letter caused all the trouble at the Per- 
 kins caucus. The suggestion was made that Perkins 
 owed it to the State to explain the charges brought 
 against him by the Senator from Kansas. A resolution 
 was accordingly introduced providing that a telegram be 
 sent Senator Perkins calling upon him to state whether 
 the charge made by Senator Bristow were true. 
 
 Immediately the pro-Perkins people assumed the dig- 
 nified position that such a telegram would be an insult to 
 the venerable Senator from California. Nobody seems 
 to have taken the trouble to state that the Bristow charges 
 were untrue, but that the requesting of the Senator to 
 answer them would be an insult to that dignitary was 
 made subject of the warmest oratory. So warm was it, 
 that the opposition to Perkins melted away like wax 
 or putty, if putty melts until but five members of the 
 caucus had the courage to vote to ask Perkins to declare 
 himself on the transportation problem. Callan of San 
 
50 Election of Senator 
 
 Francisco voted for it, so did Drew of Fresno, so did 
 Young of Berkeley and two others. But 77 members of 
 the caucus voted against the resolution. Senator Per- 
 kins was permitted to maintain a dignified silence on the 
 Bristow charges. After the vote on the resolution, 
 Assemblyman Callan left the caucus. 
 
 But even with the Republican caucus nomination, 
 Perkins did not receive the entire Republican vote. In 
 the Assembly, Callan voted for Chester Rowell of Fresno, 
 and Sackett for Thomas R. Bard of Ventura. Fifty-six 
 of the Assembly votes, however, were cast for Perkins. 
 
 In the Senate, Perkins received thirty-two votes. The 
 thirty regular Republicans voted for him, as did Senator 
 Bell, the Independent-Republican, and Senator Caminetti, 
 Democrat. Senator Caminetti voted for Perkins because 
 Caminetti regarded Perkins, as nearly as could be deter- 
 mined, the choice of the electors to whom Caminetti owed 
 his election. Caminetti believes that the United States 
 Senator should be selected by the people of the State. The 
 nearest he could get to this was to ascertain the wishes 
 of the people of his district. He was convinced that the 
 people of his district wished to see Perkins re-elected. So, 
 regardless of partisan considerations, Caminetti the Dem- 
 ocrat voted for Perkins the Republican. Caminetti's ex- 
 planation of his vote is worthy of the most careful con- 
 sideration. 22 
 
 22 Caminetti's explanation of his vote, as printed in the Senate 
 Journal, is in full as follows: 
 
 "Mr. President: During the campaign of 1906, in the Tenth 
 Senatorial District, resulting in my election as Senator, I made the 
 question of 'The election of United States Senators by direct 
 vote of the people' one of the leading issues upon which I asked 
 the suffrage of the people. I then pledged myself in all my speeches 
 and in the press, to endeavor to secure the passage of a law by 
 the Legislature in case of my election having that object in view, 
 and in case of failure in the effort I would nevertheless follow that 
 
Election of Senator 51 
 
 The regular candidate of the minority for the Demo- 
 cratic complimentary vote was J. O. Davis, a gentleman 
 of the highest character. But eight of the Democratic 
 members voted against him. Seven of the eight, Assem- 
 blymen Black, Collum, Hopkins, Lightner, O'Neil and 
 Wheelan and Senator Hare voted for Harry P. Flannery, 
 a San Francisco saloon-keeper; the eighth, Senator Ken- 
 nedy, voted for William H. Langdon. Six Democratic 
 Senators and thirteen Democratic Assemblymen voted for 
 Mr. Davis. They were : Senators Campbell, Cartwright, 
 Curtin, Holohan, Miller, and Sanford ; Assemblymen 
 Baxter, Gibbons, Gillis, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juil- 
 liard, Maher, Mendenhall, Odom, Polsley, Preston, 
 Stuckenbruck and Webber. 
 
 principle and vote for the choice of a majority of the qualified 
 electors of that district in the selection of a Senator during my 
 term of office. 
 
 "The last session of the Legislature failed to enact the necessary 
 legislation on the subject, but the people of my district have never- 
 theless plainly indicated to me that Hon. George C. Perkins was 
 at the last election, and now is, their choice for the United States 
 Senatorship. 
 
 "Under these circumstances I feel in honor bound by my pledges 
 to the people of the Tenth Senator!? 1 District, to record the choice 
 of a majority of the qualified electors thereof for Hon. George 
 C. Perkins for United States Senator, hoping in so doing that it 
 will never again be necessary for a member of the Legislature to 
 vote the choice of the people of his district in this, or any other, 
 indirect way, but that this Legislature will rise superior to parti- 
 sanship and give to the people hereafter an opportunity, under 
 suitable laws, to vote directly for candidates for that office. Should 
 this Legislature fail in this high duty to the public, I trust that 
 the people, in whom all power resides, will hereafter take up this 
 matter in the way the people of the Tenth Senatorial District did 
 two years ago, and thus be able in all legislative districts of the 
 State to record their choice for the exalted office of United States 
 Senator." 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 THE ANTI-RACETRACK GAMBLING BILL. 
 
 Supporters of the Measure Knew What They Wanted, 
 Drew a Bill to Meet the Requirements of the Situation 
 and Refused to Compromise with the Machine Ele- 
 ment Suggestive Series of "Errors" Attended Its 
 Passage. 
 
 Of the three principal reform measures considered by 
 the Legislature of 1909 the Direct Primary bill, the 
 Railroad Regulation bill and the Anti-Racetrack Gambling 
 bill the last named was the only one to become a law 
 untrimmed of its effective features. The Anti-Racetrack 
 Gambling bill passed the Assembly, passed the Senate and 
 was signed by the Governor precisely as it had been intro- 
 duced ; there was not so much as the change of a comma 
 allowed. The result is an anti-gambling law on California 
 statute books which if it work as well as it has in other 
 States will prevent bookmaking and pool-selling, thus 
 relieving horse racing of the incubus which has made 
 the sport of kings disreputable. 23 
 
 23 The Walker-Otis bill is in full as follows: 
 
 Section 1. A new section is hereby added to the Penal Code 
 to be known as Section three hundred and thirty-seven a thereof 
 and to read as follows: 
 
 337a. Every person, who engages in poolselling or bookmaking 
 at any time or place; or who keeps or occupies any room, shed, 
 tenement, tent, booth, or building, float or vessel, or any part 
 thereof, or wha occupies any place or stand of any kind, upon 
 any public or private grounds within this State, with books, papers, 
 apparatus or paraphernalia, for the purpose of recording or regis- 
 tering bets or wagers, or of selling pools, or who records or 
 registers bets or wagers, or sells pools, upon the result of any trial 
 or contest of skill, speed or power of endurance, of man or beast 
 or between men or beasts, or upon the result of any lot, chance, 
 
Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill 53 
 
 Since the reform element succeeded in passing the 
 Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill without amendment, there 
 is widespread opinion that there was no opposition to its 
 passage. As a matter of fact, nothing is farther from 
 the truth. Before a legislator reached Sacramento, the 
 pro-gambling lobby was on the ground, and continued 
 its hold-up process until the Assembly, by a vote of 
 67 to 10, passed the measure, and by a vote of 57 to 19 
 refused to grant it reconsideration. 
 
 The writer remembers his first poll of the Sen- 
 ate on the anti-gambling issue, when only nineteen 
 Senators could be safely counted for it; 24 twenty-one 
 
 casualty, unknown or contingent event whatsoever; or who receives, 
 registers, records or forwards, or purports or pretends to receive, 
 register, record or forward, in any manner whatsoever, any money, 
 thing or consideration of value, bet or wagered, or offered for the 
 purpose of being bet or wagered, by or for any other person, or sells 
 pools, upon any such result; or who, being the owner, lessee, or 
 occupant of any room, shed, tenement, tent, booth or building, 
 float or vessel, or part thereof, or of any grounds within this State, 
 knowingly permits the same to be used or occupied for any of these 
 purposes, or therein keeps, exhibits or employs any device or ap- 
 paratus for the purpose of recording or registering such bets or 
 wagers, or the selling of such pools, or becomes the custodian or 
 depositary for gain, hire or reward of any money, property or 
 thing of value, staked, wagered or pledged, or to be wagered or 
 pledged upon any such result; or who aids, assists or abets in any 
 manner in any of the said acts, which are hereby forbidden, is 
 punishable by imprisonment in a county jail or State prison for a 
 period of not less than thirty days and not exceeding one year. 
 
 24 Had not the people of the Twenty-ninth and Thirty-first 
 Senatorial Districts revolted against the machine at the general 
 election of 1908, the Walker-Otis bill would probably have been 
 defeated in the Senate. In the chapter dealing with the passage 
 of the Miller-Drew Reciprocal Demurrage bill, it will be shown how 
 the Democratic Senators Holohan and Campbell were elected in 
 the Republican Twenty-ninth and Thirty-first Senatorial Districts, 
 not because they were Democrats, but because the Republicans of 
 those districts, recognizing the real issue before the State the ma- 
 chine against the anti-machine element voted for Holohan and 
 Campbell, knowing them to be for good government and a "square 
 deal" for all. Holohan and Campbell were from the beginning fore- 
 most in their support of the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. To be 
 sure, at the final vote, only seven Senators voted against the 
 measure. But it is generally conceded that when the session 
 opened, the gamblers had nineteen Senators who could have been 
 prevailed vrpon to vote against an effective an ti -gambling bill. Had 
 machine men sat in the seats occupied by Holohan and Campbell, 
 the gamblers would have had twenty-one votes in the Senate, and 
 the Walker-Otis bill would have been defeated. 
 
54 Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill 
 
 were necessary for its passage. To be sure, a number 
 of the Senators not included in the list of .the nineteen 
 who were from the beginning safe for the measure, were 
 pledged to vote for an anti-pool selling bill, but this did 
 not necessarily mean the effective Walker-Otis bill which 
 had been drawn to prevent pool selling and bookmaking. 
 Not a few unquestionably figured on voting for a bill that 
 would place them on record as against racetrack gamb- 
 ling, but do racetrack gambling little or no harm. 
 
 These uncertain ones were blocked in their plan 
 of action because the proponents of the Anti- 
 Gambling bill knew just what they wanted to do, namely, 
 close up poolrooms and bookmakers' booths. They took 
 the most effective way to close them up, namely, adapted 
 to California Constitution and criminal practice, the 
 Hughes anti-gambling law, the adoption of which Gov- 
 ernor Hughes forced in New York, and which in New 
 York State had proved most effective. 
 
 The bill was drawn carefully and its backers in the 
 Legislature and out of the Legislature let it be known 
 that no amendment, not so much as to change a comma, 
 would be tolerated. The measure was introduced in the 
 Senate by Walker of Santa Clara, and in the Assembly 
 by Otis of Alameda. It was known as the Walker-Otis 
 bill. 
 
 This determined stand for the passage of the measure 
 just as it had been drawn thoroughly alarmed the gam- 
 bling lobby. "Reformers" who would not "compromise" 
 proved a new experience. The machine never compro- 
 mises until it is whipped. Accordingly, when public 
 opinion demanded action on the Walker-Otis bill, the 
 
Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill 55 
 
 machine Senators began to talk of compromise. In fact, 
 up to the hour of the vote on the bill in the Senate, Sena- 
 tor Wolfe did not stop whining compromise. In his 
 speech against the passage of the bill, just before the final 
 vote was taken he insisted: "There should have been a 
 compromise measure agreed upon, a bill for which we all 
 could have voted." 
 
 The moment before Wolfe had been warning the Sen- 
 ate that to pass the Walker-Otis bill would tend to wreck 
 the Republican party in California. Just what the 
 Walker-Otis bill had to do with Republican policies Mr. 
 Wolfe would no doubt have difficulty in answering. But 
 the measure did have much to do with machine policies. 
 The machine had prevented the passage of the Anti- 
 Gambling bill two years before, and was prepared to 
 prevent the enactment of an effective anti-gambling 
 law at the session of 1909. Senator Wolfe undoubtedly 
 fell into the common error of mistaking the machine 
 for the Republican party. 
 
 However, the spirit of no compromise which gave 
 Senator Wolfe so much concern saved the Walker-Otis 
 bill, and has given California an effective law. The les- 
 son of the incident is that if effective laws are to be 
 placed on the statute books, there can be no compromise 
 with the machine. There was compromise with the ma- 
 chine in the direct primary issue, with the result that the 
 Direct Primary law is in many respects a sham. But that 
 is another story to be told in another chapter. The anti- 
 machine element did not compromise with the machine on 
 the Walker-Otis bill, with the result that an effective law 
 was passed. 
 
56 Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill 
 
 From the beginning, the anti-gambling element let it 
 be known that no suggestion of compromise would be 
 entertained. They announced boldly that if the ma- 
 chine succeeded in amending the measure, they, the 
 anti-gambling Senators and Assemblymen, would work 
 to prevent the passage of the amended bill. The 
 position of these members of the Legislature who did not 
 propose to be sidetracked by machine trickery is well illus- 
 trated by an interview with Senator Walker, which ap- 
 peared in the Sacramento Bee on January 19. 
 
 "If the Hughes bill can not pass the California Legis- 
 lature in the form that it was passed in New York," said 
 Senator Walker, "I shall vote against the compromise or 
 the amended bill. The people of California have made 
 clear their desire that an effective anti-gambling law, 
 such as New York enjoys, be placed on the statute 
 books. To substitute anything else would be betrayal." 25 
 
 So there was no compromise with the machine on the 
 Walker-Otis bill, and the people were not betrayed, as 
 they were to be later in the passage of the Direct Primary 
 bill and the Railroad Regulation bill, where there was 
 compromise with the machine. 
 
 When the machine found there was to be no compro- 
 mise, a curious series of mishaps became the lot of the 
 Walker-Otis bill, particularly in the Senate. The meas- 
 ure, when introduced, was, in the ordinary course of legis- 
 
 25 Much of the credit for this determined stand is due Earll H. 
 Webb, president of the Anti-Racetrack Gambling League, who man- 
 aged the fight for effective anti-racetrack gambling legislation not 
 only during the session of the Legislature, but before the Legis- 
 lature convened. Mr. Webb first convinced himself that the Walker- 
 Otis bill would stop pool selling and bookmaking; and that the 
 measure would stand the test of honest interpretation by the courts. 
 Then he made his fight for it. To Mr. Webb, more than to any 
 other one person, is due the credit for its passage. 
 
Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill 57 
 
 lation, referred to the Senate Committee on Public Morals. 
 But it did not reach that committee until several days 
 after its introduction. When the discovery was made 
 that it had not reached the committee, a sensation budded 
 but never bloomed. The facts, however, were brought 
 out that the measure had been reposing in the pocket of 
 a clerk instead of going to the committee. This "error" 
 was corrected, and the bill turned over to its proper 
 custodians. 
 
 Then came the discovery that the bill had not been 
 properly printed ; three words had been left out of the 
 printed bill in the State printer's office. This "error," 
 as soon as discovered by Senator Walker, was corrected. 
 It was declared to be "trivial." But the "trivial" typo- 
 graphical and clerical errors in the Direct Primary bill in 
 the final count gave the machine its opportunity to amend 
 the measure to machine liking. The writer has no doubt 
 in his own mind that the machine aimed to delay the 
 passage of the Walker-Otis bill until the end of the ses- 
 sion, as it did the Direct Primary bill, and then amend 
 it to suit machine purposes or defeat it altogether. 
 
 Error even attended the recording of the passage of 
 the bill. After a measure has passed the Senate, its title 
 must be read and approved, and an order made trans- 
 mitting it to the Assembly, all of which must be recorded 
 in the Senate Journal. The printed Senate Journal of 
 February 4, however, the day the bill was passed, merely 
 recorded the passage of the bill. Nothing appeared about 
 its title having been read, or that it had been transmitted 
 to the Assembly. Walker discovered this "error," and 
 a hasty inspection of the original minutes followed. The 
 
58 Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill 
 
 original minutes contained the proper record as follows: 
 "Title read and approved. Bill ordered transmitted to 
 the Assembly." But the two sentences had been omitted 
 from the printed journal. The patient Walker had the 
 correction made. None of these irregularities, however, 
 resulted in serious delay. Those behind the measure 
 watched their opponents closely, refused utterly to treat 
 them with the "courtesy due Senators," in fact, acted 
 under the assumption that the gambling element would 
 stop at nothing to defeat the bill. This watchfulness is 
 an important although comparatively minor reason why 
 the bill was passed. 
 
 Then came the machine's move to pass "an anti- 
 gambling bill" as a substitute for the Walker-Otis meas- 
 ure. Martinelli in the Senate and Butler in the Assembly 
 had introduced an Anti-Pool Selling, Anti-Book Making 
 bill. The measure had much to commend it but was by 
 no means so effective as the Walker-Otis bill. As a last 
 straw, the gambling element grasped at the Martinelli- 
 Butler bill, and threw their influence on the side of its 
 passage. But here they again met with the uncompro- 
 mising resistance of the reform element. There was 
 nothing left for the machine to do but make its fight on 
 the floor of Senate and of Assembly. And the fight came 
 on in a way and with a suddenness which brought con- 
 sternation upon the machine forces. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 PASSAGE OF THE WALKER-OTIS BILL. 
 
 Anti-Machine Element Forced the Issue and Compelled 
 Early Action on the Measure Evidence That Ma- 
 chine Planned to Defeat or Amend the Bill by De- 
 laying Its Passage Until Toward the End of the 
 Session. 
 
 As one looks back over the exciting first five weeks 
 of the session, when the Walker-Otis bill was under con- 
 sideration, it is plain that the machine would have pre- 
 ferred to have made its initial fight in the Senate. If de- 
 feated in the Senate, the enemies of the measure could 
 have jockeyed for delay, prevented the passage of the 
 measure until the closing hours of the session, and then 
 killed it or forced its supporters to accept amendments. 
 
 But the initial fight did not come in the Senate. The 
 Assembly was the battle-ground. The reason for this lies 
 principally in the fact that while Assemblyman W. B. 
 Griffiths, of Napa, raises fast horses, he is not a gambler, 
 and is as much opposed to the bookmaking, pool-selling 
 features of the track as Senator Walker himself. Grif- 
 fiths was made chairman of the Assembly Committee on 
 Public Morals. While this committee has sundry sins to 
 answer for, nevertheless it made an astonishingly clean 
 record on the Walker-Otis bill. On January 18, less than 
 three weeks after the Legislature had assembled, Chair- 
 man Griffiths called his committee together to take up the 
 Walker-Otis bill. 
 
6o Passage of Walker-Otis Bill 
 
 Of the nine members of the committee, seven were 
 present, Mott and Mendenhall alone failing to answer to 
 their names. Those present were: Griffiths, Cattell, 
 Young, Dean, Ferine, Fleisher and Wilson. The seven 
 members went through the bill paragraph by paragraph 
 and decided unanimously to recommend it for passage. 
 
 Had a dynamite bomb been set off under the Emery- 
 ville gambling establishment, greater consternation could 
 scarcely have seized upon the pro-gambling element. The 
 gamblers realized that the committee's prompt action 
 threatened the machine's plan to delay action on the 
 measure until the closing days of the session. For the 
 moment all interest centered in Mott and Mendenhall, 
 the two members of the committee who had been absent 
 when the measure had been considered. Twenty-four 
 hours developed the fact that Mendenhall sanctioned the 
 action of his seven associates. This made eight of the 
 nine committeemen for the bill. But the ninth member, 
 Assemblyman Mott of Alameda County, was very much 
 offended at what the committee had done. 
 
 Assemblyman Mott was elected as a Lincoln-Roose- 
 velt League member. Probably the Lincoln-Roosevelt 
 League does not like to be reminded of that unfortunate 
 fact. But the lesson of Mr. Mott is so necessary for the 
 Lincoln-Roosevelt League and all other reform move- 
 ments that the conspicuous part which Mott played 
 against reform policies cannot be too much insisted upon. 
 To be sure, Mr. Mott voted for the bill when it was up 
 for passage the Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican platform 
 of his county pledged him to it. But there is a deal of 
 
Passage of Walker-Otis Bill 61 
 
 difference between supporting a measure and voting 
 for it. 26 
 
 Mott was very much offended at what the committee 
 had done and demanded that another meeting be held. 
 Such a meeting, to accommodate Mr. Mott, was held 
 held in the office of Speaker Phil Stanton; held behind 
 closed doors; held with Jere Burke, Southern Pacific 
 lobbyist, safely entrenched across the hall from Speaker 
 Stanton's office in the back office of Sergeant-at-Arms 
 Stafford. 27 
 
 But Mott failed to change the position of his eight 
 associates. The further consideration of the measure 
 by the committee which he demanded was denied. He 
 accordingly took the fight for reconsideration to the floor 
 of the Assembly. The fact that eight of the committee 
 were against him, apparently had no weight at all with 
 Mr. Mott. 
 
 Failing to force the committee to reconsider its action 
 in recommending that the bill pass, Mott told his troubles 
 to the Assembly. In the Assembly Mott moved that the 
 measure be re-referred to the Committee on Public 
 Morals, eight members of which had joined in recom- 
 mending that it "do pass." 
 
 The motion was lost by a vote of 53 to 23. This was 
 recognized as the test vote in the Assembly on the Anti- 
 Racetrack Gambling bill. That the opponents of the bill 
 failed to make a better showing fairly paralyzed the pro- 
 
 26 Of the six votes taken in the Assembly on the Walker-Otis 
 bill issue, Mott in effect voted four times against the immediate 
 passage of the measure. See Table "D." 
 
 27 It was Jere Burke' s first appearance at the capital for the 
 session. The danger which threatened the gambling element 
 brought to the capital every machine lobbyist within reach, from 
 Frank Daroux down. It was an anxious hour for the machine. 
 
62 Passage of Walker-Otis Bill 
 
 gambling lobby. Mott, chagrined and discomfited, retired 
 in confusion. 28 
 
 Assemblyman Gibbons managed at this point to tie 
 the bill up for another day, by giving notice that on the 
 day following, he would move that the vote by which the 
 bill was refused reference to the Committee on Public 
 Morals be reconsidered. The day following Mr. Gibbons 
 made his motion but was voted down, thirty Assembly- 
 men supporting and forty-eight opposing him. 29 
 
 The Gibbons motion having been disposed of, Assem- 
 blyman Butler moved to amend the measure, by substi- 
 tuting for it the Martinelli-Butler bill. But again did the 
 anti-gambling element force the issue. The motion was 
 lost by a vote of 23 to 52. 
 
 Other proposed amendments having been voted down, 
 Mr. Otis moved that the bill be put on it.s passage the 
 next day, January 21. This was a final blow at the ma- 
 chine's purpose to delay the passage of the bill as long as 
 possible, and was met with determined opposition. But 
 the motion prevailed by a vote of 44 to 32. 
 
 The bill was on the following day put upon its final 
 
 28 This first test vote in the Assembly on the Walker-Otis bill 
 was as follows: 
 
 For Mott's motion, and in effect against the bill: Baxter, 
 Beardslee, Beban, Black, Coghlan, Collum, Cullen, Greer, Hopkins, 
 Johnson of Sacramento (Grove L.), Johnson of San Diego, John- 
 ston of Contra Costa, Macauley, McManus, Moore, Mott, Nelson, 
 Odom, O'Neil, Pugh, Schmitt, Wagner, Webber. 23. 
 
 Against Mott's motion, and in effect for the bill: Barn- 
 dollar, Beatty, Bohnett, Butler, Callan, Cattell, Collier, Costar, 
 CVonin, Dean, Drew, Flavelle, Fleisher, Flint, Gerdes, Gibbons, 
 Gillis, Griffiths, Hammon, Hanlon, Hans. Hawk, Hayes, Hewitt, 
 Hinkle, Holmquist, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, 
 Leeds, Lightner, Maher, McClellan, Melrose, Mendenhall, Otis, 
 Perine, Polsley, Preston, Pulcifer, Rech, Rutherford, Sackett, Silver, 
 Stanton, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Transue, Whitney, Wilson, Wyllie, 
 Young. 53. 
 
 29 The several votes taken on the Walker- Otis bill will be found 
 in the table "D" of the appendix. 
 
Passage of Walker-Otis Bill 63 
 
 passage. The writer considers the real test vote on the 
 bill was cast on Mott's motion to refer the measure back 
 to the Committee on Public Morals. The vote on the 
 passage of the measure counts for little under the cir- 
 cumstances. Sixty-seven Assemblymen voted for it ; only 
 ten and every one of them from San Francisco voted 
 against it. 
 
 By consulting the table showing the six votes on this 
 bill Table "D" of the appendix it will be seen that 
 eleven of the twenty-three Assemblymen who voted for 
 Mott's motion to refer the measure back to the Com- 
 mittee on Public Morals voted for its final passage. Two, 
 Baxter and Schmitt, who had voted for the Mott resolu- 
 tion, were absent when the final vote on the bill was taken, 
 leaving only ten who had voted for the Mott resolution 
 to vote against the bill. The eleven who had voted for 
 Mott's motion, but who switched to safety when the vote 
 on the bill's passage came, were : Beardslee, Greer, John- 
 son of Sacramento, 30 Johnson of San Diego, Johnston of 
 Contra Costa, Moore, Mott, Nelson, Odom, Wagner, 
 Webber 11. 
 
 There was just one more parliamentary move by 
 which the Walker-Otis bill could be delayed in the As- 
 sembly, to give notice of a motion to reconsider the vote 
 by which the measure had been passed. Grove L. John- 
 son came to the rescue with the notice. This tied the bill 
 up for another twenty-four hours. On the 22nd Johnson 
 
 30 Johnson of Sacramento voted for the bill to give notice that 
 he would the next day move for its reconsideration. Reconsidera- 
 tion can be secured only by a member voting with the majority. 
 Had Johnson voted against the bill he could not have secured its 
 reconsideration. 
 
64 Passage of Walker-Otis Bill 
 
 made his motion to reconsider but was defeated by a 
 vote of nineteen to fifty-seven. 
 
 The table of the six votes on the Walker-Otis bill 
 shows at a glance who voted consistently for the measure 
 on all of the numerous roll calls; who voted consistently 
 against it; and who were pulled backward and forward, 
 voting one moment to satisfy the public demand that the 
 bill be passed, and the next on the side of the gambling 
 interests. 31 
 
 Public opinion was running high for the passage of 
 the Walker-Otis bill by the time the measure reached the 
 Senate, after passing the Assembly, but the bill might 
 still have been held up in the Senate committee 32 had it 
 not been for the ridiculous attack which Tom Williams, 
 
 31 Attention is called to the vote on reconsideration of Assembly- 
 man Feeley, of Alameda, another Lincoln-Roosevelt member. Mr. 
 Feeley was absent when the vote on Mott's motion was taken. 
 But Mr. Feeley voted for the bill when it was on final passage, 
 thus keeping his record straight. But Mr. Feeley hastened to 
 vote for reconsideration of the measure. 
 
 Mr. Feeley, like Mr. Mott, was nominated by the Lincoln-Roose- 
 velt League because he could be elected. Mr. Feeley furnishes 
 another example of the folly of which reformers are sometimes 
 guilty, of nominating men whose best recommendation seems to 
 be that they can be elected. To be elected is very important, to be 
 sure; but if a man when elected to the Legislature is to vote 
 against reform policies, why should the anti-machine element nom- 
 inate him, thereby losing all the chance they might have had of 
 electing a man who would be in sympathy with their endeavors? 
 
 32 In 1907, a measure similar to the Walker-Otis bill was killed 
 in this way. It passed the Assembly and was in the Senate referred 
 to the Senate Committee on Public Morals. The committee refused 
 to report it back to the Senate, and friends of the measure could 
 not secure enough votes on the floor of the Senate to compel the 
 committee to act. The committee (1907) consisted of Senators 
 Irish, Leavitt, Lynch, Wolfe and Kennedy. Irish and Lynch did 
 not sit in the Senate of 1909, and could not be reappointed to the 
 committee. But Lieutenant-Governor Porter distinguished himself 
 by reappointing to the committee Wolfe, Leavitt and Kennedy. 
 Weed and Savage were added to take the places left vacant by 
 Irish and Lynch. Weed in 1907 voted with Leavitt, Wolfe and 
 Kennedy against compelling the committee to release the Anti- 
 Racetrack Gambling bill. Senator Savage (1907) voted for the 
 bill's release, but Senator Savage at the opening of the session of 
 1909, was at least counted as opposed to the Walker-Otis bill. 
 The gambling element had no complaint to make of the Committee 
 on Public Morals which Lieutenant-Governor Porter had appointed. 
 
Passage of Walker-Otis Bill 65 
 
 president of the California Jockey Club, made upon all 
 who supported the measure, or all who Williams thought 
 supported it. 
 
 The occasion was a public hearing before the Senate 
 Committee on Public Morals, at which Williams was 
 asked to present the side of the opponents of the bill. The 
 crowd that filled the Senate chamber expected from Will- 
 iams some reasons why the measure should be denied 
 passage, but it was disappointed. 
 
 Instead of giving reasons in support of his position, 
 Williams introduced the methods of the barroom into the 
 Senate chamber. He dramatically gave Rev. Frank K. 
 Baker, of Sacramento, the lie, under conditions which 
 stamped Williams as a bully and a coward. His uncalled- 
 for attack on Dr. Baker would have killed his argument, 
 but not content with this, he made probably the most as- 
 tounding attack on the Protestant clergy of the country 
 ever heard in California, certainly the most astonishing 
 ever heard in the Senate chamber of the State. 33 
 
 The racetrack man's tirade did not give the reasons 
 
 33 Williams was not the only gambler who injured the gamblers' 
 cause that night. Frank Daroux, keeper of the notorious Sausalito 
 poolrooms, interrupted A. J. Treat, of Sausalito, who was speak- 
 ing for the Walker-Otis bill, to demand of him how it is that at 
 the polls the gamblers of that city invariably defeat the anti- 
 gambling element. 
 
 "You will remember, Mr. Daroux," came 'back Treat, "that at 
 the last general election you and I discussed that question?" 
 
 'Yes," was the reply. 
 
 'And I asked you why you were in politics?" continued Treat. 
 
 'Yes," said Daroux. 
 
 'And you told me," insisted Treat, "that you were in politics 
 
 for 
 
 principle." 
 
 'Yes," admitted the poolseller. 
 
 'And I asked you how you spelt it then; and I ask you how 
 you spell it now?" 
 
 The crowd that packed the Senate Chamber, even the scores of 
 racetrack touts that had been rushed to Sacramento to give weight 
 to the side of the gamblers, went wild at this. Treat was cheered 
 to the echo. Daroux slunk back into his seat silenced and was 
 not heard from again the whole evening. 
 
66 Passage of Walker-Otis Bill 
 
 for continuance of gambling, which the people expected 
 to hear from him. Finally, when Williams was swamped 
 by questions which his insolence and tactlessness had 
 provoked, Senator Frank Leavitt came to his rescue by 
 moving adjournment. Leavitt's motion prevailed, but not 
 until Williams had effectively settled the fate of the 
 Walker-Otis bill. 
 
 The Committee on Public Morals reported the bill 
 back the next day with the recommendation that it do 
 not pass. The recommendation was that of Weed, Wolfe 
 and Leavitt. While Kennedy and Savage failed to vote 
 for the recommendation, they made no minority report. 
 But even with the unfavorable report, the measure passed 
 the Senate by a vote of 33 to 7. In the eleventh hour, 
 uncertain Senators like Welch joined the winning side, 
 but the showing made by the gamblers was, all things 
 considered, better than could have been expected. 34 
 
 In the Senate and Assembly, out of a total vote of 120, 
 the gambling element, which had year after year suc- 
 ceeded in preventing the passage of an anti-racetrack 
 gambling bill, commanded on the measure's final passage 
 but seventeen votes. The incident illustrates what aroused 
 public opinion, when it finds expression in a definite plan 
 of action, can compel. 
 
 But even with the measure's final passage, the delays 
 that attended it continued. It passed the Senate on 
 Thursday, February 4. By the following Saturday, the 
 
 34 The vote was as follows: 
 
 For the bill: Anthony, Bates, Bell, Bills, Birdsall, Black. Boyn- 
 ton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, 
 Estudillo, Holohan, Hurd, Kennedy, Lewis, Martinelli. McCartney, 
 Miller, Price, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Savage, Stetson. Stro- 
 bridge, Thompson, Walker, Welch, Willis, Wright 33. 
 
 Against the bill: Finn, Hare, Hartman, Leavitt, Reily, Weed, 
 Wolfe 7. 
 
Passage of Walker-Otis Bill 67 
 
 measure had been correctly engrossed, but could not go 
 to the Governor until it had received the signature of 
 Speaker Stanton of the Assembly. Stanton was out of 
 town. As a result, it was February 10, six days after 
 it had passed the Senate, before it went to the Governor. 
 Governor Gillett took nine days to sign it, the Senate 
 History showing that it was approved on February 19. 
 Because of the delays the gamblers were enabled to com- 
 plete their season at the Emeryville track. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 THE DIRECT PRIMARY BILL. 
 
 Parallel Between It and the Walker-Otis Bill Attempt 
 to Placate the Machine Weakened Position of Its Sup- 
 porters Most Serious Criticism Came from Advo- 
 cates of the Direct Primary Idea What the Original 
 Measure Provided Machine's Plan of Campaign. 
 
 The parallel between the Walker-Otis Anti-Racetrack 
 Gambling bill and the Wright-Stanton Direct Primary 
 bill furnishes the most suggestive feature of the Legis- 
 lative session. Each was based on a demand of a large 
 majority of the people of the State for the correction of 
 an abuse ; the one to prevent the prostitution of the race- 
 course in the interest of the gambling element ; the second 
 to prevent the domination in public affairs of the corrupt, 
 corporation-backed political boss. 
 
 Each had been discussed in the public prints for 
 months previous to the convening of the Legislature, and 
 each had been made in the popular view of affairs a sort 
 of test by which the Legislature was to be judged. 
 
 Each had the support of not only the better element of 
 electors, but the better element of each House of the Leg- 
 islature. Each had the determined secret opposition, and 
 so far as it dared, the open opposition of the machine. 
 
 The campaign which the machine planned against the 
 bills was practically the same in each instance to amend 
 the measures into a condition of ineffectiveness, and then 
 
Direct Primary Bill 69 
 
 pass them as sop to The People. This would have given 
 The People a Direct Primary law without a direct pri- 
 mary ; an Anti-Gambling law that would neither close 
 poolrooms nor interfere with bookmaking. 
 
 And here the parallel ends. 
 
 The proponents of the Anti-Gambling bill introduced 
 an Anti-Gambling measure, showed that it was the best 
 that could be drawn, and let it be known that they (the 
 supporters of the measure) would, if it were amended by 
 the machine, vote against it. 
 
 The proponents of the Direct Primary bill, on the 
 other hand, seemed possessed of the notion that they must 
 placate the machine if any Direct Primary bill were to be 
 passed. 
 
 The backers of the Anti-Gambling bill treated the 
 machine leaders as recognized enemies of the measure, 
 with whom there could be no compromise. The backers 
 of the Direct Primary bill treated the machine leaders as 
 friends and allies, inviting them to offer suggestion and 
 advice. 
 
 The results of the two campaigns speak for the ef- 
 fectiveness of the two methods. The Anti-Gambling ele- 
 ment put through an effective Anti-Gambling bill, re- 
 fusing to compromise on so much as the change of a 
 comma. But in the case of the Direct Primary bill, the 
 machine not only had the last word, but in the feature of 
 the nomination of United States Senators, the real bone 
 of contention, amended the measure very much to its 
 liking. 
 
 Long before the Legislature convened it was common 
 talk at San Francisco that the backers of the Direct Pri- 
 
70- Direct Primary Bill 
 
 mary bill were willing to accept any sort of a bill, so long 
 as a direct primary measure be passed. Inasmuch as it is 
 quite possible that a legislative enactment called Direct 
 Primary law may be a trifle worse than no Direct Pri- 
 mary law at all, the jelly-fish attitude of the leaders in 
 the movement caused no little unfavorable comment. 
 
 It did not seem to occur to the self-constituted leaders 
 that their proper course was to draw up the most effective 
 measure possible, let its effectiveness be known to the 
 people as was done in the case of the Anti-Gambling 
 bill and insist that the Legislature go on record for or 
 against it. 
 
 Instead, they endeavored to satisfy everybody, appar- 
 ently attempted to come to a compromise understanding 
 with the machine, or at least to please machine leaders. 
 Their theory seemed to be that if the measure were not 
 made too effective, the machine would not seriously oppose 
 its passage, thus insuring a glorious and at the same time, 
 easy victory. 
 
 However unwarranted this assumption from appear- 
 ances may be, such hidebound machine men as Wolfe 
 and Leavitt were consulted and flattered, apparently with 
 the idea that although they had been abused like pick- 
 pockets on previous occasions, they could be won over 
 to the Direct Primary cause. 
 
 The stupidity of this policy was shown at the end of 
 the session, when Wolfe and Leavitt dictated the terms 
 under which the Direct Primary bill should pass. Had 
 the supporters of the Anti-Gambling bill pursued the same 
 policy, and treated the machine leaders as possible friends 
 instead of recognized enemies, Wolfe, Leavitt and the 
 
Direct Primary Bill 71 
 
 other machine leaders would unquestionably have dictated 
 the provisions of the Anti-Gambling bill, and have "forced 
 that compromise which Wolfe in his speech on the 
 Walker-Otis bill regretted so bitterly had not been made. 
 
 The purpose of the Direct Primary is primarily to 
 take away from the political bosses the monopoly which 
 the convention system gives them in naming candidates 
 for office, and to place such nomination in the hands of 
 The People. To this end, under the Direct Primary laws 
 that have of recent years been adopted, the boss-con- 
 trolled convention is done away with, and the candidate 
 for office nominated by the direct vote of The People. 
 
 The play of the machine was to make the direct 
 nomination difficult and impracticable and, if possible, en- 
 tirely ineffective. The real supporters of the Direct Pri- 
 mary idea aimed to make the nomination as simple as 
 possible, and easily attained, that genuine expression of 
 the choice of the electors could be secured. 
 
 But instead of aiming at simplicity and direct methods, 
 the Direct Primary bill, introduced in the Senate by 
 Wright and in the Assembly by Stanton, 35 threw a con- 
 fusing mass of partisan detail about the selection of the 
 primary candidate. It was made practically impossible 
 for an independent citizen believing in the principles of 
 a given party, but withholding his right to exercise the 
 citizen's judgment at the polls, to become a primary candi- 
 date. Throughout, the measure made it smooth sailing 
 for the mere partisan and extremely hard for independent 
 
 35 In addition to the Wright- Stan ton bill, Senator Roseberry 
 introduced a measure providing for a postal primary. In the ap- 
 pendix will be found Senator Roseberry's views on the postal 
 primary plan. 
 
72 Direct Primary Bill 
 
 Republican or independent Democrat to secure party 
 nomination. 35a 
 
 For example, the candidate for party nomination, was, 
 according to the terms of the bill, required not only to 
 set forth the name of the party under which he might seek 
 nomination, but to make affidavit "that he affiliated with 
 said party at the last preceding general election, and either 
 that he did not vote thereat, or voted for a majority of 
 the candidates of said party at said next preceding gen- 
 eral election, and intends to so vote at the ensuing elec- 
 tion." 
 
 Thus, no citizen who had not supported the majority 
 of his party candidates at the previous election, and who 
 was unwilling to take an oath before their nomination, to 
 support a majority of the candidates at the next ensuing 
 election, was to be eligible for primary nomination to 
 office. 
 
 But this, and similar unfortunate provisions were prac- 
 tically lost sight of in the fight made over the provisions 
 for the nomination of United States Senators, and re- 
 mained in the measure as it was finally enacted into law. 
 
 It may be, as the machine element contends, that pro- 
 vision for the nomination of United States Senators has 
 no place in a Direct Primary law, but the fact remains 
 that The People have inseparably linked with the direct 
 primary idea the selection of United States Senators by 
 direct vote. 
 
 The Federal laws provide that United States Senators 
 shall be elected by the Legislature. But in States where 
 
 35a The writer has been reliably informed that this concession 
 was made to the machine before a member of the Legislature 
 reached Sacramento. 
 
Direct Primary Bill 73 
 
 Direct Primary laws have been adopted, provisions have 
 been made by which the names of candidates for . the 
 United States Senate are placed on the primary ballot 
 the same as the name of any other candidate for a State 
 office. The same Direct Primary laws give candidates 
 for the Legislature opportunity to pledge themselves to 
 accept The People's decision, and as members of the Leg- 
 islature to cast their votes for such candidate for the 
 United States Senate as The People may have named. 
 
 The Legislature is thus made to abide by The People's 
 will in electing United States Senators, precisely as the 
 Electoral College is made to abide by The People's will 
 in the election of the President. 
 
 To be sure, no candidate for the Legislature need 
 take the pledge if he does not care to do so, but it is rec- 
 ognized that where it is possible for the voter to express 
 a choice .for United States Senator, the legislative candi- 
 date who fails to pledge himself to respect The People's 
 choice would stand slim chances of election. 
 
 The Direct Primary law adopted by Oregon 35b repre- 
 sents the highest development of the plan for popular 
 selection of United States Senators. In that State the 
 
 
 
 candidate for the United States Senate is nominated the 
 same as any other candidate, the names of each success- 
 ful primary nominee going on the regular ballot the 
 same as that of any candidate for State office. 
 
 The Senatorial candidate who receives the highest 
 number of votes is not, of course, elected to the United 
 
 35b Senator Caminetti introduced a separate bill providing the 
 Oregon plan for the popular choice of United States Senators. 
 He was requested not to press its passage, BECAUSE IT MIGHT 
 INJURE THE CHANCES OF PASSAGE OF THE DIRECT PRI- 
 MARY BILL. The machine claquer is never at a loss for an ex- 
 cuse for the defeat of a meritorious measure. 
 
74 Direct Primary Bill 
 
 States Senate, but candidates to the Legislature are given 
 opportunity to pledge themselves to respect the wishes 
 of the voters and elect to the Senate the candidate who 
 is thus endorsed. The Legislative candidate may sign 
 such a pledge, or he may sign a statement that he will 
 regard the popular vote for United States Senator as 
 merely advisory and not binding. 
 
 But it is noticeable that in Oregon and other States 
 where such wholesome direct primary measures have be- 
 come laws the legislative candidate signs the pledge to 
 abide by the mandate of the electors. 
 
 Unquestionably The People of California expected 
 some such provision in the California Direct Primary law. 
 Unfortunately, however, Senator Wright, who had charge 
 of the bill, is not at all in sympathy with the Oregon plan. 
 It is claimed that the framers of the bill were as little in 
 sympathy with the Oregon plan as Senator Wright him- 
 self. At any rate, the bill, as a sort of compromise, gave 
 the electors opportunity to express their choice for United 
 States Senator within party lines. The candidate for 
 the Legislature was to be given opportunity to pledge him- 
 self to abide, not by the selection of the electors of the 
 State, but by the selection of the electors of his party. 36 
 
 36 The original Wright-Stanton bill provided two pledges, which 
 the candidate for the Legislature was given opportunity to sign. 
 The first pledge bound him to abide by the choice of the electors 
 of his party for United States Senator. It read as follows: 
 
 "I further declare to The People of California and to The 
 
 People of the (Senatorial or Assembly) District that 
 
 during my term of office, without regard to my individual prefer- 
 ence, I will always vote for that candidate for United States Senator 
 in Congress who shall have received for that office the highest num- 
 ber of votes cast by my party at the September primary election 
 next preceding the election of a Senator in Congress." 
 
 If the legislative candidate did not care to sign this pledge, he 
 was given the alternative of signing the following: 
 
 "I further declare to The People of California and to The People 
 
Direct Primary Bill 75 
 
 The name of a candidate for the United States Sen- 
 ate did not, under the original Wright-Stanton bill, go 
 on the final ticket. His choice was confined to the pri- 
 maries and was at best to be regarded only by the legis- 
 lators of his own political faith. The People of Cali- 
 fornia were not to be given a direct vote in the selection 
 of United States Senators, as are The People of Oregon. 
 
 If the framers of the Wright- Stanton Primary bill 
 thought that their compromise on the United States Sen- 
 ator feature of the measure would placate the machine, 
 they were much disappointed. The machine fought the 
 arrangement for popular selection of United States Sen- 
 ators within party lines as positively as it would have com- 
 bated the Oregon plan itself. 
 
 Under either plan, the machine recognized there was 
 always danger that the selection of a United States Sen- 
 ator would actually be made by The People. This would 
 mean loss to the machine of Federal patronage, and Fed- 
 eral patronage is the sure rock upon which the machine 
 
 in California is founded. Indeed, had either plan been 
 
 j 
 
 incorporated into law, the re-election of Senator Frank 
 Flint would have been made practically impossible. So 
 the machine fought the Wright-Stanton plan as stubbornly 
 as it would have opposed the Oregon plan. 
 
 On the other hand, the best supporters of the Direct 
 Primary idea were much disappointed that the Oregon 
 plan had not been incorporated into the bill. Not a few 
 of them grew lukewarm in their support of the measure. 
 
 of the (Senatorial or Assembly) District that dur- 
 ing my term of office I shall consider the vote of The People at any 
 primary election for United States Senator as nothing more than 
 a. recommendation, which I shall be at liberty wholly to disregard, 
 if I see fit." 
 
76 Direct Primary Bill 
 
 The extreme partisanship of its provisions and the failure 
 to provide for popular selection of United States Sen- 
 ators hurt the measure with its friends, and failed to 
 placate its enemies. From the beginning the most ef- 
 fective arguments against the bill were found in the bill 
 itself. 
 
 This was demonstrated at the public hearing, held 
 January 26th, to consider the various provisions of the 
 measure. The principal speakers were Hiram Johnson 
 and Judge John F. Davis. 
 
 Mr. Johnson dealt with the Direct Primary in a gen- 
 eral way. He spoke of it in its relation to practical poli- 
 tics, showing that an effective Direct Primary would place 
 this Government of ours back into the hands of The 
 People. That is what was wanted. Every point Johnson 
 made was received with applause from the crowd that 
 packed the Senate Chamber. And when Johnson con- 
 cluded with an appeal for "a Direct Primary law that 
 shall be a Direct Primary law in substance and not in 
 form alone," he was cheered to the echo. 
 
 Judge Davis was not so fortunate in his text as was 
 Mr. Johnson. Davis was there to discuss the details of 
 the bill. He had scarcely begun before he found himself 
 between a cross fire of questions from those on the one 
 side who wanted an effective measure passed and on the 
 other from those who wanted no Direct Primary at all. 
 The opponents of the Direct Primary scored few points ; 
 the believers in the measure did. 
 
 To save himself from a ridiculous position, Davis had 
 to evade the question whether he would rather see an 
 able and effective Democrat elected to the United States 
 
Direct Primary Bill 77 
 
 Senate than a vicious and corrupt Republican. He failed 
 as miserably in attempting to justify the extreme partisan 
 features of the bill. And the questions which Judge 
 Davis could not answer came from men who wanted to 
 see an effective Direct Primary measure enacted, not from 
 the opponents of the Direct Primary theory. 
 
 Of course this dissatisfaction of the advocates of an 
 effective law encouraged the machine to action. The 
 measure was deliberately left with the Committee on Elec- 
 tion Laws. The Anti-Gambling bill had passed both 
 Houses by February 4th, one month after the session had 
 opened. But on that date, the Committee had just begun 
 consideration of the measure. To be sure, the Election 
 Laws Committee had been stacked against the Direct Pri- 
 mary bill, but the Public Morals Committee had been 
 stacked against the Anti-Gambling bill as well. But 
 the opponents of racetrack gambling were satisfied with 
 the Walker-Otis bill, while the proponents of the Direct 
 Primary for California were by no means satisfied with 
 the Wright-Stanton bill. 
 
 So the machine dared do with the Direct Primary bill 
 what it did not dare do with the Anti-Gambling bill. The 
 Walker-Otis bill had a standing which the Wright- 
 Stanton bill did not have. 
 
 That the Committee on Election Laws did not act 
 early in the session on the Direct Primary bill was not 
 because of the purpose of Senator Estudillo, Chairman 
 of the Committee. Time after time did Estudillo call 
 meetings for consideration of the bill, and repeatedly, he 
 found only himself, and Senators Stetson and Wright in 
 attendance. Finally, in February, Senator Estudillo sue- 
 
78 Direct Primary Bill 
 
 ceeded in getting his committee together for considera- 
 tion of the all-important measure. 
 
 That the machine proposed to make the bill inopera- 
 tive was recognized from the moment the committee was 
 called to order. The manner in which this was to be 
 done developed as rapidly. The machine's plan was as 
 follows : 
 
 ( 1 ) As to candidates : 
 
 The machine proposed to amend the bill so that either 
 a majority or a high plurality vote should be required to 
 nominate candidates at the primary election. In the event 
 of no candidate for a given office receiving a majority 
 or the required plurality, the nomination was to be made 
 by a nominating convention as under the old convention 
 system. With such a provision it would have been easy 
 for the machine to introduce a large number of candi- 
 dates at the primaries, thus making it impracticable for 
 any one of them to receive a majority or even a high 
 plurality vote. This would have thrown nominations into 
 a convention. Thus, while the State would have had a 
 Direct Primary law, it would have been practically im- 
 possible to nominate a candidate under its provisions. 
 
 (2) As to United States Senators: 
 
 To deny The People a voice in the election of United 
 States Senators, the machine had two plans : 
 
 (A) To cut all provisions for the election of United 
 States Senators out of the bill. 
 
 (B) Failing in this, to amend the bill so that candi- 
 dates for the Legislature would be required to regard 
 the choice of the electors of their several districts as ad- 
 visory. The vote was in no way to be held binding, 
 
Direct Primary Bill 79 
 
 nor was a legislative candidate to be required to sign a 
 pledge to regard in any way the wishes of the electors. 
 Under this arrangement there could be as high as 100 
 candidates for the United States Senate endorsed at a 
 single election eighty from Assembly, twenty from Sen- 
 atorial districts. The effect would be, of course, the en- 
 dorsement of at least several candidates, with the result 
 that the Legislature would in the end be left to choose as 
 under the present system. Thus, while the State would 
 have a law which apparently gave The People a voice in 
 the naming of Federal Senators, there would be no change 
 whatever in the manner in which the Federal Senators 
 were nominated and elected. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 MACHINE DEFEATED IN THE SENATE. 
 
 Reform Forces, Regardless of Party, Unite to Secure the 
 Passage of an Effective Direct Primary Law Agree 
 on a Compromise Measure and Succeed in Forcing It 
 Through the Senate Machine Badly Beaten. 
 
 Senator Leroy A. Wright of San Diego introduced 
 the Direct Primary bill in the Senate on January 8th, and 
 during the month that it slumbered in the Senate Com- 
 mittee on Election Laws there was no reason to believe 
 that Senator Wright was not in sympathy with the pro- 
 visions of the measure. On February 1st, however, Sen- 
 ator Wright made the astonishing confession before the 
 Committee on Election Laws that he was not in sympa- 
 thy with that provision of his bill which gave legislative 
 candidates opportunity to pledge themselves to abide by 
 the choice of the electors of the State for United States 
 Senator. From that moment began Senator Wright's 
 fight against his own bill, which finally landed him in the 
 camp of Leavitt, Wolfe and the other machine Senators. 
 
 At the meeting of the Senate Committee on Election 
 Laws, held February 1st, the solid six on the Committee, 
 Leavitt, Wolfe, Savage, Hartman, Kennedy and Hare, 
 had voted two amendments into the bill which rendered 
 it absolutely useless for practical purposes. 
 
 The first amendment provided that a majority instead 
 of a plurality vote should nominate, a provision as uncon- 
 
Machine Defeated in Senate 81 
 
 stitutional as impracticable. The second amendment cut 
 out of the measure all provision for popular vote for 
 United States Senators. 
 
 This decided action on the part of the machine had 
 brought consternation upon Estudillo and Stetson who 
 wanted to see an effective measure passed. Wright in 
 this crisis took the floor to state his position. 
 
 "For my part," said Wright, "I would never sign a 
 pledge to vote for the candidate for United States Sen- 
 ator in Congress who shall have received for that office 
 the highest number of votes cast by my party. I do be- 
 lieve, however, that the people of this State demand a 
 partisan Direct Primary law. But I think that the people 
 of Oregon recognize that they have made a mistake in 
 going so far as they have. Under the pledge required 
 of candidates for the Legislature in the measure before 
 us (the Wright bill) a member of the Legislature might 
 find himself compelled to vote for a candidate whom the 
 voters of his district opposed. I opposed this provision 
 when the bill was drawn, but my objection was overruled. 
 I now stand for the bill as it has been introduced." 
 
 Wolfe, Leavitt and the rest of the machine Senators 
 grinned exultantly as Wright stated that he did not ap- 
 prove the provisions of his own bill. But the faces of 
 Estudillo and of Stetson, who had been looking upon 
 Wright as their leader in the pro-primary fight, fell. To 
 employ the famous expression of Speaker Stanton of the 
 Assembly, they felt the ground slipping from under their 
 feet. There was a sensation of farther slipping, when 
 Wright, author of the measure, pro-primary leader and 
 Call-heralded reformer, offered an amendment as substi- 
 
82 Machine Defeated in Senate 
 
 tute for popular State-wide choice for United States Sen- 
 ator, by making the vote for United States Senator ad- 
 visory only. 37 
 
 The grin of satisfaction on the faces of the machine 
 Senators broadened as Wright read his amendment while 
 the faces of Estudillo and Stetson grew blanker. But 
 the machine Senators were in no hurry. Things were 
 coming their way ; there was no reason for them to rush 
 matters. So they lazily took twenty-four hours to think 
 it over. Then they bluntly rejected Wright's compromise, 
 the solid six, Wolfe, Leavitt, Savage, Hartman, Kennedy 
 and Hare voting against its acceptance. 
 
 Estudillo and Stetson voted to accept the compromise. 
 They explained their votes. Their explanations showed 
 their earnestness in working for the best Direct Primary 
 measure that could be . passed which indicates what 
 might have been done under other leadership and a 
 loyalty to Wright, the accepted leader in the Direct Pri- 
 mary fight, which, to say the least, was misplaced. 
 
 "With this amendment," said Senator Stetson, in ex- 
 plaining his vote, "the bill is not one-half so strong as it 
 was before. I do not like it. But I must train with one 
 side or with the other, and for that reason shall vote for 
 Senator Wright's substitute." 
 
 Senator Estudillo stated that he voted for the amend- 
 ment against his better judgment. 
 
 "I don't believe in your amendment, Senator Wright," 
 
 37 Wright's amendment had been carefully typewritten before 
 the meeting. It read as follows: 
 
 "Party candidates for the office of United States Senator shall 
 have their name placed on the official primary election ballots of 
 their respective parties in the manner herein provided for State 
 office, provided, however, that the vote for candidate for United 
 States Senator shall be an advisory vote for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the sentiment of the voters in their respective parties." 
 
Machine Defeated in Senate 83 
 
 said Estudillo, turning to that gentleman. "I don't think 
 it amounts to anything. I vote with you against my bet- 
 ter judgment. I do not believe that this amendment will 
 give The People what they want an opportunity to vote 
 directly for candidates for the United States Senate. My 
 opinion is that we should pass a good bill or no bill at all. 
 I shall, however, yield to Senator Wright, who is the rec- 
 ognized leader in this Direct Primary fight, and vote for 
 his amendment." 
 
 And then the six machine members rejected the 
 amendment. 
 
 There wasn't much left of the Direct Primary bill. 
 The measure was, on February 16th, two weeks after the 
 application of the committee's pruning knife, reported 
 back to the Senate with all reference to election of United 
 States Senators stricken from it, and the unconstitutional 
 and impracticable majority vote required for the nomina- 
 tion of candidates for office, instead of the constitutional 
 and practical plurality vote, as originally provided in the 
 bill. 
 
 The fact should not be lost sight of that the two Sen- 
 ators on the Committee on Election Laws who led the 
 fight against the Direct Primary bill, Leavitt and Wolfe, 
 in the Committee on Public Morals led the fight against 
 the Anti-Gambling bill. Nor should it be forgotten that 
 two of their most docile followers in the Committee on 
 Election Laws, Kennedy and Hare, are "Democrats." 
 There was no partisanship shown in the ranks of the 
 opponents of the Direct Primary bill ; machine Democrats 
 and machine Republicans united for its defeat. But when 
 anti-machine Republican and anti-machine Democrats 
 
84 Machine Defeated in Senate 
 
 united for its passage, Wolfe and Leavitt were shocked 
 beyond measure. 
 
 Machine Senators denounced the anti-machine Repub- 
 licans as mongrels, enemies of the Republican party, and 
 insisted that if the anti-machine Republicans persisted in 
 continuing with the anti-machine Democrats to secure the 
 passage of an effective Direct Primary law, the Repub- 
 lican party in California would go to smash. 
 
 The arrogant course of the machine members of the 
 Election Laws Committee, had at least one good effect 
 it drove the anti-machine Republicans and the anti- 
 machine Democrats together as a matter of self-defense. 
 The anti-machine Republicans and Democrats saw the 
 machine Democrats and Republicans united to defeat the 
 passage of an effective Direct Primary measure. So the 
 anti-machine Republicans and Democrats organized that 
 they might successfully combat the organized machine 
 Democrats and Republicans. For the first time in the 
 history of the California Legislature, so far as the writer 
 knows, the Senate divided on the only practical line of 
 division for the enactment of good measures and the de- 
 feat of bad ones with the anti-machine Senators on one 
 side and the machine Senators on the other. 
 
 The "band-wagon" Senators of the Welch variety, and 
 the doubtful Senators, were left for the moment to herd 
 by themselves. 
 
 The anti-machine forces held meetings caucuses if 
 you like to decide upon the course to be pursued. They 
 numbered at first twenty members, fifteen Republicans 
 and five Democrats. The Republicans were Bell, Bird- 
 sail, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Cutten, Estudillo, Kurd, 
 
Machine Defeated in Senate 85 
 
 Price, Roseberry, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker 
 and Wright; the Democrats, Caminetti, Campbell, Cart- 
 wright, Miller and Holohan. George Van Smith, of the 
 San Francisco Call, credited with being an expert on 
 Direct Primary legislation, was admitted to the delibera- 
 tions of the twenty. 
 
 Senator Price, however, became alarmed at the ir- 
 regularity of anti-machine Republicans meeting with anti- 
 machine Democrats, gathered his virtuous partisan skirts 
 about him and fled in dismay. 
 
 Senator Caminetti also left the meeting. Caminetti is 
 a strong advocate of the Oregon plan for the election of 
 United States Senators. When Caminetti found Senator 
 Wright, the accepted leader of the pro-primary forces, 
 opposed not only to the Oregon plan, but to any plan that 
 would give electors a State-wide vote for United States 
 Senators, he refused to go to Wright's assistance. Later 
 on, however, when Wright went to Caminetti pleading for 
 support, Caminetti agreed to abide by the decisions of the 
 anti-machine caucus. Curiously enough, after the ma- 
 chine had worn the anti-machine forces put, Caminetti 
 was the only Senator who refused to accept the machine's 
 amendments to the bill which the anti-machine caucus 
 had agreed upon. 
 
 With Price and Caminetti out, the anti-machine forces 
 were reduced to eighteen Senators, although it was 
 known that Rush sympathized with the movement but 
 was not present because he had been unavoidably de- 
 tained. 
 
 The eighteen organized by electing Senator Estudillo 
 chairman, and Senator Boynton secretary. Senator Wright 
 
86 Machine Defeated in Senate 
 
 made a short address in which he virtually threw 
 up his hands. He told what the Wolfe-Leavitt ele- 
 ment had done with the bill in committee, and stated 
 that unless the anti-machine forces got together, the ma- 
 chine would amend the measure into ineffectiveness. 
 Following Wright's address the anti-machine Senators 
 considered the original Wright-Stanton bill under three 
 heads : 
 
 (1) Shall a mere plurality, or a majority, or a high 
 plurality be required to nominate at a primary election? 
 
 (2) Shall the partisan features be eliminated from 
 the measure? 
 
 (3) Shall the provisions of the measure be extended 
 to the election of United States Senators? 
 
 The first question was brought up on Stetson's mo- 
 tion that a twenty-five per cent plurality be required to 
 nominate. The machine aimed to fix the plurality at 
 forty per cent, but even the twenty-five - per cent com- 
 promise was denied. The motion received but four votes 
 in its favor. 
 
 Then came discussion of the clause quoted in the pre- 
 vious chapter, which requires of each primary candidate 
 that he make affidavit that he supported his party ticket 
 at the previous election, and proposes to support it at the 
 coming election. It was understood by all who had any- 
 thing to do with the Direct Primary bill that the clause 
 made it impossible for a primary candidate to run on 
 two primary tickets. Cartwright moved that the clause 
 be stricken from the bill. The motion was lost by a 
 vote of 14 to 4. Senators like Black of Santa Clara 
 voted against the motion in the interest of harmony, al- 
 
Machine Defeated in Senate 87 
 
 though personally they favored the elimination of all 
 partisan features. 
 
 The question of primary nomination of candidates 
 for the United States Senate was then taken up. Sen- 
 ator Wright moved that the vote for Senators be advisory 
 only, and that it be by Assembly and Senatorial districts 
 instead of State-wide, as the original bill provided. The 
 vote was as follows : 
 
 For Wright's motion Burnett, Wright 2. 
 Against Wright's motion Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boyn- 
 ton, Cartwright, Cutten, Holohan, Miller, Roseberry, Stet- 
 son, Strobridge, Walker 12. 
 
 Excised from voting Campbell, Estudillo, Hurd, 
 Thompson. 
 
 A scene of great confusion followed. Campbell, who 
 had refused to vote because he insisted upon the Oregon 
 plan of electing United States Senators by direct vote of 
 The People, insisted that the provision be incorporated 
 into the bill. He refused to be bound by any plan that 
 would restrict the election within party lines. So they 
 blocked Campbell in one corner of the room with a table, 
 and reasoned with him. Twenty-one votes were required 
 to pass the Direct Primary bill in the Senate. At that 
 time counting Rush, who was not present at the caucus, 
 the anti-machine forces had only nineteen. They could 
 not afford to lose even one of their number. 
 
 Above the confusion, Senator Holohan managed to 
 make his voice heard. 
 
 "Gentlemen," he said, "I would like to have the Ore- 
 gon plan incorporated into this bill. But that seems to 
 
88 Machine Defeated in Senate 
 
 be impracticable at this time. Eventually, I am sure Cali- 
 fornia will adopt the Oregon plan of naming the United 
 States Senator, which to my way of thinking is the most 
 common sense, the fairest, the most American plan. But 
 if we are to pass a Direct Primary measure at the present 
 session, we must reach a basis of compromise. Let us 
 now get together and stand together on a measure upon 
 which we can all agree. Let us pledge ourselves to 
 abide by the decision of this meeting, and stand or fall 
 by the bill which we have agreed upon." 
 
 Holohan's counsel prevailed. The Senators present 
 pledged themselves to abide by the decision of the meet- 
 ing and to stand or fall by the bill which they had agreed 
 upon. And Senator Leroy A. Wright was among them 
 and was bound in honor as every Senator present was 
 bound in honor to stand by the bill which had been 
 agreed upon. 
 
 The uniting of the anti-machine Senators to fight the 
 combined machine Democrats and Republicans called 
 down upon the anti-machine element the denunciation of 
 the machine press. The Calkins newspapers, for example, 
 sputtered their condemnation of Republican Senators who 
 would unite with Democratic Senators in "rump caucus." 
 
 On the other hand the San Francisco Call, at that time 
 warmly supporting the anti-machine movement in the 
 Senate, was extreme in denouncing Lieutenant-Governor 
 Porter, presiding officer of the Senate, Leavitt, Wolfe, 
 and all others who were opposing the passage of the 
 Direct Primary measure as it had originally been intro- 
 
Machine Defeated in Senate 89 
 
 duced by Wright, and as it had been agreed upon in the 
 reform caucus. 38 
 
 The fight in the Senate came on the second reading 
 of the bill February 18th. On the 16th, however, the 
 setting for the contest had been fixed by the majority of 
 the Committee on Election Laws, which reported with 
 favorable recommendation the measure as the Committee 
 had cut it to pieces. The minority of the Committee, 
 Estudillo, Stetson and Wright, reported back the bill 
 agreed upon by the non-partisan caucus of anti-machine 
 Senators. 
 
 But the fight did not come over either report. When 
 the bill came up on the 18th for second reading and 
 amendment, Senator McCartney, on behalf of the machine 
 forces, introduced a resolution over which the contest 
 waged. McCartney's resolution provided that the bill 
 should be so amended that the primary vote for United 
 States Senator should be by districts and advisory only, 
 and that for county and local offices a vote of 25 per cent 
 
 38 On February 17th the Call said of Senator Eddie Wolfe's op- 
 position to the bill: 
 
 "The fight (Direct Piimary) promises to be both spirited and 
 bitter. Eddie Wolfe of San Francisco, picked by the machine to 
 make its fight for the garroting of the Direct Primary bill, by the 
 injection of a majority nominating clause, has served notice that he 
 proposes to tear the reformers to pieces." 
 
 Of Leavitt and other machine Senators, the Call on the same 
 date said: 
 
 "Leavitt, who bossed the fight against the Otis-Walker bill, will 
 furnish the brains for the fight against the Direct Primary bill, and 
 every one of the seven who voted against the Otis-Walker bill, 
 are more or less frankly against the primary bill. Savage, who 
 did not vote against the Walker-Otis bill because his vote would 
 have done no good, and Hartman and Hare, who did vote against 
 the Otis-Walker bill, have gone on record against honest direct 
 primaries, as members of the majority of the Senate Committee on 
 Election Laws. Savage is frank enough to admit that he is op- 
 posed to any direct primary law." 
 
90 Machine Defeated in Senate 
 
 and for State offices a vote of 40 per cent should nomi- 
 nate. 39 
 
 The debate was over this resolution. The motion for 
 its adoption was defeated by a vote of twenty-seven 
 against to thirteen for. 40 
 
 Incidentally, the debate settled one of the most im- 
 portant questions affecting the bill, namely, the percentage 
 of votes to be required for primary nominations. The 
 machine, to render the measure inoperative, was contend- 
 ing for a majority or at least a high plurality vote, while 
 the anti-machine element was contending for a mere 
 plurality. The debate developed the fact, that any pro- 
 vision for other than a mere plurality vote would be un- 
 constitutional. This service was performed by Senator 
 
 39 The McCartney resolution was in full as follows: 
 "Resolved, That Senate Bill No. 3, and all pending amendments 
 
 thereto, be and the same is hereby referred to the Committee on 
 Elections and Election Laws, with the following instructions: 
 
 "1. Amend the bill so as to give an advisory vote by districts 
 on United States Senators. 
 
 "2. Amend the bill by providing for a percentage of votes be- 
 fore nomination by direct vote of the people, as follows: If the 
 highest candidate for any county or local office receive less than 
 25 per cent of the vote of his party, and if the highest candidate 
 for a State office receive less than 40 per cent of the vote of his 
 party, that the nomination shall be referred to a convention of 
 delegates elected at the same time that candidates are voted on 
 by direct vote. 
 
 "3. Amend the bill by providing that the convention aforesaid 
 shall prepare the platform of the party and perfect party organiza- 
 tion." 
 
 40 The vote in full was as follows: 
 
 Against the McCartney amendment and in effect for the bill 
 agreed upon by the anti-machine Senators: Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, 
 Black, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, 
 Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Kurd, Lewis, Martinelli, Miller, Price, 
 Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker, 
 Welch, Wright 27. 
 
 For the McCartney amendment and in effect against the bill 
 agreed upon by the anti-machine Senators: Bates, Bills, Finn, 
 Hare, Hartman, Kennedy, Leavitt, McCartney, Reily, Savage, 
 Weed, Willis, Wolfe 13. - 
 
Machine Defeated in Senate 91 
 
 Cutten of Humboldt. 41 Senator Cutten's clear presen- 
 tation of this much discussed point, settled the vote per- 
 centage question right there. When the measure was 
 under consideration by the Assembly Election Laws Com- 
 mittee, Grove L. Johnson did suggest that a 40 per cent 
 plurality be required to nominate. But no serious at- 
 tempt was made so to amend the bill, after Cutten's 
 speech, and the defeat of the McCartney amendment. 
 
 Naturally, the anti-machine forces felt warmly en- 
 couraged by this complete defeat of the machine. The 
 San Francisco Call, the recognized advocate of the Direct 
 
 41 Cutten showed that Section 13, Article XX of the State Con- 
 stitution provides that "a plurality of the votes given at any elec- 
 tion shall constitute a choice where not otherwise directed in this 
 Constitution." 
 
 Senator Cutten then proceeded to demonstrate that a primary 
 election is an election within the meaning of the terms used. The 
 Supreme Court of Indiana has so declared, and, coming nearer 
 home, Cutten showed that the California Supreme Court has so 
 held also. 
 
 In The People vs. Cavanaugh, 112 California, the Supreme Court 
 held that any primary election that should become mandatory be- 
 comes an election and only those primaries that may be optional 
 with a party as to whether or not they should be held, are not 
 elections. 
 
 The Wright- Stanton bill and the Direct Primary amendment to 
 the Constitution make the direct primaries mandatory, nor is there 
 anything in the State Constitution providing that anything other 
 than a plurality vote shall be required to nominate. For the 
 Legislature to have yielded to the machine's demand that a ma- 
 jority or high plurality vote be required to nominate and inserted 
 such a provision in the Direct Primary bill, would have been to 
 render that measure unconstitutional, for under the plain provi- 
 sions of the Constitution only a plurality vote can be required to 
 nominate. 
 
 Were a majority or even high percentage plurality vote required 
 to nominate, the Direct Primary law would have been made un- 
 constitutional, because: 
 
 1. A plurality might not be equal to the percentage or majority. 
 
 2. A percentage or majority contemplates a convention to 
 nominate in case the candidate does not receive the percentage or 
 majority, and a convention, the best authorities hold, is prohibited 
 under the constitutional amendment providing for the primary 
 election. 
 
92 Machine Defeated in Senate 
 
 Primary bill, the next day, February 19th, said of the out- 
 come: 
 
 "Twenty-seven Senators at Sacramento stood true 
 to their party pledges, and voiced the will of the 
 people in their votes on the Direct Primary bill yester- 
 day. Thirteen other Senators wrote into the record 
 conclusive proof of their unfitness for the offices they 
 hold, when they voted against the Wright-Stanton 
 bill, and for the corrupt political machine which is 
 the Southern Pacific Railroad. Every man of these 
 thirteen confessed corruptionists knew what he was 
 doing, knew whose will he was putting above The 
 People's. Every one of these thirteen betrayers of 
 the public weal has written the epitaph of his political 
 
 tombstone." 
 
 o 
 
 The Call was as generous in its praise of the anti- 
 machine Democrats and Republicans as it was bitter 
 against the machine Senators who had endeavored to 
 force the McCartney amendment into the bill. While that 
 paper printed the names of the thirteen in bold, black 
 type on the first page under the heading, "These Men 
 Voted for the Machine," in type just as bold and just as 
 black it printed in an honor column the names of the 
 twenty-seven who had voted against the McCartney 
 amendment, under the heading, "These Men Voted for 
 the People." 
 
 Said the Call in its admirable report of the defeat of 
 the McCartney amendment, of the original nineteen anti- 
 machine Senators who had organized to resist the ma- 
 chine : 
 
 "Genuine manhood has been on tap at every con- 
 ference of the independents. They have not squab- 
 
Machine Defeated in Senate 93 
 
 bled for partisan advantage. They have worked to- 
 gether to give The People an honest and genuine 
 Direct Primary measure. Senator Wright won a 
 brilliant fight. He won it with and through the 
 earnest co-operation of the unbossed Democrats and 
 Republicans." 
 
 Said the Call of the measure itself in its issue of Feb- 
 ruary 18th the day of the defeat of the machine Sen- 
 ators : 
 
 "The Direct Primary bill is The People's bill. 
 Such men as Dooling, Wright, Stanton, Davis and 
 Cartwright made it. There is no honest argument 
 against it, there will be no honest Senators against it." 
 
 Such was the view of the Call on February 18. Few 
 were willing to believe on that date that within a month 
 the Call would 'have thrown its influence on the side of 
 Leavitt and Wolfe and Warren Porter in an attempt to 
 force part of the McCartney amendment into the Direct 
 Primary bill. It did not seem possible then that within 
 a month the Call would be denouncing, ridiculing and 
 misrepresenting Senators whose efforts had resulted in 
 the defeat of the McCartney amendment because of the 
 refusal of these anti-machine Senators to join with the 
 machine Senators whom they had once defeated, and ac- 
 cept the amendment which they had once rejected. It 
 did not then seem possible that on March 18th the Call 
 would be behind the thirteen "betrayers of the public 
 weal," itself betraying the Senators whose "genuine man- 
 hood" had on February 18 appealed to its editors so 
 strongly. 
 
94 Machine Defeated in Senate 
 
 But such was to be. And, too, the combination of 
 Calkins Syndicate, Lieutenant-Governor Porter, Senator 
 Leroy A. Wright, the San Francisco Call and the thirteen 
 "betrayers of the public weal" proved too much for the 
 little band of anti-machine Senators. And what is more, 
 backed by the Call, the machine leaders finally amended 
 the Direct Primary bill, which on February 18th the Call 
 had stated very positively no honest Senator would be 
 against. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 FIGHT OVER ASSEMBLY AMENDMENTS. 
 
 Machine Succeeds in Amending the Direct Primary Bill 
 in the Assembly Assemblyman Pulcifer at Critical 
 Moment Votes with the Machine Senate, Although 
 Held Up By Machine Element for a Week, Refuses to 
 Concur in Assembly's Action. 
 
 The machine Senators, having failed to amend the 
 Direct Primary bill on its second reading, apparently ac- 
 cepted their whipping, and allowed the measure to go 
 through third reading and final passage without opposi- 
 tion. 42 
 
 Twenty-seven Senators at the final roll call voted for 
 it; not one vote was cast against it. Even Leavitt and 
 Wolfe voted for it. The anti-machine Senators had won 
 "a glorious victory." 
 
 But the victory was one tempered with grave misgiv- 
 ings on the part of careful observers of machine trickery. 
 The fact that the bill as it had passed the Senate contained 
 several serious clerical and typographical errors, and that 
 its title was unsatisfactory if not defective, worried the 
 genuine supporters of the bill not a little. The bill had 
 been loosely drawn to begin with, and as originally intro- 
 duced contained most unfortunate clerical errors, which 
 bobbed up at most inopportune times. 
 
 42 Senator Wolfe, on the day of his defeat In the Senate, told 
 the writer that he would offer no further opposition to the passage 
 of the bill. 
 
96 The Assembly Amendments 
 
 At every stage of its passage in the Senate such erroi 
 were uncovered, and after it had passed second reading 
 no less than eight serious errors were discovered to be sti 
 in the bill. The only way these errors could be correcte 
 was by amendment. 
 
 The errors were called to the attention of Senate 
 Wright and of George Van Smith of the Call, who wei 
 urged to have them corrected in the Senate that the bi 
 might go to the Assembly letter perfect, and without n< 
 cessity of amendment. 43 But both Van Smith an 
 Wright were of the opinion that time would be gained b 
 leaving the Assembly to make the corrections. 
 
 The bill as it finally passed the Senate was a defectrv 
 bill, the defects of which could be corrected in the Assen 
 bly only by amendment. In the end the fate of the mea: 
 ure was made to hinge on these clerical and typographic; 
 defects. 
 
 The Assembly Committee on Election Laws had bee 
 stacked against the passage of a Direct Primary bill, pr< 
 cisely as the Senate Committee had been. At the fir; 
 meeting held by the Committee to consider the measur 
 it became evident that the majority of the Committe 
 would, if it could, put the McCartney amendments, whic 
 had been defeated in the Senate, into the bill. 
 
 Leeds, Chairman of the Committee, moved that tl~ 
 primary vote for United States Senator be made advisor 
 and by districts only, while Grove L. Johnson, in spil 
 of the fact that such a provision is impracticable and ur 
 constitutional, stated that he wished a provision in th 
 
 43 Charles R. Detrick of Palo Alto, for example, called the atter 
 tlon of both Wright and Van Smith to the errors, and offered h 
 services for their correction, but his offer was declined. 
 
The Assembly Amendments 97 
 
 bill requiring a 40 per cent plurality to nominate, instead 
 of a mere plurality. 
 
 Leeds and Johnson, taken together, stood for precisely 
 what the machine had stood for in the Senate, namely, an 
 advisory, district vote for United States Senators and a 
 40 per cent plurality vote to nominate. 
 
 Speaker Stanton, although not a member of the Com- 
 mittee, was present at the meeting, and although he had 
 introduced the bill in the Assembly, announced that he 
 was ior$& amending the measure that the vote for United 
 States Senator should be made merely advisory and by 
 districts. This was pretty strong intimation that there 
 was trouble ahead for the Direct Primary bill. Stanton 
 was in effect throwing down his own bill. 
 
 After several meetings, the Committee adopted amend- 
 ments providing for the Leeds-suggested advisory district 
 vote for United States Senators, providing for correction 
 of the clerical and typographical errors, and providing an 
 oath from primary candidates that they would abide by 
 the platform of their party to be adopted after their nomi- 
 nation. This last amendment was defeated in the As- 
 sembly. 
 
 The only real^ opposition in the Committee to the ma- 
 chine's plan to make the primary vote for United States 
 Senators advisory only and by district, came from Assem- 
 blymen Hinkle of San Diego and Drew of Fresno. Drew 
 was ill most of the time and could not attend the meet- 
 ings. The brunt of the fight for a State-wide vote for 
 United States Senators, therefore, fell on Hinkle. 
 
 He fought well. 
 
 Every effort was made to pull him down. He was 
 told that his bills would be "killed." 
 
98 The Assembly Amendments 
 
 He was deliberately misrepresented in papers whi< 
 were endeavoring to force into the bill the advisory di 
 trict vote amendment, which, as introduced in the Sena 
 by McCartney, had been rejected by the anti-machine Se 
 ators. Leavitt and Wolfe and Warren Porter were f 
 the amendment, but the anti-machine Senators continu< 
 against it as they had on February 18th, the day of th( 
 "glorious victory" over the machine in the Direct Prima 
 fight. 
 
 But, astonishing as it may seem, the San Francis 
 Call, 44 which up to the passage of the bill in the Sena 
 had fought the machine Senators so valiantly, was givii 
 indication of siding with Wolfe and Leavitt. In its : 
 sue of March 6th, the Call stated that Hinkle was alo 
 of the Assembly Committee battling for the bill as 
 passed the Senate. In another sentence the Call sai 
 "Leeds, Rech, Hinkle and Pugh voted for the adviso 
 vote amendments." 
 
 That sentence was shown about the Capitol, and on 
 was based the story that Hinkle had "fallen down," ai 
 would vote with the machine. All this added to the co 
 fusion of the situation. 
 
 But Hinkle had not "fallen down." He was in t 
 fight just as hard as ever, and with Assemblyman Bohn< 
 organized the reform element in the Assembly to fight t 
 machine amendments. 
 
 Those who were endeavoring to force the adviso 
 district plan for nomination of Senators into the bill to< 
 the most astonishing methods to force it upon the am 
 
 44 The Call's course is all the more reprehensible from t 
 fact that it had for two years been declaring for an effective Dire 
 Primary law, and, indeed, assumed all the credit for the agitati 
 for the reform. 
 
The Assembly Amendments 99 
 
 machine Senators. For example, the San Francisco Call 
 of March 4th said of it: 
 
 "The amendments proposed by Leeds and sup- 
 ported by Stanton are not even remotely related to 
 the McCartney proposition, which was voted down 
 in the Senate." 
 
 The Call's statement was easily disproved, but it un- 
 questionably confused the anti-machine legislators, who 
 were insisting upon retaining the provision for State-wide 
 vote for Senators in the bill. 45 
 
 And then came the cry that those who were opposing 
 the Leeds-McCartney amendment were enemies of the 
 Direct Primary, for the Assembly, it was alleged, was 
 overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment, and would 
 not pass the bill without it. Jere Burke, John C. Lynch, 
 and other patriots of their ilk were most insistent in ex- 
 pression of this fear. But such men as Bohnett, Hinkle, 
 Drew and other recognized anti-machine leaders in the 
 Assembly were not to be bluffed in this way. They stood 
 firmly for the passage of the bill as it had passed the 
 Senate. 
 
 45 The Leeds amendment, which the Call stated was in no way 
 related to the McCartney amendment, read as follows: 
 
 "Party candidates for the office of United States Senator shall 
 have their names placed on the official primary election ballots 
 of their respective parties in the manner herein provided for State 
 officers, provided, however, that the vote for candidates for United 
 States Senator shall be an advisory vote for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the sentiment of the voters of the respective Senatorial 
 and Assembly Districts in the respective parties." 
 
 The McCartney amendment of that section of the bill dealing 
 with the nomination of Senators read: 
 
 "Amend the bill so as to give an advisory vote by districts on 
 United States Senators." 
 
 It will be seen that the Leeds amendment and the McCartney 
 amendment were not remotely, but very closely related; were, in 
 effect, the same. 
 
ioo The Assembly Amendments 
 
 The fight on the floor of the Assembly came over 
 Leeds' motion to amend the bill by making the vote for 
 United States Senator advisory only and by districts. 
 The vote on Leeds' motion was 37 to 37. The "over- 
 whelming majority" favoring the amendment, in spite of 
 the use of every pull at the command of the machine, had 
 not materialized. As a majority vote was necessary to 
 read the amendment into the bill, a moment more and 
 Speaker Stanton would have been forced to declare the 
 amendment lost. This would have meant final defeat for 
 the machine, and the Direct Primary bill as it had passed 
 the Senate would have gone to final passage. 
 
 At this critical moment in the bill's history, however, 
 Assemblyman Pulcifer, 46 the Lincoln-Roosevelt League 
 member from Alameda county, got into action. He had 
 voted against the amendment. But with his vote really 
 meaning defeat for the machine element, he promptly 
 changed his vote from no to aye. This made the vote 38 
 for the amendment and 36 against it. The amendment 
 
 46 A similar example of Pulcifer's trickiness attended the defeat 
 in the Assembly of Boynton's Senate bill providing for a non- 
 partisan column on the election ballot for candidates for the 
 judiciary. The measure had the backing of the reform element, 
 and passed the Senate with but little opposition. At that time 
 it would have had even easier sailing in the Assembly. But the 
 machine succeeded in preventing action on the measure in the 
 Assembly until a few hours before adjournment. In the rush of 
 the close of the session, the measure, it is alleged, was made 
 subject of pretty vicious trading. But when it came to a show- 
 down thirty-five votes were cast for the measure and twenty-nine 
 against. Six more votes would have passed it. Had there been 
 full attendance the bill would have been passed. A call of the 
 House was ordered to compel such attendance, but was finally dis- 
 continued, by Pulcifer, who had voted for the bill, voting for dis- 
 continuance, thus tying the vote. This gave Speaker Stanton an 
 opportunity to end proceedings under the call of the House, by 
 casting the deciding vote against continuance. Stanton, with Pul- 
 cifer's assistance, thus cast what was practically the deciding vote 
 that killed the bill. Had the call of the House been continued 
 until all the Assemblymen were brought in, the measure would 
 probably have been passed. 
 
The Assembly Amendments 101 
 
 which the anti-machine Senators had fought so valiantly 
 and so effectively was finally read into the bill. 47 
 
 The amendments necessary to correct the typograph- 
 ical and clerical errors which had been permitted to re- 
 main in the bill as it passed the Senate, together with a 
 number of ridiculous amendments which were finally re- 
 jected by both Houses were then adopted, and the bill 
 sent to the Senate. 48 
 
 The fact developed almost immediately that if the Sen- 
 ate refused to concur in the Assembly amendment forcing 
 the advisory district vote into the bill the Assembly 
 would recede from the amendment. As a matter of fact 
 Assemblyman Collum, who voted for the amendment 
 
 47 The vote in full was as follows: 
 
 For the amendment and against the bill as it had passed the 
 Senate: Barndollar, Beatty, .Beban, Black, Butler, Coghlan, Col- 
 lier, Collum, Cronin, Cullen, Feeley, Greer, Hammon, Hanlon, Hans, 
 Hawk, Grove L. Johnson, Johnson of San Diego, Johnston of Con- 
 tra Costa, Leeds, Lightner, Macauley, McClellan, McManus, Mel- 
 rose, Mott, Nelson, O'Neil, Ferine, Pugh, Pulcifer, Rech, Ruther- 
 ford, Schmitt, Stanton, Transue, Wagner, Wheelan 38. 
 
 Against the amendment and for the bill as it passed the Senate: 
 Beardslee, Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, Costar, Dean, Drew, 
 Flint, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Griffiths, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, 
 Holmquist, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, Maher, Men- 
 denhall, Moore, Odom, Otis, Polsley r Preston, Sackett, Silver, 
 Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Whitney, Wilson, Wyllie, Young 36. 
 
 48 When a bill passed by the Senate is amended in the Assembly 
 the measure goes back to the Senate. If the Senate concur in 
 the amendments, that settles the matter. But if the Senate refuse 
 to concur, then the bill goes back to the Assembly, where that body 
 may recede from its amendments or refuse to recede. 
 
 If the Assembly recede, the measure goes to the Governor just 
 as it passed the Senate. If the Assembly refuse to recede, the 
 measure is referred to a conference committee of six, three ap- 
 pointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and three by the President 
 of the Senate. 
 
 The Conference Committee may consider only the amendments 
 adopted by the Assembly. If the Conference Committee fail to 
 agree, or if either Senate or Assembly reject its report, then the 
 bill goes to a Committee on Free Conference. The Committee on 
 Free Conference is permitted to make any amendment it sees 
 fit. If its report be rejected by either Senate or Assembly, the bill 
 gets no further; is dead, without possibility of resurrection. 
 
 Such was the maze of technicality into which Lincoln-Roosevelt 
 Leaguer Pulcifer threw, the Direct Primary bill when he changed 
 his vote from no to aye on the Leeds amendment. 
 
IO2 The Assembly Amendments 
 
 March 9th, voted on March 22d to recede from it. Had 
 the anti-machine forces in the Assembly been held to- 
 gether, as they could have been had the question of re- 
 ceding been put up to them fairly, few other changes with 
 Collum's would have been sufficient to assure success for 
 the anti-machine forces. 
 
 But in spite of the situation in the Assembly, Senator 
 Wright, who was by this time working openly with 
 Wolfe, Leavitt and Warren Porter to secure the adoption 
 of the Leeds amendment (which as the McCartney 
 amendment the Senate had already rejected), was insist- 
 ing that the Assembly would not recede, and that unless 
 the Senate concurred with the Assembly amendment, 
 nothing could save the Direct Primary bill from being 
 cut to pieces in Free Conference Committee. 
 
 Nevertheless, the Senate by a vote of 19 against to 20 
 for concurrence, did refuse to concur, 21 votes being nec- 
 essary for concurrence. 
 
 Senator Stetson was absent when the vote was taken, 
 being ill at his home in Alameda county. Had he been 
 present he would have voted against concurrence in the 
 amendments. This would have made the vote 20 to 20. 
 
 Originally, on February 18th, twenty-seven Senators 
 had voted against the Leeds-McCartney amendment, but 
 when Senator Wright switched to the machine, Senators 
 Hurd and Burnett wobbled along after him. The four 
 band-wagon Senators, Lewis, Martinelli, Price and Welch, 
 tagged along after them. This made the vote : 
 
 Against concurrence in the amendment and for the 
 bill as it passed the Senate Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, 
 Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Cur- 
 
The Assembly Amendments 103 
 
 tin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Miller, Roseberry, Rush, 
 Sanford, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker 19. 
 
 For concurrence in the amendment and against the 
 bill as it originally passed the Senate Bates, Bills, Bur- 
 nett, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Kurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, 
 Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, 
 Weed, Welch, Willis, Wolfe, Wright 20. 
 
 Every one of the thirteen Senators who opposed the 
 bill when it was first before the Senate, voted to concur. 
 Wright, Welch, Price, Martinelli, Lewis, Burnett and 
 Kurd joining them, made their number twenty. 
 
 Under the rules which govern the Senate, in the 
 event of a tie vote, all the Senators voting, the President 
 of the Senate, in this case Warren Porter, has the cast- 
 ing vote. 
 
 Had Senator Stetson been present, he would have 
 voted with the anti-machine Senators. This would have 
 made the vote 20 to 20. Warren Porter would then 
 have had the deciding vote. He would have voted to 
 concur. Senator Stetson's illness temporarily saved the 
 Direct Primary bill. 
 
 In the ordinary course of legislative business, the 
 Senate having refused to concur in the Assembly amend- 
 ment, the bill would have gone back to the Assembly, 
 the Assembly would have receded from the amendment, 
 and the machine's defeat would have been final. But 
 the quick-witted Wolfe saw a way to prevent such action. 
 He promptly moved that the Senate reconsider the vote 
 by which it had refused to concur in the Assembly 
 amendment. Wolfe commanded twenty votes of the 
 Senators present, the anti-machine element nineteen. 
 
IO4 The Assembly Amendments 
 
 Wolfe required, however, twenty-one to compel recon- 
 sideration. But when the question came up, Wolfe still 
 lacked the one vote necessary for reconsideration, the 
 anti-machine element was still without the necessary 
 twenty votes to tie the Senate, thus giving Warren Por- 
 ter the deciding vote. Wolfe, however, with his twenty 
 votes, postponed consideration of his motion to recon- 
 sider the vote by which the Senate had refused to concur. 
 A somewhat extraordinary parliamentary situation, to 
 say the least. But it answered the machine's purpose. 
 For a week 49a the machine was able to hold the Senate 
 in deadlock. All business was practically suspended. For 
 hours the reform Senators were compelled to sit in 
 their seats waiting the pleasure of President Porter and 
 President Pro Tern. Wolfe to call the Senate to order. 
 The folly of permitting the machine to organize the 
 Senate was forced home to every good-government man 
 present. The machine because it controlled the Senate 
 organization could and did arrogantly override the 
 rights of the Senate, giving the ultimatum that no busi- 
 ness should be transacted until the anti-machine Sena- 
 tors had concurred in the machine amendments to the 
 Direct Primary bill. 
 
 The machine's play was to bully, bluff or beg one of 
 
 49a The postponements were made from hour to hour. The 
 reform Senators would be informed that the matter would be 
 taken up at eleven o'clock in the forenoon. At that hour, the 
 machine would postpone consideration until three o'clock in the 
 afternoon. At three o'clock, further postponement would be 
 ordered until eight o'clock. At eight o'clock there would be post- 
 ponement until the next morning. Twenty-one votes were neces- 
 sary for concurrence in the Assembly Amendments, but a ma- 
 jority of those voting was sufficient to secure postponement. The 
 machine on this issue controlled twenty votes, one short of 
 enought for concurrence, but one more than the nineteen con- 
 trolled by the anti-machine element, and hence enough to post- 
 pone from hour to hour consideration of Wolfe's motion. 
 
The Assembly Amendments 105 
 
 the anti-machine Senators to desert to the machine, which 
 would have given the machine twenty-one votes, enough 
 for concurrence, or, failing in this, to force the attend- 
 ance of Senator Stetson, which would have tied the 
 Senate, thus giving Warren Porter the deciding vote. 
 But before Senator Stetson, pale and plainly on the verge 
 of breakdown, could be brought to Sacramento, Senator 
 Black became very ill and was obliged to go to his home 
 at Palo Alto. Thus when Stetson returned, the vote 
 stood 20 to 19, precisely where it had been before. Per- 
 former Porter was still denied the privilege of casting 
 the deciding vote. For once the machine found itself 
 squarely against a stone wall, with the sympathy of 
 the public strongly against its creatures and methods. 
 Night after night as the fight went on, the Senate gal- 
 lery was packed with interested spectators, who cheered 
 the anti-machine Senators to the echo. There were no 
 cheers for the machine, but on one occasion at least the 
 machine was hissed, when one of its creatures attempted 
 an attack on Senator Black. 
 
 Never did the machine work harder to switch anti- 
 machine Senators to its side. Jere Burke had charac- 
 teristic corner conferences, Johnny Lynch labored with 
 anti-machine Senators openly on the floor of the Senate 
 chamber, as did Warren Porter. From a southern county 
 came the Chairman of the Republican County Committee 
 to tell his Senator who was voting with the anti-machine 
 element what a mistake he was making. P. H. McCar- 
 thy ''happened in" and worked with George Van Smith 
 of the Call and Eddie Wolfe in the fruitless attempt 
 
io6 The Assembly Amendments 
 
 made to "pull down" Senator Anthony. 49 Anti-machine 
 Senators found their pet bills being held up in Assembly 
 Committees. 
 
 But the nineteen anti-machine members stood firm, 
 in spite of the fact that Senator Wright, who had orig- 
 inally led them, and George Van Smith, of the Call, who 
 had originally advised them, and the Call, which had 
 originally backed them, were all working on the side of 
 Leavitt and Wolfe and Porter and the thirteen Senators 
 of whom the Call had said on February 19, when they 
 had voted for the amendment which they were still sup- 
 porting, "Every man of these thirteen confessed corrup- 
 tionists knew what he was doing knew whose will he 
 was putting above The People's will. Every one of 
 these thirteen betrayers of the public weal has written 
 the epitaph of his political tombstone." 
 
 And then the machine forces attacked Senator Black. 
 Although Senator Black was lying ill at his home at 
 Palo Alto, the Call on March 18 stated that he was in 
 hiding in Sacramento. 
 
 The Call on the same date expressed its deep regret 
 for and its utter condemnation of, the "asinine filibuster, 
 designed to prevent a tie vote which would be decided 
 by the Lieutenant-Governor, Warren Porter, in favor of 
 concurrence in the Assembly amendment to the Direct 
 Primary bill." 
 
 On February 18 the Call had objected very strenu- 
 ously to Porter's attitude toward the Direct Primary 
 bill. The Call on that date said : 
 
 49 It is very amusing less than three months later to see those 
 partners of the Direct Primary fight, P. H. McCarthy and the San 
 Francisco Call, in fierce political conflict at San Francisco. 
 
The Assembly Amendments 107 
 
 "To-day the wolves (a pet name for the ma- 
 chine Senators), urged by their masters, will make 
 their last stand in the Senate against a people de- 
 termined to be free. Warren Porter, the Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor of the fatted soul, who professes 
 all the virtues and practices all political evil, will 
 be the whipper-in." 
 
 One month later, March 18, the Call was complain- 
 ing bitterly that the anti-machine Senators would not per- 
 mit the same "Lieutenant-Governor of the fatted soul" 
 to whip them into line for the amendment to the Direct 
 Primary bill, which they had rejected on February 18, 
 and for which the Call had praised them generously. 
 The Call's special representative at Sacramento, George 
 Van Smith, was by this time working openly with Por- 
 ter, Wolfe, Leavitt, Hartman, Lynch and Burke to com- 
 pel Senate concurrence in the Assembly amendments, 
 while Senators Boynton, Black, Miller, Campbell, Holo- 
 han, Stetson and the other anti-machine Senators whom 
 the Call had formerly backed in their efforts against the 
 machine, had become "pin-head politicians," in the col- 
 umns of the Call, intent upon defeat of the Direct Pri- 
 mary bill. 
 
 The Call's extraordinary change and outrageous con- 
 demnation of the anti-machine Senators of course brought 
 its protest. The people of Palo Alto met in mass meet- 
 ing on March 21st, and adopted resolutions condemning 
 the Call's course. 50 Senator Black from his sick bed 
 
 50 The resolutions adopted at Palo Alto read: "Resolved, That 
 we note with disapproval the changed attitude of the San Francisco 
 Call upon the Direct Primary bill, and its attempt to discredit 
 Senator Black and other friends of good government in the Legis- 
 lature." 
 
io8 The Assembly Amendments 
 
 wrote a letter showing the Call's insincerity and breach 
 of faith with the pro-primary Senators. 51 The paper 
 was bitterly denounced on the floor of the Senate. 
 
 But throughout the State the newspapers which stand 
 for good government, and incidentally for an effective 
 direct primary law, were firm in their support of the anti- 
 machine Senators. Just before Senator Black was taken 
 ill, for example, at the time when Senator Stetson was 
 unable to be at the capital, the Sacramento Star, in an 
 editorial article under the heading, "Illness a Blessing," 
 cleverly put in a nutshell what the people were thinking 
 and the reform press was saying. "We do not desire 
 to wish Senator Stetson any bad luck," said The Star, 
 "but if his slight indisposition should continue for a few 
 
 51 Senator Black's letter covered the situation fully. It was 
 addressed to the press of the State, and was as follows: "No 
 decent primary law would have been possible but' for the com- 
 bination of thirteen Republicans and seven Democrats in the 
 Senate who have stood together throughout this whole fight. 
 Senator Wright and the 'Call' were powerless in the contest until 
 these twenty Senators got behind them. 
 
 "One of the conditions of this combination was a State-wide 
 vote on United States Senator, and the 'Call' fought with us 
 against Senators Wolfe and Leavitt on this proposition. Im- 
 mediately after the bill left the Senate and got into the Assembly 
 the 'Call' began to display a lack of interest in the primary fight. 
 If it had maintained its attitude in favor of the original bill these 
 amendments never would have been proposed by the Assembly. 
 
 "When the question of concurring in the Assembly amendments 
 comes up, we find the 'Call' and Senator Wright deserting the men 
 who made the primary fight in the Senate and going over to the 
 camp of the 'push' politicians, who have always favored the district 
 plan of nominating United States Senators. 
 
 "I take issue with the 'Call' when it says: 'As a matter of fact, 
 the whole question of the United States Senatorship is of little im- 
 portance to the people of California,' etc. 
 
 "The United States Senatorship is the most important office to 
 be filled by the people of California under the provisions of the 
 proposed Direct Primary law. The so-called district plan for 
 nominating United States Senators is worse than a makeshift. It 
 provides for no pledge on the part of candidates and would be 
 purely a straw vote, binding on nobody. 
 
 "The stubborn fact remains that the 'Call,' after leading in the 
 fight for an honest Direct Primary law for two years and a half, 
 has deserted the cause of the people at the most critical moment 
 of the struggle. 
 
 "MARSHALL BLACK.'" 
 
The Assembly Amendments 109 
 
 days, or, in lieu of that, if some other solon of the same 
 faith as regards the Primary bill can only contract some 
 minor ailment, there will be more joy than sorrow among 
 the people who want something approaching a real direct 
 primary." 52 
 
 Matters were brought to a climax when the per- 
 formers through Senator Weed who was, by the way, 
 Chairman of the Committee on Public Morals, which 
 reported adversely on the Walker-Otis bill introduced 
 a resolution, authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring 
 Senator Black to Sacramento, even though a special 
 engine and coach be chartered for the purpose. 53 The 
 
 52 The Star's clever editorial article is worth preserving. It 
 was in full as follows: "There are times, it appears, when the 
 illness of a statesman is good for the people. We do not desire to 
 wish Senator Stetson any bad luck, but if his slight indisposition 
 should continue for a few days, or, in lieu of that, if some other 
 solon of the same faith as regards the Primary bill, can only contract 
 some minor ailment, there will be more joy than sorrow among the 
 people who want something approaching a real direct primary. 
 
 "As explained in The Star's news columns, had Senator Stetson 
 not been ill, a tie vote on the proposition to concur with the As- 
 sembly in amending the primary bill, presumably in the interest of 
 Senator Frank Flint and generally to machine advantage, would 
 have occurred. And then it's unkind to say such things any 
 person with a grain of sense would know that Mr. 'Performing' 
 Porter, our honored and distinguished Lieutenant-Governor, would 
 break the tie by casting his vote for the machine. 
 
 "The evident intention of Senators who stand for the Wright 
 bill in its original form, which is a start toward a real direct 
 primary (and that doesn't include Senator Wright, more's the pity) 
 to dodge the possibility of the tie vote by absenting themselves 
 without leave is regrettable regrettable only because it is neces- 
 sary. Their action, with the aim of serving the best interests of 
 the people, is highly honorable compared with the tactics of the 
 powers that be, even unto the Governor himself, who have been 
 trying every means to club legislators into line to stand by the 
 'organization' and defeat the will of the people. 
 
 "It's hard to be very sorry just now over Senator Stetson's 
 illness, but he deserves a vote of thanks for contracting that cold. 
 And another for being on the right side." 
 
 53 The Weed resolution reads as follows: "Resolved, By the 
 Senate of the State of California, That the President of the Senate 
 be and he is hereby authorized to instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to 
 proceed at once to Palo Alto with a competent physician, to be 
 named by the President of the Senate, for the purpose of ascer- 
 
i io The Assembly Amendments 
 
 resolution brought forth indignant protest from the anti- 
 machine Senators, and a telegram from Senator Black 
 to Warren Porter, denouncing the unwarranted proceed- 
 ings. 54 Nevertheless, Doctor Douglass W. Montgomery 
 of San Francisco, in spite of the fact that four reputable 
 physicians, Dr. Howard Black, Dr. H. B. Reynolds, Dr. 
 J. C. Spencer and Dr. R. L. Wilbur, had certified that 
 Senator Black's physical condition did not permit of his 
 being removed to Sacramento, went to Palo Alto with 
 the Sergeant-at-Arms to investigate the sick Senator. 
 Montgomery's investigations seem to have been confined 
 to the outside of Senator Black's house. 55 At any rate 
 he did not see Senator Black. The performance was 
 given its sordid feature by Montgomery charging the 
 Seriate $400 for his services. 
 
 The Montgomery incident demonstrated clearly that 
 
 taining whether it is safe for Senator Black to proceed at once to 
 Sacramento, to attend as a member of the Senate the thirty-eighth 
 session of the California Legislature, and 
 
 "Be it further resolved, That in the event that such examina- 
 tion results in disclosing a state of health wherein it will be safe 
 for Senator Black to be present, then the Sergeant-at-Arms shall 
 bring him at once to Sacramento and, if necessary, to secure an 
 engine and coach for that purpose." 
 
 54 Black's answering telegram was in full as follows: "I beg to 
 inform you (Lieutenant- Governor Porter) and through you the 
 Senate of California that I regard the resolutions adopted last 
 Saturday in reference to my absence, as discourteous, as a re- 
 flection on my honor and integrity and as proposing an infringe- 
 ment on my privileges and rights as a Senator and citizen. I have, 
 therefore declined to see the persons sent here under that resolu- 
 tion, and shall continue to decline to see them until my physicians 
 inform me that I can with safety return to Sacramento. 
 
 "Ample evidence of my physical condition has been presented to 
 your representatives by four reputable physicians, and these 
 physicians have furnished and will furnish evidence of my condi- 
 tion from time to time as requested by you or by the Senate. 
 
 "MARSHALL BLACK." 
 
 of. 
 
 Dr. Montgomery's $400 report will be found in the appendix. 
 
The Assembly Amendments 1 1 1 
 
 the machine was whipped. 56 Senator Wolfe accordingly 
 on Monday, March 22, after holding the Senate in dead- 
 lock more than a week, moved that the vote whereby the 
 Senate had refused to concur in the Assembly amend- 
 ment to the Direct Primary bill, be reconsidered. This, 
 the Senate^as a matter of courtesy, at Senator Wolfe's 
 request, did. It then refused to concur in the Assem- 
 bly's objectionable amendment. For the second time, the 
 Senate went on record against the machine's advisory 
 district-vote plan for the election of United States Sen- 
 ators. For the second time the anti-machine element 
 in the Senate, in its efforts to secure the passage of an 
 effective direct primary measure, had, fighting fair, and 
 in the open, and above board always, defeated the ma- 
 chine. The machine thereupon met the anti-machine ele- 
 ment with a trick that completely turned the tables, a 
 trick by which the anti-machine forces were defeated, 
 and the machine element placed in a position to amend 
 the bill as it might see fit. 
 
 56 The schemes resorted to to get Black back to Sacramento are 
 almost beyond belief. It was even intimated to him that his bills 
 would be held up if he did not return. The following telegram 
 scarcely requires comment: 
 
 Sacramento Cal Mch 20-09 
 Hon. Marshall Black, 
 
 Palo Alto, Cal. 
 
 Your bill to issue bonds for general improvement fund before 
 me. I would like to have you here to explain its provisions and the 
 necessity for it. 
 12-50Pm J. N. GILLETT. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 MACHINE AMENDS DIRECT PRIMARY BILL. 57 
 
 By Trick Prevents Senate From Concurring in Amend- 
 ments to Correct Clerical and Typographical Errors, 
 Thus Creating a Situation Which Threw the Meas- 
 ure Into a Committee on Free Conference With 
 Power to Amend. 
 
 It is a very good rule to be sure that your rattlesnake 
 is dead before placing yourself in a position to be bitten. 
 The reform Senators neglected this rule, with the result 
 that after they had the machine element whipped on the 
 direct primary issue, they placed themselves in a posi- 
 tion where the "performers" struck at them viciously, 
 and snatched victory from them. 
 
 As was shown in a previous chapter, the Direct Pri- 
 mary bill, after it had originally passed the Senate in the 
 face of machine opposition, was allowed to go to the 
 Assembly containing several serious clerical and typo- 
 graphical errors. The Assembly corrected these errors 
 
 57 The plain citizen will marvel at the lengths to which the 
 machine went to prevent a provision being incorporated into the 
 Direct Primary bill for the selection by State-wide vote of United 
 States Senators. The plain citizen does not, however, look upon a 
 United States Senator through the same eyes as the machine. To 
 the plain citizen that United States Senator is desirable who rep- 
 resents policies beneficial to his country and his State; to the ma- 
 chine that United States Senator is desirable who will in effect 
 turn his Federal patronage over to the machine. The election of 
 United States Senators by State-wide vote would take their ap- 
 pointment out of machine hands, which would mean loss to the 
 machine of Federal patronage. For this reason the almost unbe- 
 lievable lengths to which the machine went to prevent the provi- 
 sion for State-wide vote for the election of United States Senators 
 being incorporated into the Direct Primary bill. 
 
Machine Amends Bill 113 
 
 by a series of ten amendments. It was necessary for 
 the Senate to concur in these amendments to get the 
 bill into proper form. The amendments added in the 
 Assembly to which the anti-machine Senators took ex- 
 ception, were seven in number and dealt principally 
 with the changing of the method of electing United 
 States Senators, from the plan of State-wide vote, to 
 that of district, advisory vote. The seven were known 
 as the "vicious amendments" ; the ten correcting the typo- 
 graphical errors were called the "necessary amendments." 
 There is no good reason why the ten necessary amend- 
 ments should not have been made before the bill was 
 first sent to the Assembly. But they were not, and the 
 errors which were thus left in the bill served the ma- 
 chine most advantageously when the final fight came. 
 After Wolfe had given up hope of compelling the reform 
 Senators to concur in the vicious amendments read into 
 the bill in the Assembly, his play was to bring about a 
 situation by which the bill would be thrown into a Com- 
 mittee on Free Conference. The committee would be 
 appointed by President Porter of the Senate, and by 
 Speaker Stanton of the Assembly. Such a committee 
 would, of course, be in sympathy with machine policies, 
 and could be counted upon to amend the bill to the 
 machine's liking. There is little doubt that the machine 
 leaders in the Senate and the machine leaders in the 
 Assembly acted in conjunction in the proceedings which 
 followed Senator Wolfe's action in abandoning his efforts 
 to force the anti-machine Senators to support the so- 
 called vicious Assembly amendments. 
 
 Wolfe's first move was to ask as a matter of courtesy 
 
ii4 Machine Amends Bill 
 
 that the Senate adopt his motion to reconsider the vote 
 by which it had the week before refused to concur in 
 the Assembly amendment. This request the reform 
 element granted, purely as a matter of courtesy. Wolfe 
 then edged up a step nearer. 
 
 No sooner had he received the courtesy of reconsid- 
 eration than both he and Leavitt were to the fore with 
 a suggestion that the Senate should refuse to concur in 
 all the amendments and let them be threshed out in the 
 Assembly. The purpose of the two machine leaders was 
 apparent. 
 
 Had the Senate concurred in the ten Assembly 
 amendments made necessary to correct typographical er- 
 rors, and refused to concur in the seven objectionable 
 amendments, all that would have been necessary would 
 have been for the Assembly to recede from its objection- 
 able amendments. But if Wolfe could so engineer mat- 
 ters that the Senate would refuse to concur in all the 
 amendments, then it would be necessary for the Assembly 
 to recede from all its amendments, including those in- 
 tended to correct typographical errors, or send the bill 
 to a conference committee, to be selected by Stanton and 
 Porter. From a Committee on Conference to a Com- 
 mittee on Free Conference, also to be appointed by Stan- 
 ton and Porter, and with full power to amend the bill 
 to its liking, was but a step. The Committee on Free 
 Conference was Wolfe's aim. He eventually got it. 
 
 Boynton and Walker were quick to see the trend 
 of Wolfe's requests, however, and Walker moved to 
 vote on the seven vicious amendments on one roll call, and 
 on the ten correcting the typographical and clerical errors 
 on a second. 
 
Machine Amends Bill 115 
 
 As a substitute Wolfe moved that the seventeen 
 amendments be passed upon under one roll call. 
 
 At first Senators Cutten and Stetson apparently could 
 not see the trend of Wolfe's scheming. In the debate 
 that ensued Wolfe pretended indignation that his mo- 
 tives were being questioned. 
 
 There was very good reason for questioning Senator 
 Wolfe's motives, but Cutten and Stetson and even Walker 
 assured Wolfe that no reflection upon him was intended. 
 What these men should have done was to have denounced 
 Wolfe right there as a trickster and made no bones 
 about it. But on the absurd assumption that a member 
 of the State Senate is necessarily a gentleman, the much 
 deserved denunciation did not come. 
 
 However, Wolfe's motion did not prevail and the 
 amendments were taken up one by one. Six of the seven 
 vicious amendments were rejected, the first of the six 
 by a vote of 19 to 20. 
 
 This brought the Senate to the amendments intended 
 to correct typographical and clerical errors. And here 
 the vote switched. The reformers had up to this time 
 been voting to reject the amendments, because the amend- 
 ments were objectionable, while the programmers in the 
 first instance voted for concurrence. But when it came 
 to amendments intended to correct typographical and 
 clerical errors only, Wolfe and his following, with the 
 exception of Burnett, who refused to stand for any such 
 dastardly piece of work, voted to refuse to concur in 
 the amendments, while the anti-machine Senators, of 
 course, voted to concur in them. 
 
 Burnett, voting with the anti-machine element, gave 
 
u6 Machine Amends Bill 
 
 /them twenty votes, leaving Wolfe and his following only 
 nineteen. But twenty-one votes were necessary for con- 
 currence. The machine, while it could not force the Sen- 
 ate to concur in the vicious amendments, could prevent 
 the Senate's concurrence in the amendments to correct 
 the clerical and typographical errors. The bill was ac- 
 cordingly sent back to the Assembly with the typograph- 
 ical and clerical amendments still in dispute. 
 
 Even before the bill had reached the Assembly, Sen- 
 ator Frank Leavitt and George Van Smith of The Call 
 were on the floor of that body, fighting to prevent the 
 Assembly receding from its amendments. 
 
 When the Assembly grasped the fact that the Senate 
 had refused to concur in the amendments necessary for 
 correction of typographical errors, those who were work- 
 ing for an effective Direct Primary bill were thrown into 
 the greatest confusion. Speaker Stanton's rulings which 
 followed, were not calculated to relieve the situation. 
 Speaking from the desk, Stanton said: 
 
 "If you recede from some of these amendments and 
 not from others where will your bill be ? It will be dead. 
 The only thing that you can do to save the Direct Pri- 
 mary bill now is to recede from all the amendments and 
 let the typographical errors remain in the bill, or refuse 
 to recede from any of the amendments and let the bill 
 go into conference. If you recede from some of the 
 amendments and not from others, your bill is dead. We 
 cannot send this bill back to the Senate saying that the 
 Assembly has receded from some of the amendments 
 and not from others." 
 
 Assemblymen Preston, Bohnett and others who were 
 
Machine Amends Bill 117 
 
 standing for an effective measure, were amazed at the 
 position which Stanton had taken. 
 
 "I cannot for the life of me," said Preston, "see why 
 we cannot recede from part of the amendments and refuse 
 to recede from the others. Some of these amendments 
 are really necessary for the good of the bill. Others 
 should be rejected. Give me fifteen minutes and I will 
 guarantee to dig up authorities which will show us the 
 course to be pursued." 
 
 Assemblyman Bohnett confessed himself unable to 
 understand why the Assembly could not send part of the 
 amendments to conference and not the others. 
 
 By this time matters had got so warm in the Assem- 
 bly that Senator Leavitt found it necessary to lend dig- 
 nity to the occasion by taking his seat at the side of 
 Speaker Stanton, whom he engaged in conversation. The 
 conference was, of course, carried on in whispers. 
 
 Assemblymen Young, Bohnett and others, finding that 
 it would be impossible under the assumption of the Speak- 
 er to refuse to recede from part of the amendments while 
 receding from the others, advised the good government 
 members to refuse to recede from all the amendments, and 
 pass the bill, typographical errors and all. 
 
 It was demanded of Bohnett if this would not lead to 
 the practical defeat of the measure. Bohnett insisted that 
 it would not ; that the typographical errors, while deplor- 
 able, did not materially affect the bill. 
 
 However, many of the better element of the Assembly 
 
n8 Machine Amends Bill 
 
 did not dare to take the risk, and the motion to recede 
 was lost by a vote of 29 to 42. 58 
 
 Assemblymen who unquestionably stood for a good 
 bill voted against receding. Had the vicious amendments 
 alone been under consideration, they would have voted 
 to recede. Among these were such men as Assemblyman 
 Drew of Fresno. The Assembly, having refused to re- 
 cede from its amendments, the bill went to a Committee 
 on Conference, appointed by Speaker Stanton and Presi- 
 dent Porter. The machine had gained its point. 
 
 The Conference Committee consisted of Senators 
 Wolfe, Leavitt and Wright, and Assemblymen Leeds, 
 Johnson of Sacramento, and Hewitt. Of the Commit- 
 tee, Hewitt 59 was the only member who favored a State- 
 wide vote for United States Senator, and opposed the 
 advisory district vote. The committee had scarcely been 
 missed from Senate and Assembly chambers before it 
 was back to report that no agreement could be reached. 
 
 The same members were thereupon appointed as a 
 Committee on Free Conference, which gave them power 
 to amend the bill. As a Committee on Free Conference 
 
 58 The vote was as follows: 
 
 Ayes: Messrs. Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, Collum, Cos- 
 tar, Flavelle, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Hinkle, Holmquist, Irwin, 
 Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe. Maher, Mendenhall, Odom, Otis, 
 Polsley, Preston, Sackett, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Whitney, Wilson, 
 Wyllie and Young 29. 
 
 Noes: Messrs. Barndollar, Beardslee, Beatty, Beban, Black, 
 Butler, Coghlan, Collier, Cronin, Cullen, Drew, Feeley, Fleisher, 
 Flint, Greer, Griffiths, Hammon, Hanlon, Hans, Hawk, Hewitt, 
 Johnson of Sacramento, Johnson of San Diego, Leeds, Macauley, 
 McClelland, McManus, Melrose, Moore, Mott, Nelson, Perine, Pugh, 
 Pulcifer, Rech, Rutherford, Schmitt, Silver, Stanton, Transue, 
 Wagner, Wheelan 42. 
 
 59 Hewitt voted against the amendments the day they were read 
 into the bill. 
 
Machine Amends Bill 119 
 
 they recommended the advisory district vote plan for the 
 nomination of United States Senators. 60 
 
 Senator Wolfe, having got the bill in shape to his lik- 
 ing, with a suave smirk upon his face, stated that he trust- 
 ed that all the Senators present would vote for the 
 measure. 
 
 "Not on your life," came Caminetti's protest. 
 
 And Caminetti did not vote for the Free Conference 
 Committee's report. 
 
 But in spite of Caminetti's protest, both Senate and 
 Assembly adopted the Conference Committee's report. 
 They had to do so or defeat the bill entirely. Caminetti 
 was the only Senator who voted against it. The machine, 
 after a fight of nearly two months, in which it was twice 
 defeated in the Senate, and escaped defeat in the Assembly 
 by only one vote, that of Pulcifer, had carried its point, 
 had succeeded in denying the people of California the 
 privilege of casting a practical, State-wide vote for United 
 States Senators. 
 
 60 The Free Conference Committee's amendment was in full 
 as follows: 
 
 "By nominating petitions signed and filed as provided by exist- 
 ing laws party candidates for the office of United States Senator 
 shall have their names placed on the official primary election ballots 
 of their respective parties, in the manner herein provided for State 
 offices, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE VOTE FOR CANDI- 
 DATES FOR UNITED STATES SENATORS SHALL BE AN 
 ADVISORY VOTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE 
 SENTIMENT OF THE VOTERS IN THE RESPECTIVE SENA- 
 TORIAL AND ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS IN THE RESPECTIVE 
 PARTIES, and the Senatorial and Assembly nominees shall be at 
 liberty to vote either for the choice of such district expressed at 
 said primary election, or for the candidate for United States Senator 
 who shall have received the endorsement of such primary election 
 in the greater number of districts electing members of his party to 
 the Legislature." 
 
120 Machine Amends Bill 
 
 What the anti-machine Senators 61 thought of the out- 
 come is best expressed in the little speech which Senator 
 Stetson made his fellow-Senators in explaining his vote 
 to accept the report of the Committee on Free Confer- 
 ence. 
 
 "Before voting on this matter," said Stetson, "lest any 
 one in the future may think that I have been passed some- 
 thing and didn't know it, I wish to explain my vote, and 
 wish to say that this permission accorded a candidate to 
 go on record to support that candidate for United States 
 Senate, who shall have the endorsement of the greatest 
 number of districts, comes from nobody and goes to no- 
 body. It means nothing mere words idle words. The 
 only way in which a candidate could have been pledged 
 would have been to provide a pledge or instructions to the 
 Legislature. The words 'shall be permitted' mean noth- 
 ing and get nowhere. I shall vote for this report, not be- 
 cause I want to, but because I have to if we are at this 
 session to have any Direct Primary law at all." 
 
 61 Stetson was not the only Senator to protest. Senators Camp- 
 bell, Holphan and Miller sent to the Secretary's desk the following 
 explanation of their votes: "We voted for the Direct Primary bill 
 because it seems to be the best law that can be obtained under 
 existing political conditions. We are opposed to many of the fea- 
 tures of this bill, and believe that the people at the first oppor- 
 tunity will instruct their representatives in the Legislature to 
 radically amend the same in many particulars, notably in regard 
 to the election of United States Senators, and the provisions that 
 prevent the endorsement of a candidate by a political party or 
 organization other than the one that first nominated such candi- 
 date." 
 
 A second protest, signed by Senators Curtin, Cartwright and 
 Sanford, was also printed in the Journal. It reads as follows: 
 "We voted to adopt the report of the Committee on Free Con- 
 ference on Senate Bill No. 3, not because we believe it to be what 
 is desired by the people of this State, but because we believe it to 
 be the only bill that can be adopted at this late hour, as the Legis- 
 lature is about to adjourn." 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 THE RAILROAD REGULATION ISSUE. 
 
 Recent Increase in Freight Tariff Had Brought About 
 a Condition Which Required Action Senate Divided 
 Into Supporters of an Effective and Supporters of an 
 Ineffective Measure Manipulation by Which Meas- 
 ures Were Placed in Hands of a Machine-Controlled 
 Committee. 
 
 Some one has very well said that the real test of a 
 Legislature is its action on railroad measures. The 
 Legislature of 1909, if estimated by this standard would 
 not appear to advantage. But to condemn the Legis- 
 lature of 1909 for its failure to give the State an effect- 
 ive railroad regulation law, is to condemn every Legis- 
 lature that has sat in California since the present State 
 Constitution went into effect thirty years ago. The 
 Constitution empowers the Legislature to pass effective 
 railroad regulation measures, but up to the session of 
 1909, the machine, or system, or organization one name 
 is as fragrant as another had prevented the passage, if 
 we exclude the ineffective Act of 1880, of any railroad 
 regulation law at all. The machine has ever moved 
 against the interests of the people and in the interest of 
 its dominating factor and at the same time its chief 
 beneficiary, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. It 
 has so manipulated the nomination and election of Rail- 
 road Commissioners as to keep in that office men utterly 
 dominated by railroad influences. 
 
122 Railroad Regulation Issue 
 
 With weak and corrupt men as Railroad Commis- 
 sioners, and machine-dominated Legislatures which have 
 neglected to pass laws which would have made the Com- 
 mission effective, or even provide funds for the Com- 
 mission to carry on its work, even had the Commission- 
 ers been so inclined, California has been left help- 
 less to oppose any extortion which the railroad might 
 see fit to exact. The system of charging all that the 
 traffic will bear has governed utterly. For this the 
 Southern Pacific Company can thank, and the People of 
 California condemn, the machine. 
 
 The cost to the people has been enormous. It was 
 pretty conclusively shown at the Legislative investiga- 
 tion into the cause of recent advance of freight rates, 
 that upwards of $10,000,000 62 a year has in this one in- 
 stance been added to the freight charges exacted from 
 the people of the Pacific Coast. The added burden falls 
 upon the Pacific Coast manufacturer, merchant, farmer, 
 
 62 The testimony was that of George J. Bradley, traffic manager 
 of the Merchants' and Manufacturers' Traffic Association of Sac- 
 ramento. It was as follows: 
 
 It is estimated on conservative figures that the increase in 
 eastbound California products, or Pacific Coast products, I should 
 correctly say, which is composed of canned fruits, canned vege- 
 tables and canned salmon, of which there are several million 
 cases, go from the North Pacific coast through either San Fran- 
 cisco or through the North Pacific coast, the minimum being forty 
 thousand pounds to the car, and the increase being ten cents per 
 hundred pounds, means forty dollars a car increase. Now, taking 
 the number of cars of all those products that are shipped, it 
 amounted to about and leather and other products it amounted 
 to about four million dollars eastbound. Now, when the question 
 of westbound comes out, of course, it is practically impossible 
 for any man to say just exactly what that increase will mean 
 in dollars and cents, and the only way, therefore, to arrive at it 
 is to take the percentage of proportion now in their westbound 
 tariff, which is composed of about between eight hundred and a 
 thousand items. They have raised the rates from 10 to 25 cents 
 on over two hundred articles, all of which move in quantities; in 
 other words, the process by which the tariff has been amended 
 has been that in every instance where there was a commodity 
 moving in quantities the rate has been advanced; wherever there 
 was no movement and they wished to encourage a movement, they 
 
Railroad Regulation Issue 123 
 
 fruit grower, consumer. All from the highest to the 
 lowest help pay the tribute. Thirty years is a long 
 period, and the arm of the railroad tribute-taker far- 
 reaching. The vast sums which, unrestricted, the South- 
 ern Pacific has been able to exact run into enormous 
 totals. From a dollar and cent standpoint, it has paid 
 the Southern Pacific Company to control the machine. 
 
 But the railroad's absolute domination of the State 
 could not continue forever without protest that would 
 eventually force a hearing. This protest came toward 
 the close of 1908. The increase in freight rates made 
 just before the Legislature of 1909 convened emphasized 
 the necessity for the enactment of a law that should 
 galvanize the Railroad Commission into activity; en- 
 sure the enforcement of constitutional provisions for the 
 protection of the public against dominant transportation 
 companies ; in a word, provide effective railroad regula- 
 tion. 
 
 reduced the rate. Now, you take the five transcontinental lines 
 that operate on the Pacific Coast, namely, the Northern Pacific and 
 the Great Northern on the north and the Canadian Pacific; the 
 Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe and the San Pedro and Los An- 
 geles on the south, give you six trunk lines operating on the Pacific 
 Coast. If you will take their gross earnings, which amount to 
 over four hundred millions, segregate that by allowing fifty per 
 cent of that to passenger service, which is a very conservative esti- 
 mate, because the passenger service does not amount to that, 
 leaves two hundred million dollars of gross freight earnings. 
 Take five per cent of that for terminal business, and business is 
 based on terminal rates from the coast, plus the local back, be- 
 cause the rate, of course, is felt everywhere, the rates to the 
 interior points are made on the terminal rate, plus the local back. 
 Take five per cent of that and their increase in every instance 
 has been 10 per cent, and in some cases 16 2-3 and 20 per cent; 
 but take a very liberal conservative estimate and put it at five 
 per cent and you have ten million dollars; now, split that in 
 two and take two and a half per cent of it and you have got five 
 millions of dollars. Now, that and your four million dollars on east- 
 bound freight and you have nine millions of dollars increase in 
 freight rates, and I believe that that is a conservative estimate. 
 I don't see how you could get at it any closer, because every 
 man, It doesn't make any difference where he is, every man that 
 buys pays that ten to twenty per cent increase. 
 
124 Railroad Regulation Issue 
 
 Governor Gillett in his biennial message to the Legis- 
 lature, and Attorney General Webb in his biennial report 
 gave expression to this aroused public sentiment. 
 
 General Webb, after reviewing railroad conditions in 
 California, on page 13 of his report says: '"It is thus 
 apparent that the shippers of the State are practically 
 helpless." 
 
 "I believe," continues the Attorney General, "that this 
 review of the situation will show the imperative neces- 
 sity of prompt legislation on this subject, and under the 
 Constitution of this State, the Legislature has ample 
 authority to enact the required legislation." 
 
 Governor Gillett, in his biennial message, takes prac- 
 tically the same stand as does Attorney General Webb. 
 
 "Our State," says the Governor on page 12 of his 
 message, "has not kept pace with the majority of the 
 States of the Union in the enactment of laws regulating 
 railroads in their business as common carriers." 
 
 "I can virtually promise you," said General Webb at 
 a meeting of the Senate Committee on Corporations, 
 held on the evening of January 25th, "that in the event 
 of this (the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill) becoming 
 a law, and the Railroad Commission refusing or neglect- 
 ing to act under its provisions, the Governor will call 
 the Legislature together in extraordinary session for 
 their impeachment." 63 
 
 There was no question of the aroused public senti- 
 ment in favor of the passage of a railroad regulation 
 
 63 Senator Caminetti on February 12 introduced a concurrent 
 resolution calling for the removal of the present Board of Railroad 
 Commissioners from office. The Committee on Corporations re- 
 ported adversely, and on March 15th the resolution was finally 
 rejected. 
 
Railroad Regulation Issue 125 
 
 measure. Even before the Legislature convened it be- 
 came evident that some sort of a measure would have 
 to be passed; even the railroad lobby saw that. The 
 Legislature accordingly divided on the question. As the 
 fight was carried on in the Senate the Assembly in the 
 rush of the closing hours of the session merely putting 
 its "O. K." on what the Senate had done the division 
 in the Senate alone will be considered. The division 
 in that body was : 
 
 (1) The minority, made up of the out and out 
 machine Republicans and Democrats, who were prepared 
 to pass a measure which under the name railroad regula- 
 tion would leave the railroads practically independent of 
 effective State supervision. 
 
 (2) The majority, which stood for the passage of 
 an effective law. 
 
 The minority had the best captains in the Senate and 
 was backed by the machine lobby made up principally of 
 Southern Pacific attorneys. 
 
 The majority was poor in generals. But it had the 
 backing of the shippers of the State, who sent able coun- 
 sel to Sacramento to present the shippers' side. 
 
 And in the end the machine minority wore out and 
 defeated the majority. A comparatively effective rail- 
 road regulation bill was rejected and an ineffective 
 measure passed. 
 
 Three railroad regulation measures were introduced 
 in the Senate, their authors being Campbell, Stetson, and 
 Wright. 
 
 The Campbell bill had much to commend it, but was 
 rejected without much consideration by either side. 
 
126 Railroad Regulation Issue 
 
 Campbell was not in the program of either railroad or 
 shippers. But before the session was over Campbell 
 had made himself felt. He had, too, introduced a Con- 
 stitutional Amendment for the correction of railroad 
 abuses, which was to figure later on, but his bill was 
 scarcely considered. The attorney for the shippers, in 
 speaking before the Senate Committee on Corporations, 
 confessed that he had not read the Campbell bill. 
 
 The attorney for the Southern Pacific Company, 
 however, attempted to split the anti-machine forces by 
 praising the Campbell bill, and setting the anti-machine 
 Senators to disputing over the relative merits of the 
 Campbell and Stetson bills. But nothing came of this 
 graceful little coup. Campbell and his followers were 
 too sensible to l)e caught by any such trickery. They 
 gave their loyal support to the Stetson bill, and the Camp- 
 bell bill was allowed to die in the Senate Judiciary Com- 
 mittee. This narrowed the fight down to the Stetson bill 
 and the Wright bill. 
 
 The Stetson bill had been prepared in the office of 
 Attorney General Webb, and at the instigation of Gov- 
 ernor Gillett. As originally introduced it contained cer- 
 tain defects, which were afterwards corrected, but such 
 Senators as Cutten, Caminetti, Black, Campbell, Miller, 
 Cartwright, Bell and Thompson, admitted that the meas- 
 ure could be made the basis of as effective a law as 
 could be prepared under the present constitutional pro- 
 visions for the regulation of transportation companies. 
 
 The original measure was particularly weak in the 
 section providing for demurrage charges. This was 
 finally corrected by the passage of a separate reciprocal 
 
Railroad Regulation Issue 127 
 
 demurrage bill, which had been introduced by Miller. 
 Another weakness in the Stetson bill as originally intro- 
 duced was that the Railroad Commission was made a 
 sort of barrier between the Courts and those who had 
 grievances against the transportation companies. This 
 objection was corrected by amendments. 
 
 Numerous other amendments adopted from time to 
 time made the Stetson bill probably as effective as a 
 California railroad regulation law can be made, under 
 the Constitutional provision which places extraordinary 
 powers in the hands of the State Board of Railroad 
 Commissioners. 
 
 Just where the Wright bill originated nobody seems 
 to know for certainty. But Senator Wright introduced 
 it. Senator Wright was well selected for the job. For 
 two years he had been groomed as the reformer who 
 would introduce the State-saving Direct Primary Bill. 
 So a railroad regulation measure introduced by Senator 
 Wright might at least be calculated to bear the stamp 
 of respectability. 
 
 Like the Stetson bill, the Wright bill was based on 
 the constitutional provisions which make the State Board 
 of Railroad Commissioners the center of railroad regu- 
 lation in California. And here the parallel ends. 
 
 Comparison of the two measures is not at all to the 
 advantage of the Wright bill. 
 
 The Stetson bill provided fine and imprisonment as 
 penalty for infringement of its provisions; the Wright 
 bill provided fine only. 
 
 The Stetson bill had a definite anti-pass provision ; 
 the Wright bill as originally introduced had no such 
 provision. 
 
ia8 Railroad Regulation Issue 
 
 The Stetson bill authorized not only the Attorney- 
 General, but the District Attorney of any county of the 
 State to proceed to enforce its provisions ; the Wright 
 bill granted the Attorney-General alone such authority. 
 
 The Stetson bill required the Railroad Commissioners 
 to meet at least once in every two weeks ; the Wright 
 bill provided that such meetings should be held monthly. 
 
 The Stetson bill gave the Railroad Commissioners 
 authority to make physical valuation of railroad proper- 
 ties; the Wright bill contained no such provision. 
 
 The Stetson bill recognized all discriminations to be 
 unjust; the Wright bill provided that no interference 
 should be instituted unless the discriminations complained 
 of were shown to be unjust. 
 
 And finally, the Stetson bill provided that the State 
 Board of Railroad Commissioners should have power 
 to fix absolute rates, thus insuring stability of rate sched- 
 ules, while the Wright bill provided that the Commis- 
 sioners should fix maximum rates only, thus permitting 
 the famous "fluidity" of schedules advocated by machine 
 lobby and Southern Pacific attorneys. 
 
 The contest between the supporters of the Wright and 
 the supporters of the Stetson bill, finally narrowed down 
 to the question of providing for absolute or maximum 
 rates. 
 
 The provision for the maximum rate in Senator 
 Wright's bill, authorized the railroad regulating Com- 
 mission to fix the highest charge which a railroad may 
 exact from a shipper. This is called the maximum rate. 
 The transportation company is authorized to lower the 
 rate at will, but it cannot charge a rate beyond the maxi- 
 
Railroad Regulation Issue 129 
 
 mum as fixed by the Commission. This leaves the rail- 
 roads to fix a sliding schedule of rates, so long as they 
 do not exceed the maximum. It gives the railroads the 
 advantage of that "fluidity" of schedules, which railroad 
 attorneys insist is necessary for railroad prosperity. 
 
 The maximum rate is provided in the Interstate Com- 
 merce Act, but the Interstate Commerce Commissioners, 
 finding it impracticable, have for years been clamoring 
 for Congress to authorize the fixing of absolute rates. 
 The cry of the Interstate Commerce Commission has 
 been taken up by the shipping interests, and from one 
 end of the country to the other there is growing de- 
 mand that authority be placed somewhere to make rail- 
 road rates, when fixed by a regulating Commission, ab- 
 solute. 
 
 The absolute rate, or the fixed rate as it is better 
 called, which was provided in the Stetson bill, can nei- 
 ther be lowered nor raised by the railroads. Once fixed 
 by the regulating Commission, it must remain until the 
 Commission grants permission for its change. The rail- 
 roads cannot lower it any more than they can raise it. 
 
 The advantages of the absolute rate are many. In 
 the first place, where the absolute rate is established, there 
 can be no discrimination, because the rate is known, it 
 can neither be raised nor lowered, and the railroads have 
 no opportunity to favor one shipper at the expense of 
 another. 
 
 In the second place, the shipper is guaranteed a 
 stability of rate schedules which is deemed necessary 
 for settled business conditions. The merchant, for ex- 
 ample, includes transportation charges in the cost price 
 
130 Railroad Regulation Issue 
 
 of the goods in which he deals. But if the transporta- 
 tion charges on the same class of goods are subject to 
 frequent change, the merchant can never tell when his 
 competitor is to be given the advantage of a sudden 
 lowering in freight rates. This uncertainty unsettles 
 business. The merchant holds that transportation rates 
 should be just as stable as tariff rates. On this account, 
 the merchant advocates fixed rates and stability of sched- 
 ules as against maximum rates and constantly shifting 
 schedules. 
 
 The supporters of the Stetson bill, then, backed the 
 shipping and merchant classes ; while the supporters of 
 the Wright bill backed the contentions of the transpor- 
 tation companies. 
 
 The Campbell and the Stetson bills had been originally 
 referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, while the 
 Wright bill had been referred to the Senate Committee 
 on Corporations. For the first few weeks of the session, 
 no particular note had been taken of the Wright bill, 
 attention being centered on the amendment of the Stet- 
 son bill. 
 
 Things were going swimmingly with the Stetson bill, 
 when the machine lobby awoke to the fact that something 
 was wrong in the Senate. There was at least some 
 indication that the Senate would pass an effective rail- 
 road regulation measure. 
 
 And then, before the advocates of the Stetson measure 
 could tell exactly what was happening, the railroad regu- 
 lation measures were taken from the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee and placed in the hands of the Committee on 
 Corporations. 
 
Railroad Regulation Issue 131 
 
 A glance at the personnel of the two Committees at 
 least suggests why this was done. 
 
 The members of the Judiciary Committee were Wil- 
 lis, Wolfe, Wright, McCartney, Savage, Boynton, An- 
 thony, Burnett, Cutten, Estudillo, Martinelli, Roseberry, 
 Stetson, Thompson, Curtin, Cartwright, Caminetti, Mil- 
 ler, Campbell. 
 
 The nine Senators whose names are printed in 
 Italics, when the issue came to vote on the floor of the 
 Senate, voted against the Stetson bill and for the Wright 
 bill ; nine of the ten whose names are printed in ordinary 
 letters voted for the Stetson bill and against the Wright 
 bill. The tenth, Roseberry, was absent, but when he 
 found that the vote had been taken, stated that had he 
 been present he would have voted for the Stetson bill 
 and against the Wright bill. 
 
 Furthermore, Estudillo, who finally voted for the 
 Wright bill, did not approve the measure and voted 
 for it because he feared the absolute rate feature of the 
 Stetson bill to be unconstitutional. 
 
 Thus at the time the Stetson and the Campbell bills 
 were taken from the Judiciary Committee, the Commit- 
 tee was regarded as standing: 
 
 For the Wright bill 8. 
 
 Against the Wright bill 11. 
 
 For the Stetson bill 11. 
 
 Against the Stetson bill 8. 
 
 It was certainly not in the interest of the Stetson 
 bill that the measure was taken from the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee and sent to the Committee on Corporations. 
 
 A glance at the personnel of the Committee on Cor- 
 
132 Railroad Regulation Issue 
 
 porations reveals a significant state of affairs. The Com- 
 mittee consisted of the following Senators: Bates, 
 Welch, Wright, McCartney, Burnett, Bills, Walker, 
 Roseberry, Finn, Miller, Kennedy. 
 
 When the test came on the floor of the Senate, the 
 nine of the eleven Senators whose names are printed in 
 italics voted for the Wright bill and against the Stet- 
 son bill. The two members whose names are printed in 
 ordinary letters, voted for the Stetson bill, and against 
 the Wright bill. 
 
 The line-up of the Committee on Corporations, when 
 the measures were taken from the Judiciary Committee 
 and sent to the Committee on Corporations, was then: 
 
 For the Wright Bill 9. 
 
 Against the Wright Bill 2. 
 
 For the Stetson Bill 2. 
 
 Against the Stetson Bill 9. 
 
 The change was certainly not made in the interest 
 of the Stetson bill. 
 
 The incident stirred up Campbell and other anti- 
 machine Senators to the fighting pitch. An arrangement 
 was made, however, by which the measures were to be 
 sent back to the Judiciary Committee after the Com- 
 mittee on Corporations got through with them that the 
 Judiciary Committee might pass upon their constitu- 
 tionality. The arrangement had two effects it silenced 
 the unquieting protest of the anti-machine Senators, and 
 it delayed consideration of the bills. But, as the sequel 
 showed, the arrangement did not help the Stetson bill 
 in the least. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 MACHINE DEFEATS THE STETSON BILL. 
 
 Southern Pacific Attorney Succeeds in Clouding the 
 Issue Railroad Claquers Active in Advocating the 
 Maximum Rate, Which Was Designated as Little 
 Better Than No Rate At All No Fight Over the 
 Bill in the Assembly. 
 
 Having succeeded in transferring the railroad regu- 
 lation measures from the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
 the majority of whose members were anti-machine, to 
 the Committee on Corporations, the majority of whose 
 members were machine, the machine proceeded to dis- 
 credit the Stetson bill, by making it appear that the State 
 Constitution by implication prohibits the fixing of ab- 
 solute railroad rates, and provides that the Railroad 
 Commissioners may fix maximum rates only. Peter F. 
 Dunne was brought to Sacramento to make this argu- 
 ment before the Senate Committee on Corporations. 
 
 Dunne, in his address, showed greater ability than 
 integrity. When he had finished, even the anti-machine 
 members of the Committee were completely befuddled. 
 Walker, one of the members of the Committee who is 
 not a lawyer, groped in utter darkness thereafter, until 
 he finally stumbled into the arms of Eddie Wolfe and 
 Frank Leavitt and Jere Burke, when the final vote on 
 the railroad bills was taken. It was Walker's only 
 stumble of the session. But for his unfortunate vote 
 
134 Stetson Bil-1 Defeated 
 
 against the Stetson bill and for the Wright bill, Walker 
 would have made an exceptionally clean record. 
 
 Not only did Dunne befog the lay Senators of the 
 Committee, he shook the faith of men like Miller and 
 Roseberry both lawyers on the constitutionality of 
 the absolute rate. Miller recognizes that the absolute 
 rate is the only practical rate ; but until the end of the 
 session he was not prepared to say that it could be con- 
 stitutionally established. Dunne certainly did a good 
 job. To be sure, his address was a mass of misrepre- 
 sentations, but of misrepresentations cunningly put. He 
 shattered the implicit faith of the anti-machine Senators 
 in the absolute rate. And that was what he had been 
 sent to Sacramento to do. The evil that Dunne did 
 lived long after he had left the capital. 
 
 Curiously enough, neither the term "absolute rate" 
 nor "maximum rate" appears in the State Constitution. 
 
 Article XII, Section 22, of the Constitution, provides 
 that the Railroad Commissioners "shall have the power 
 and it shall be their duty to establish rates of charges 
 for the transportation of passengers and freight by rail- 
 road or other transportation companies." 
 
 Further on in the same section, it is provided that 
 "any railroad corporation or transportation company 
 which shall fail or refuse to conform to such rates as 
 shall be established by such Commissioners, or shall 
 charge rates in excess thereof, * * * shall be fined 
 not exceeding $20,000 for each offense." 
 
 The dispute between those who stood for maximum 
 rates that is to say, the members of the machine lobby, 
 the machine Senators, the Southern Pacific attorneys 
 
Stetson Bill Defeated 135 
 
 and those who wanted absolute rates namely, the anti- 
 machine Senators and the attorneys representing large 
 shipping interests waxed hot over the words in the 
 above quotation which are printed in Italics. 
 
 The advocates of the absolute rate held, with at least 
 apparent reason, that the words ''fail to conform to 
 such rates" mean just what the dictionaries say they 
 do: That the railroad charging a rate in excess of that 
 fixed by the Railroad Commissioners, or a rate less than 
 that fixed by the Commissioners, is not conforming to 
 the rates. Such, at least, seems reasonable construction 
 of a very simple phrase. 
 
 But not so, insisted the railroad lobby. That aggre- 
 gation of patriots skimmed over the words "fail to con- 
 form to such rates," and saw only, "or shall charge in 
 excess thereof." Inasmuch, the pro-railroad - element 
 held, as the Constitution says that the railroads shall not 
 charge in excess of the rates fixed by the Railroad Com- 
 missioners, the railroads are at liberty to reduce the 
 rates as fixed by the Commissioners at will. In other 
 words, according to the pro-railroad element, the Con- 
 stitution authorizes the fixing of maximum rates only. 
 
 The pro-railroad claquers even went so far as to 
 claim that the Supreme Court has decided that the maxi- 
 mum rate is the only rate that can be fixed under the 
 State Constitution. They referred the doubtful to the 
 notorious decision in the Fresno passenger rate case 
 known as the Edson decision. 
 
 But no question of maximum rates was involved in 
 the Edson case. To be sure, Chief Justice Beatty took 
 occasion to say in his opinion in that case that his under- 
 
136 Stetson Bill Defeated 
 
 standing had been that the State Constitution provides 
 for the maximum rate. But this had no place in the de- 
 cision, was purely dictum, and is so regarded. 
 
 Attorney-General Webb has an ingenious but very 
 plausible explanation of Judge Beatty's much-discussed 
 observation. General Webb points out that previous to 
 the adoption of the present State Constitution 1879 
 Justice Beatty had been engaged in the active practice of 
 the law in this State. Up to the time of the adoption of 
 .the Constitution of 1879 the maximum rate had pr-e- 
 vailed in California. About that time, Judge Beatty 
 went to Nevada and was absent from the State for sev- 
 eral years. Returning to California, after the State Con- 
 stitution had been adopted, Judge Beatty found no case 
 in which the duties of the Railroad Commissioners had 
 been involved, until the Edson case came up. 
 
 "I am of the opinion," said General Webb in dis- 
 cussing this point, "that when the Chief Justice spoke of 
 the maximum rate in the Edson case he was governed 
 by mental impressions received previous to 1879, when 
 the maximum rate was indeed the rule in California." 
 
 All this was a very pretty theory. To the common- 
 sense mind "conform to the rates fixed" might mean 
 conform to them; the normal man might be unable to 
 dig out of the Constitution any prohibition of absolute 
 rates. But the confusion caused by the raising of the 
 question got the Stetson bill very much in the air. 
 
 During all the discussion, however, the Wright bill 
 was not considered at all. Nobody was thinking of the 
 Wright bill that is to say, nobody outside of those 
 scheming for its passage. Like a mongrel duck's egg 
 
Stetson Bill Defeated 137 
 
 under a respectable hen, it was left to incubate undis- 
 turbed, to surprise everybody at the hatching. 
 
 Finding themselves unable to clear away the doubt 
 which raising the question of the constitutionality of 
 the absolute rate had created, the anti-machine Senators 
 and the attorneys of the shippers finally, after the Wright 
 bill had been forced into prominence, put the case some- 
 thing like this : 
 
 "If the Courts decide that the maximum rate only is 
 constitutional, then the Wright bill, which provides for 
 the maximum rate, will be constitutional, and the greater 
 part of the Stetson bill will also be constitutional. 
 
 "But if the Courts decide that an absolute rate is 
 the only rate justified under the Constitution, then the 
 Wright bill will be unconstitutional and all the Stetson 
 bill constitutional." 
 
 This somewhat loose argument unquestionably kept 
 certain Senators who recognized the impracticability of 
 the maximum rate, but feared for the constitutionality 
 of the absolute rate, in line for the Stetson bill. 
 
 With the situation thus confused, all was in readi- 
 ness to bring the Wright bill before the public. This 
 was done on February 17th. Up to that date the writer 
 honestly believes that not two minutes had been de- 
 voted to public discussion of this measure, although the 
 Stetson bill had been discussed paragraph by paragraph, 
 line by line, every word weighed carefully. 
 
 The ceremony of giving the Wright bill prominence 
 took place behind the closed doors of an executive ses- 
 sion of the Senate Committee on Corporations. These 
 executive sessions, by the way, are seldom held when 
 
138 Stetson Bill Defeated 
 
 the best interests of the public are to be conserved. The 
 proceedings were evidently pre-arranged. Senator 
 Wright opened by moving that the policy of the Com- 
 mittee should be that the Railroad Regulation measure 
 to receive favorable consideration from the Committee 
 must provide for the maximum rate. 
 
 The vote was as prompt as it was decisive. Senator 
 Wright's motion carried by a vote of 7 to 3. The vote 
 was as follows : 
 
 For the maximum rate Bates, Welch, Wright, Mc- 
 Cartney, Bills, Finn, Kennedy. 
 
 Against the maximum rate Walker, Roseberry, 
 Miller. 
 
 Burnett, the eleventh member of the Committee, was 
 absent. 
 
 Gradually it dawned upon Walker, Miller and Rose- 
 berry that this meant the favorable recommendation of 
 the Wright bill. The next moment that fact was ham- 
 mered into them by the Committee deciding by the same 
 vote, 7 to 3, to recommend that the Stetson bill do not 
 pass ; and that the Wright bill do pass. 
 
 The machine had won the opening skirmish in the 
 railroad regulation controversy. Incidentally it had come 
 out in the open squarely for the Wright bill. From that 
 moment the machine Senators labored openly for the 
 passage of the measure. However, the machine was not 
 yet out of the woods with its Railroad Regulation bill. 
 The Senate Judiciary Committee had still to pass upon 
 it, and the majority of the Judiciary Committee was 
 anti-machine. 
 
 Wright followed the same course in the Judiciary 
 
Stetson Bill Defeated 139 
 
 Committee as he had taken in the Committee on Corpora- 
 tions, namely, moved that 'it be the sense of the Com- 
 mittee that the Railroad Regulation bill to be favorably 
 considered by the Committee should provide for the 
 maximum rate. 
 
 Wright's motion was, however, lost by a vote of 8 to 
 10. The Committee not only rejected the maximum 
 rate, but endorsed the absolute rate, thus reversing the 
 Committee on Corporations. The vote by which this 
 was done was as follows : 
 
 Against the maximum rate, against the Wright bill 
 and for the Stetson bill Campbell, Cutten, Miller, Stet- 
 son, Thompson, Caminetti, Boynton, Roseberry, Curtin 
 and Cartwright 10. 
 
 For the maximum rate, for the Wright bill and 
 against the Stetson bill Anthony, Martinelli, McCart- 
 ney, Wright, Willis, Wolfe, Burnett and Estudillo 8. 
 Absent Savage 1 . 
 
 Thus the Stetson bill after two months of machine 
 effort against it, went to the floor of the Senate from 
 the Judiciary Committee with the recommendation that 
 it "do pass." Of the forty Senators, nineteen were law- 
 yers, and every one of the nineteen was a member of 
 the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thus the majority of 
 the lawyers of the Senate, in spite of the confusion which 
 the machine claquers had created, were willing to take 
 their chances on the constitutionality of the Stetson bill. 
 
 But in fairness it must be admitted that members of 
 the Judiciary Committee who voted for the absolute rate 
 provision of the Stetson bill were still in the befuddled 
 condition in which Peter F. Dunne's sophistry had left 
 
140 Stetson Bill Defeated 
 
 them. Senator Miller, for example, in explaining his 
 vote for the absolute rate, said: 
 
 "I take this stand, not that I am convinced that the 
 Supreme Court will decide the absolute rate to be con- 
 stitutional; I fear that it may not. But the maximum 
 rate is little better than no rate at all. I wish the abso- 
 lute rate provided in this bill, that the Supreme Court 
 may be given opportunity to pass upon it." 
 
 Senator Roseberry, who voted for the absolute rate, 
 confessed himself as much at sea as was Senator Miller. 
 Senator Estudillo, who voted for the maximum rate, in- 
 sisted, that he had not been able to make up his mind 
 which should be adopted. 
 
 On the other hand, Senator Cutten, himself a lawyer 
 and a close student of the legal questions involved, stated 
 that while he had thought originally that the maximum 
 rate is the only constitutional rate that can be fixed, he 
 had been forced to come to the conclusion that the abso- 
 lute rate alone is constitutional. 
 
 But in the end the Wright bill and not the Stetson 
 bill passed the Senate. It passed after a day of debate 
 in which the issue became clouded, if anything, worse 
 than at any stage of the proceedings. Leavitt and 
 Wolfe, with Wright chipping in with a me-too word 
 now and then, led the debate in favor of the Wright 
 bill. Senators Stetson, Boynton, Cutten, Roseberry and 
 Miller led the fight for the Stetson bill. Significant 
 enough was the fact that the line-up of Senate leaders 
 was precisely the same as that in the fight which the ma- 
 chine carried on against the Direct Primary bill. 
 
 Miller's argument in favor of the Stetson bill showed 
 
Stetson Bill Defeated 141 
 
 the confusion under which the advocates of effective rail- 
 road regulation were laboring: 
 
 "If we adopt the Wright bill," said Miller, "the rail- 
 roads will be satisfied and never dispute it in the Courts. 
 Whereas, by the adoption of the Stetson bill the railroads 
 will almost be compelled to appeal to the Courts, and 
 then we shall have a quick decision on the question in 
 which we are all interested. If the Courts sustain the 
 Stetson bill, we shall have a law that will do all we want 
 for the present." 64 
 
 The debate on the measures was on a motion by Stet- 
 son that the Stetson bill be substituted for the Wright 
 bill. In this Stetson made a serious mistake. He staked 
 his whole bill on one issue, that of absolute or maximum 
 rates. On all other points, the Stetson bill was better 
 than the Wright bill. It was a mistake in policy for 
 Stetson to stake the fate of his measure on a single issue. 
 
 Stetson's motion was lost by a vote of 16 to 22; the 
 Stetson bill was accordingly not substituted for the 
 Wright bill, and the Wright bill, which had come from 
 the Judiciary Committee with a minority report back of 
 it, went to third reading and final passage. 
 
 The vote by which Stetson's motion was defeated, 
 was as follows: 
 
 To substitute the Stetson bill for the Wright bill- 
 Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Campbell, Cart- 
 wright, Curtin, Cutten, Holohan, Lewis, Miller, San- 
 ford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson 16. 
 
 64 The question to which Senator Miller referred was: Has the 
 Legislature power under the Constitution to authorize the Rail- 
 road Commissioners to fix the absolute rate? a question upon which 
 the machine does not propose the Supreme Court shall be required 
 to pass. 
 
142 Stetson Bill Defeated 
 
 Against substituting the Stetson bill for the Wright 
 bill Anthony, Bates, Bills, Burnett, Estudillo, Finn, 
 Hare, Hartman, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Martinelli, 
 McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Walker, Weed, Welch, 
 Willis, Wolfe, Wright 22. 
 
 Senators Roseberry and Rush were absent from the 
 room when the vote was taken but both were for the 
 Stetson bill, which would have made the vote 22 to 18 
 in favor of the Wright bill. 
 
 The twenty Senators whose names are printed in 
 Italics are the twenty who voted with Leavitt and Wolfe 
 to maintain the deadlock on the Direct Primary bill that 
 the measure might be so amended that the electors of 
 California would be denied a practical, State-wide vote 
 for United States Senators. But one of the twenty, 
 Lewis, voted for the Stetson bill, while nineteen of them 
 voted for the Wright bill. 
 
 On the other hand, only three of the Senators, Estu- 
 dillo, Anthony and Walker, who stood out for an honest 
 Direct Primary law, voted against the Stetson bill and 
 for the Wright bill. Walker had supported the Stetson 
 bill in the Committee on Corporations, but stumbled into 
 the machine ranks when it came to final vote. Had the 
 anti-machine had an organization, such as the machine 
 Democrats and Republicans maintained, Walker's blun- 
 der could have been prevented. Probably, too, Estudillo 
 and Anthony would have remained with the anti-machine 
 forces. 65 This would have given the Stetson bill twenty- 
 one votes, and assured its passage. 
 
 65 Walker and Estudillo were bitterly condemned for their vote 
 for the Wright bill. Incidentally, the writer has been roundly 
 criticized for offering the excuse in their behalf that these two 
 men indicated by their attitude on other measures throughout the 
 
Stetson Bill Defeated 143 
 
 Another vote that should have been saved to the 
 reformers was that of Burnett. Burnett was clearly 
 tricked into voting for the Wright bill. When the Stet- 
 son bill received the favorable recommendation of the 
 Senate Judiciary Committee, 'machine claquers filled the 
 air with the indefinite promise that in the event of the 
 Wright bill becoming: a law, a constitutional amendment 
 would be adopted, by which all ambiguity in the State 
 Constitution on the question of maximum and absolute 
 rates would be removed. The amendment was then 
 pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which 
 finally reported it favorably. 
 
 After the Wright bill had been passed, the amend- 
 ment was defeated by machine votes, as will be shown in 
 the next chapter. 
 
 session that they would have continued with the reform element 
 In the matter of railroad regulation, had the anti-machine Senators 
 been organized to give effective resistance to the machine. Per- 
 haps the sanest of this criticism, certainly the most reasonable, 
 Is from a gentleman who was a close observer of the work of 
 the session. He says: 
 
 "The course of the railroad rate bill from my point of view 
 looked somewhat different in many details, at any rate, from your 
 account of it. I cannot bring myself to think that it was defeated 
 by any chance at the hands of a friendly Legislature. I think 
 that what chances there were were mostly added to the number 
 of votes the bill got and that the attitude of men like Walker 
 and Estudillo on that bill was fundamental and to have been 
 expected from the start. Of course what you say about the 
 woeful lack of organization amongst the individual men was only 
 too apparent. That phenomenon reaches back still deeper and is 
 based upon the quality of human nature which exerts itself more 
 persistently and more energetically and with soldier-like rhythm 
 of compact organization when private selfish interests are involved, 
 than when the general interest and somewhat vague uncentered 
 end of public welfare is concerned." 
 
 But in spite of this very reasonable view, from a very reason- 
 able gentleman, the fact remains that in the Committee on Cor- 
 porations, Walker stood out against the machine on this very 
 issue, and that in the direct primary fight both Walker and 
 Estudillo stood out against the machine to the end. Had the anti- 
 machine element been organized, the Stetson bill and not the 
 Wright bill would in all probability have been passed. 
 
144 Stetson Bill Defeated 
 
 In the closing days of the session, when Burnett was 
 urging that steps be taken for investigation into the in- 
 crease of freight rates, he called attention to the fate of 
 that railroad-regulation amendment. 
 
 "I was led to vote as I did for the Railroad Regulation 
 bill," he said, "on the understanding that that consti- 
 tutional amendment would be adopted. As you know, 
 it was defeated. My attitude on the regulation bill would 
 have been very different had I known that the amend- 
 ment was to be rejected." 
 
 The Wright bill met with practically no opposition in 
 the Assembly, being rushed through the Lower House 
 in the closing -hours of the session. Had the Stet- 
 son bill passed the Senate, the machine would have tried 
 to block and amend it in the Assembly as was done with 
 the Direct Primary bill, but the measure would probably 
 have been passed. 
 
 Had the anti -machine forces in the Senate been 
 organized, the Stetson, and not the Wright bill, would 
 have passed that body. Without organization, or even 
 definite policy, in the face of organized machine opposi- 
 tion, it is astonishing and at the same time most 
 encouraging that eighteen of the forty Senators stood 
 by the Stetson bill to the end. 
 
 X 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 RAILROAD MEASURES. 
 
 Constitutional Amendment to Clear the Way for an 
 Effective Railroad Regulation Bill Defeated Rate 
 Investigation Delayed Until Too Late for Effective- 
 ness Resolution to Continue Investigation Defeated 
 Reciprocal Demurrage Bill Becomes a Law 
 "Error" in the Full Crew Bill 
 
 The anti-machine members of the Legislature had 
 not proceeded far in their efforts to pass an effective 
 railroad regulation law, before they became convinced that 
 at best only a make-shift measure is possible, until cer- 
 tain alleged ambiguities of those sections of the State 
 Constitution prescribing the powers and duties of the 
 State Board of Railroad Commissioners have been re- 
 moved. Where, to the common sense mind, no ambi- 
 guities exist, machine claquers and Southern Pacific 
 attorneys can read them into the Constitution very easily, 
 as in the dispute as to whether the absolute or the mini- 
 mum rate is constitutional. 
 
 Advised by the attorneys representing the shipping 
 interests, the anti-machine members undertook to sim- 
 plify the language of the sections in dispute, so that a 
 wayfaring man though a judge on the bench or a machine 
 legislator need not err in the construction thereof. 
 
 Early in the session, Senator Campbell had intro- 
 duced a constitutional amendment to that end. The 
 
146 Railroad Measures 
 
 amendment went to the Judiciary Committee on January 
 14th. The majority of the committee, openly against the 
 machine, favored the submission to the people of such an 
 amendment. But it was not until February 22d that 
 the amendment or rather a substitute for it was re- 
 ported back to the Senate. 
 
 The day following, February 23d, Senator Campbell 
 had the measure re-referred to the committee, that an 
 amendment better calculated to meet the needs of the 
 State might be prepared. The committee took until 
 March 5th to make its report. The anti-machine Sena- 
 tors on the committee had to fight for every inch of the 
 way toward securing a report upon an effective amend- 
 ment. This, however, they finally succeeded in doing. 
 The second substitute amendment smoothed out the am- 
 biguities and the alleged ambiguities of the Constitution, 
 of which the machine legislators made so much during 
 the session, and of which it is feared the courts may make 
 much later on. For the long list of constitutional powers 
 and duties of the Railroad Commissioners, which are 
 so worded as to confuse the legal mind, the framers of 
 the amendment substituted the following: 
 
 "The Commission (Railroad) and each of its mem- 
 bers shall have such powers and perform such duties as 
 are now or may hereafter be provided for by law." Under 
 that simple permission there could have been no ques- 
 tion of the authority of the Legislature to empower the 
 Railroad Commissioners to fix a system of absolute 
 rates. Section 23, Article XII., of the Constitution, 
 which at least confused the lawyers employed by the rail- 
 roads to prevent the passage of the Stetson bill, was re- 
 
Railroad Measures 147 
 
 pealed entirely. The adoption of the amendment, would, 
 had it been approved by the people at the general election 
 of 1910, have removed every impediment which railroad 
 attorneys claim to be in the way of an effective railroad 
 regulation law for California. 
 
 Curiously enough the machine Senators who had been 
 so much exercised over the alleged ambiguities of the 
 Constitution when the Stetson bill was under con- 
 sideration were found opposed to the submission of 
 the amendment to the people. Every Senator who 
 voted against the amendment had voted against the 
 Stetson bill and had voted for the Wright bill. Bur- 
 nett, who had been led to believe when he voted 
 for the Wright bill that the amendment would 
 be submitted to the people, voted for the amendment. 
 Walker also switched back from the machine. Wright 
 and McCartney, who had voted against the Stetson bill, 
 also went on record for the amendment. The remain- 
 ing fourteen Senators who voted for it, to a man, had 
 voted for the Stetson bill and against the passage of 
 the Wright bill. But a two-thirds vote of the Senate was 
 required for the amendment's adoption. This meant 
 twenty-seven votes. The amendment was defeated, the 
 vote being nineteen for submission of the measure to the 
 people, and sixteen against. 66 
 
 This ended all hope of a model railroad regulation 
 
 66 The vote was as follows: 
 
 For the amendment: Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Burnett, Cami- 
 netti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Holohan, McCartney, 
 Miller, Roseberry, Rush, Strobridge, Sanford, Thompson, Walker, 
 Wright 19. 
 
 Against the amendment: Anthony, Bills, Estudillo, Finn, Hart- 
 man, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed, 
 Welch, Willis, Wolfe 16. 
 
148 Railroad Measures 
 
 law for California until 1913, for the Constitution must 
 be amended before such a law can be realized. If a satis- 
 factory amendment be adopted in 1911, it must before 
 going into effect be ratified by the people. This ratifica- 
 tion would come in 1912. The Legislature of 1913 
 would then be able to proceed with the passage of the 
 model statute. 
 
 An attempt to investigate the causes and the neces- 
 sity of the arbitrary increase in transcontinental freight 
 rates failed as completely as did the attempted amend- 
 ment of the Constitution. 
 
 Early in the session, on January 18, to be exact, Sena- 
 tor Caminetti introduced a resolution which directed the 
 Senate Committee on Federal Relations to inquire into 
 the cause of the increase in freight rates, and to report 
 its findings to the Senate. Two days later Caminetti 
 introduced a second and companion resolution, which 
 provided that investigation should be made into the 
 causes for the increase in express charges. On Senator 
 Leavitt's motion this last resolution was made a special 
 order for January 22, when the first resolution was to 
 come up. The Senate on the 22d re-referred the reso- 
 lutions back to the committee. 
 
 The Senate Committee on Federal Relations was, by 
 Caminetti's clever tactics in having the resolutions go to 
 that body, forced into a prominence which evidently 
 worried the machine. It consisted of Burnett, Black and 
 Sanford. Black, Republican, and Sanford, Democrat, 
 were working openly against the machine. Burnett, while 
 he managed to land on the machine side of things at 
 critical points in the progress of the session, was by no 
 
Railroad Measures 149 
 
 means a machine coolie. Had it been known that the 
 Committee on Federal Relations was to be charged with 
 an investigation into railroad affairs, a very different 
 committee would unquestionably have been appointed. 
 The machine's problem was to correct the blunder made 
 when the anti-machine forces were given a majority on 
 what had become a committee charged with the handling 
 of an important railroad issue. The ease with which the 
 blunder was corrected speaks volumes for the machine's 
 resourcefulness. 
 
 The air at the capitol suddenly became permeated with 
 the idea that a committee of three was altogether too 
 small to conduct so important an investigation as that 
 proposed in the Caminetti resolutions. Accordingly the 
 Committee on Federal Relations very readily recom- 
 mended, when it reported the resolutions back to the 
 Senate with the recommendation that the investigation be 
 held, that two Senators be added to the committee, mak- 
 ing it a committee of five. Had the machine observed the 
 unwritten rules of Senatorial courtesy, 67 which machine 
 Senators insist upon so loudly, the anti-machine element 
 would have been safe enough in doing this. Senatorial 
 courtesy required that the author of the resolutions, Cam- 
 inetti, be made one of the two additional members. This 
 
 67 Machine Senators habitually exact the utmost consideration 
 and courtesy from the anti-machine Senators, and habitually repay 
 t with deceit and trickery. The curious feature of this is that 
 the anti-machine Senators continue to extend the courtesy and 
 continue to be tricked and imposed upon. A shutting off of "Sen- 
 atorial courtesy" would go far toward solving the problem of ma- 
 chine domination of the Legislature. 
 
150 Railroad Measures 
 
 would have given the anti-machine element at least three 
 members of the enlarged committee, a condition which 
 did not line with machine purposes at all. So Senatorial 
 courtesy was thrown to the winds, Senator Caminetti was 
 ignored, and Senators Wolfe and Bills were named as 
 the additional members of the committee. The machine 
 seldom blunders, but when it does, usually covers its 
 blunders with astonishing directness and dispatch. A 
 glance at the records made by Senators Wolfe and 
 Bills, which will be found in Table "A" of the Appendix, 
 will show the truth of this statement. 
 
 The machine's next move was to delay the investiga- 
 tion. For one reason and another the investigation was 
 delayed. Finally, on February 19, Caminetti gave notice 
 that on the following Tuesday, he would move that the 
 committee be discharged and a second committee or- 
 dered to carry out the instructions contained in the 
 resolutions. This declaration of war stirred the machine 
 to action machine action. Assurances were given that 
 the investigation would be held, but it was March 12, 
 almost two months after the resolution had been intro- 
 duced, and only twelve days before adjournment, before 
 the committee placed its first witness on the stand. 
 
 At that time the Senate was in the midst of the 
 Direct Primary fight, and in addition, the machine after 
 months of planning was sending literally hundreds of 
 measures into Senate and Assembly for final action. 
 There was no time nor were the members of the com- 
 mittee in a condition to conduct the investigation which 
 the anti-machine element had contemplated. But hurried 
 hearings were held, and a mass of evidence of railroad 
 
Railroad Measures 151 
 
 and express company extortion brought into the open. 
 The interested reader will find the testimony printed in 
 the Senate Journal of March 23, 1909. 
 
 Men of the standing of Edwin Bonnheim, 68 treasurer 
 and manager of Weinstock, Lubin & Co. ; Russell D. Car- 
 penter, auditor of Hale Brothers, Inc. ; J. O. Bracken, 
 manager of the California Commercial Association; C. 
 H. Bentley of the California Fruit Canners Association ; 
 all testified that the increase in express and freight 
 charges has worked great hardship upon the State. They 
 showed that in the final analysis the consumer pays the 
 increased charges. Futhermore, testimony was produced 
 which at least indicated that the transportation com- 
 panies, if economically not to say honestly managed, 
 would receive fair returns on their legitimate invest- 
 ments, were even lower freight rates to be charged than 
 those exacted prior to the increase of 1908. It was also 
 shown that the State of California could institute and 
 conduct an examination into railroad affairs before the 
 
 68 Mr. Bonnheim testified that prior to the new schedule of ex- 
 press rates enforced between New York and the city of San Fran- 
 cisco, the rate was $8.00 per hundred for shipments of from 10,000 
 to 20,000 pounds; $9.00 per hundred for 5,000 to 10,000 pounds; $10.00 
 per hundred for 2,000 to 5,000 pounds; $11.00 per hundred from 
 1,000 to 2,000 pounds, and $12.00 from 500 to 1,000 pounds; $13.50 
 from 100 to 500 pounds. 
 
 That the withdrawal of the bulk rates in December, 1908, re- 
 sulted in an advance of 35 per cent by the withdrawal of the 
 2,000 pound rate, and an advance of 50 per cent by the withdrawal 
 of the 5,000 pound rate; an advance of 66% per cent by the with- 
 drawal of the 10,000 pound rate, and that the withdrawal of the 
 20,000 pound rate amounted to an advance of 92 8-10 per cent. 
 
152 Railroad Measures 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission. 69 It was clear to all 
 that thorough investigation under the Caminetti resolu- 
 tions would prove of enormous benefit to the State. That 
 the committee could do little or nothing in the short time 
 remaining before adjournment was also recognized. 
 Burnett had come out for thorough investigation, giving 
 the anti-machine forces a majority of the committee. 
 Witness after witness representing the large shippers and 
 importers of the State urged that the investigation be 
 carried on even after the Legislature had adjourned. 
 Burnett as chairman of the committee was urging this 
 course, but it was March 23, the day before adjournment, 
 before he could get his committee report ready, and filed 
 with the Senate, as basis for a resolution to continue 
 the investigation after the Legislature had adjourned. 
 There were but eleven dependable anti-machine Senators 
 in addition to Burnett who were within reach of the 
 capitol. But the machine had a safe majority within 
 
 69 Senator Cartwright actually introduced a resolution calling 
 upon the Attorney-General to institute proceedings before the In- 
 terstate Commerce Commission: 
 
 To determine whether existing rates are reasonable or un- 
 reasonable. 
 
 To ascertain, fix and establish a reasonable schedule of freight 
 rates, and to enforce the same. 
 
 To determine whether or not any existing rate is discrimina- 
 tory. 
 
 And to prevent further discrimination between persons or places. 
 
 The resolution carried an appropriation of $25,000 to ensure 
 competent legal and expert assistance. 
 
 The resolution was introduced on February 4. It went first to 
 the Committee on Federal Relations, then to the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee, then to the Committee on Finance, from which it emerged 
 March 1 with the recommendation that it be adopted. On March 2 
 it was sent back to the Committee on Finance and was never 
 heard from again. The enormous benefit to the State if such an 
 investigation could be honestly and effectively carried on, will be 
 recognized. 
 
Railroad Measures 153 
 
 call. Burnett's resolution was defeated, the investigation 
 denied, by a vote of twelve for to sixteen against. 70 
 
 But two important railroad measures were finally 
 passed by the Legislature. The first of these was the 
 "Full Crew bill," which required adequate manning of 
 railroad trains. After being held-up as long as the 
 machine dared, the bill was finally passed. But the "Full 
 Crew bill" met with one of those unfortunate "errors" 71 
 which played such important parts in the passage of the 
 Anti-Gambling bill and the Direct Primary bill. When 
 the Legislature had adjourned this error was discovered, 
 and Governor Gillett refused to 'sign the bill because 
 of it. 
 
 70 The vote was as follows: 
 
 For the resolution: Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, 
 Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Thomp- 
 son 12. 
 
 Against the resolution: Anthony, Bates, Bills, Finn, Hartman, 
 Kurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, Reily, Savage, Weed, 
 Willis, Wolfe, Wright 16. 
 
 71 E. F. Mitchell, Executive Secretary to Governor Gillett, 
 makes the following statement regarding this particular error: 
 
 "The electric companies which run interurban trains, also 
 claimed that the bill, as prepared, applied to them, and would 
 place upon them an unnecessary burden and expense. 
 
 "There is no doubt that section three of the act applies to 
 motor cars and electric cars. The language is very plain. Section 
 one of the bill describes passenger trains, section two refers to 
 freight trains, and section three says "all other trains not pro- 
 pelled by steam locomotives." Now, there are only two classes 
 of cars that are not propelled by steam locomotives, and those 
 are motor and electric cars. In the Governor's opinion, an error 
 was made in endeavoring to amend it, so it would not apply to 
 motor cars and electric cars. The amendment was prepared, and 
 we had here in the office, during the argument on the bill, the 
 original committee amendments proposed. The amendment was 
 to be made after the word "train" on the second line and had 
 this amendment been made as contemplated, it would have ex- 
 cluded motor cars and electric cars, but instead of having been 
 made on line two, as expected, it was carried into line three, 
 where it gave the bill an entirely different meaning. It was one 
 of those unfortunate things that crept into legislation through 
 an oversight of somebody, which could have been readily corrected 
 if the bill had been watched. The insertion of this amendment 
 in the wrong place, instead of excluding motor cars and electric 
 cars, as intended, included them. This error was not discovered 
 until the bill came up before the Governor for consideration." 
 
154 Railroad Measures 
 
 * The second important railroad measure passed was 
 the Reciprocal Demurrage bill, introduced in the Senate 
 by Miller, and in the Assembly by Drew. As finally 
 passed the bill provides that railroad companies which 
 fail to supply shippers with cars when proper requisition 
 has been made for them, shall pay the injured shipper 
 demurrage at the rate of $5 per car per day. On the other 
 hand, shippers who fail to load or unload cars after 
 a stated time, are required to pay the railroad $6 daily as 
 demurrage. The extra dollar which the shippers are 
 required to pay the railroads is exacted to compensate 
 the railroads for rental of the car. 
 
 Similar laws up to the time of the passage of the 
 Miller-Drew bill had been adopted by seventeen States 
 of the Union, including Oregon and Texas. During 
 the recent car shortage, it is alleged that empty cars 
 needed in California, were sent into Oregon and into 
 Texas, that the railroads might escape the demurrage 
 charges exacted in those two States. California, without a 
 demurrage law, was helpless. At the session of 
 1907, however, the machine, in complete control 
 of the Senate, defeated a reciprocal demurrage 
 bill. To be sure the demurrage was higher in the meas- 
 ure proposed in 1907 than in that passed at the session 
 of 1909, but it was the principle of demurrage, not its 
 amount, that the machine was against in 1907. In 1909, 
 however, not a Senator voted against the bill. And in 
 this connection there is a story told which unquestion- 
 ably had its bearing upon the fate of the Reciprocal De- 
 murrage bill at the 1909 session. The story deals with a 
 political adventure in the life of one Henry Lynch. 
 
Railroad Measures 155 
 
 Mr. Lynch voted against reciprocal demurrage in 
 1907. He voted neither for nor against reciprocal de- 
 murrage in 1909, for he was not at Sacramento to vote. 
 Mr. Lynch was not at Sacramento to vote in 1909, for 
 one reason at least, because he did vote against recipro- 
 cal demurrage in 1907. 
 
 Mr. Lynch hailed from the Thirty-first Senatorial 
 District, which takes in San Benito and San Luis Obispo 
 counties. These counties are intensely Republican ; they 
 are also farming communities. And since the one-time 
 Senator Lynch voted against the Reciprocal Demurrage 
 bill, the farmers have seen tons upon tons of their prod- 
 ucts rot in the fields because they could not get cars to 
 move their crops. 
 
 But while the farmers of San Luis Obispo and San 
 Benito counties were watching their products rot for 
 want of cars to move them, it is alleged that cars were 
 being sent from California to Oregon to meet the 
 requisitions of Oregon shippers. Oregon had a recipro- 
 cal demurrage law on her statute books; California had 
 not. 
 
 Senator Lynch's vote against the Reciprocal Demur- 
 rage bill was made a sort of issue in San Benito and 
 San Luis Obispo counties at the election of 1908. A. E. 
 Campbell, Democrat, was running against Mr. Lynch, 
 Republican, for the State Senate. Right or wrong 
 the reader may judge which the farmers of the two 
 counties credited the defeat of the Reciprocal Demurrage 
 bill not to the Republican Party, but to the Republican 
 machine, or better described perhaps as the Republican- 
 Democratic machine, that dominates the State, a machine 
 
156 Railroad Measures 
 
 which the people of California are just now engaged in 
 smashing. 
 
 Being good Republicans, the people of Mr. Lynch's 
 district gave Mr. Taft a plurality of more than 1,700; 
 remembering the defeat of the Reciprocal Demurrage bill, 
 they gave Mr. Campbell, Democratic candidate for the 
 Senate, a plurality of 416. The fact that a United States 
 Senator was to be elected didn't influence the Republi- 
 cans of San Luis Obispo County at all. They elected a 
 Democrat to the State Senate because they knew him to 
 be free from machine domination a machine maintained 
 for the purpose of defeating good measures, such as the 
 Reciprocal Demurrage bill, and furthering the passage of 
 bad ones. 
 
 But the influence of Lynch's vote against the Recipro- 
 cal Demurrage bill was not confined to San Luis 
 Obispo and San Benito Counties. It spread over into 
 the adjoining Twenty-ninth District, which takes in 
 Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties. These counties 
 are also intensely Republican. They gave Taft a plural- 
 ity of 2,799. But they gave the Democratic candidate 
 for the State Senate, James B. Holohan, a plurality of 
 677. Holohan ran 3,476 votes ahead of his ticket in a 
 district where only 9,483 votes were cast for State Sen- 
 ator. Holohan was known to be free of machine influ- 
 ences. He could be counted upon to vote for a Recipro- 
 cal Demurrage bill without first consulting the Southern 
 Pacific's political agent, Jere Burke. And the Republi- 
 can whose place he took in the Senate had voted against 
 the Reciprocal Demurrage bill of 1907. 
 
 The election of Holohan and Campbell unquestion- 
 
Railroad Measures 157 
 
 ably had its influence on the passage of the Demurrage 
 bill. Not a member of the Senate cast his vote against 
 it, although several of the Senators who had voted 
 against the bill two years before, sat in the Senate of 
 1909. Among these were ten Senators who, during the 
 session of 1909, were conspicuously on the wrong side of 
 most questions. They were Senators Bates, Hartman, 
 Leavitt, McCartney, Reily, Savage, Weed, Willis, Wolfe 
 and Wright. The ten, for example, constituted half the 
 twenty Senators who opposed the plan to give The 
 People State-wide popular vote in the selection of United 
 States Senators. Only seven Senators voted against 
 the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. Five of the seven 
 Hartman, Leavitt, Reily, Weed and Wolfe had voted 
 against reciprocal demurrage in 1907. But there was 
 a harkening to the demand of The People in 1909, which 
 had been wanting two years before. Seven of these 
 ten Senators, who voted against reciprocal demurrage 
 in 1907 Bates, Hartman, McCartney, Savage, Willis, 
 Wolfe and Wright voted for reciprocal demurrage in 
 1909. Three of them Leavitt, Reily and Weed did not 
 vote at all. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 DEFEAT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB BILLS. 
 
 Drawn By Committees of the Ablest San Francisco At- 
 torneys Not Under Retainer of Prison-Dodging Cap- 
 tains of Industry Measures Not Allowed to Reach 
 Senate or Assembly, but Killed in Committees 
 Grove L. Johnson's Keen Opposition. 
 
 The graft prosecution at San Francisco not only 
 brought the fact squarely before the public that large 
 corporations sometimes catch the easiest way to achieve 
 their purposes by bribing public officials, but that it is a 
 deal easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle 
 than a millionaire offender through the legal cobwebs of 
 technicality to a cell at San Quentin or Folsom. 72 
 
 That the technical defense in criminal cases was sub- 
 ject to grave abuses had been generally recognized. But 
 it took the graft cases at San Francisco to fairly rub 
 this unpleasant fact into the law-abiding element. Be- 
 cause for the first time in the practice of criminal law in 
 California, unlimited wealth was available to employ the 
 best legal talent to defend men under indictment. 
 
 72 No sooner had the indictments been returned in the San 
 Francisco cases than the validity of the indicting Grand Jury 
 was attacked. For months that issue occupied the attention of 
 the Courts. One by one the members of the Grand Jury were 
 dragged into Court, and in effect placed on trial that technical 
 disqualification if such existed might be established. The greater 
 part of a day was, for example, consumed in thrashing over the 
 question whether one or three motions had been made in nom- 
 inating the stenographer to the Grand Jury. 
 
 Then came appeals to the higher Courts which occupied more 
 months and all but endless labor and expense. 
 
 When the attacks on the Grand Jury had been met and dis- 
 
Commonwealth Club Bills 159 
 
 The defending lawyers took advantage of every tech- 
 nicality. They emphasized the most trivial of them. 
 Gradually it began to dawn upon The People that here 
 were legal refuges, based upon the most absurd of tech- 
 nicalities, the sweeping away of which would in no way 
 injure the substantial rights of a person charged with 
 crime, refuges which were available to the rich man but 
 denied to the poor or moderately well-to-do. 
 
 To be sure, any person accused could make his tech- 
 nical defense if he had the means to employ the necessary 
 counsel. But in face of the astonishing performances 
 going on in the courts at San Francisco, it soon became 
 apparent to the thoughtful, that no man, whose fortune 
 was expressed in terms of less than five ciphers could 
 make such a defense. 
 
 Thus the unpalatable truth was forced home, that we 
 have in California a technical defense available for the 
 rich man charged with crime, which is in effect denied 
 even those of the so-called middle classes. 
 
 With this conviction came demand of reform of the 
 criminal laws to ensure: 
 
 posed of, and the defendants brought to the trial Court, the 
 prosecution found its labors scarcely begun. Every trial juror was 
 placed on trial. Weeks and even months were required, because 
 of technical objections, to secure a trial jury. 
 
 Just before the Legislature convened, Abe Ruef, had, as example, 
 been convicted by a jury in the securing of which the metropolis 
 of the State had been raked as with a fine-tooth comb for talesmen 
 who were not technically disqualified to serve. Thousands were 
 available who would have given the defendant a fair trial, but 
 in all San Francisco very few could be found who were not be- 
 cause of one technical reason or another disqualified. 
 
 After conviction came the defendant's appeal, in which the 
 most trivial reasons were accepted for freeing the defendant whose 
 technical defense had failed him in the lower Courts. Former 
 Mayor Schmitz of San Francisco, after conviction of extortion, 
 and Abe Ruef, after having pleaded guilty to the charge, were 
 given their freedom under circumstances which, to put it mildly, 
 shocked the whole State. 
 
160 Commonwealth Club Bills 
 
 (1) A prompt trial of an accused person on the 
 merits of the case. 
 
 (2) A prompt judgment in the case of a verdict of 
 guilty. 
 
 (3) A prompt hearing of the case in the Court of 
 Appeal. 
 
 The machine was, of course, against any such "wicked 
 innovations," as Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson would 
 have called them. 
 
 However, at San Francisco, three considerable bodies, 
 the Bar Association, the Commonwealth Club and the 
 Citizens' League of Justice, took the matter up, and for 
 months had the ablest lawyers of the State at any rate 
 the ablest not retained for the defense of capitalists 
 under indictment at work wrestling with the problem 
 of simplifying the criminal codes and doing away so far 
 as possible with technical defense, except in such cases 
 as the substantial rights of the defendant might be in- 
 volved. 
 
 A committee consisting of J. C. McKinstry, J. J. 
 Dwyer, Lester H. Jacobs, Oscar Cushing and Warren 
 Olney Jr. was appointed for this purpose by the Citizens' 
 League of Justice. The Commonwealth Club appointed 
 Beverly L. Hodghead, Orrin K. McMurray, Alex. G. 
 Eells, Fairfax H. Wheelan, Sidney V. Smith, Lester H. 
 Jacobs and Joseph Hutchinson. One would go far be- 
 fore finding more representative or more public-spirited 
 bodies of citizens, or more able exponents of the law. 
 The labors of the several committees resulted in what 
 
Commonwealth Club Bills 161 
 
 may in a broad way be regarded as two sets of bills 
 being prepared. 
 
 The first, known as the Commonwealth Club bills, 
 were sixty-five in number, and were introduced in the 
 Senate by Campbell, and in the Assembly by Butler. 
 The second set was known as the Bar Association bills. 
 They were introduced in the Senate by Burnett. They 
 were nine in number, and while apparently covering much 
 of the ground of the Commonwealth Club bills, were in 
 no respects so complete as to method or detail. The 
 Bar Association bills pin-pricked an abuse; the Com- 
 monwealth Club bills drove the knife in deep. 
 
 The sixty-five Commonwealth Club bills were readily 
 divided into three groups, those dealing with Grand 
 Juries and indictments, with trial juries and verdicts, and 
 with appeals to the higher courts. 
 
 The general purpose of the measures dealing with 
 Grand Juries was to make those bodies purely accusatory, 
 to make their findings conclusive and not subject to at- 
 tack. The basis of the proposed amendments and -addi- 
 tions to the laws governing Grand Juries was that Grand 
 Juries are primarily required to investigate secret of- 
 fenses, and should be regarded as purely accusatory 
 bodies. On this theory the Commonwealth Club bills 
 made the indictment of a Grand Jury as binding as the 
 action of a committing magistrate who holds a defend- 
 ant to answer. Had the Commonwealth Club bills be- 
 come laws there would have been no more placing of 
 Grand Jurors on trial for having found indictments 
 against persons able to employ crafty criminal lawyers. 
 
 But lest the defendant under investigation might be 
 
162 Commonwealth Club Bills 
 
 wronged, the Commonwealth Club measures so amended 
 the codes that a Grand Juror in any way biased against 
 the defendant was required to absent himself from the 
 Grand Jury room when the defendant's case was under 
 consideration. Under the proposed laws each Grand 
 Juror was required to take oath "not to participate in 
 the inquiry as to any matter or affecting any person as 
 to which or whom he is biased or could not vote freely 
 either way that the evidence presented would in justice 
 require him to vote." 
 
 The Commonwealth Club amendments regarding 
 trial juries dealt with the problem in the same broad 
 spirit. The chief object sought was to avoid the trying 
 of citizens called for jury service. 73 The proposed laws 
 obviated this by leaving it with the Judge to determine 
 the qualifications of the juror, that is to say, the examina- 
 tion of jurors in criminal cases was to have been taken 
 out of the hands of the lawyers and required of the 
 Judge. To compensate the defendant for whatever sub- 
 stantial disadvantage he might suffer, the number of his 
 peremptory challenges was materially increased. 
 
 To prevent the setting aside of judgments on trifling 
 technicalities, the proposed amendments provided that 
 the Judge should fix the legality of the jury panel by 
 general order, after which challenges could not apply to 
 the whole panel, although they still held as to individual 
 jurors. 
 
 One of the most important of the provisions regard- 
 
 73 A prominent San Francisco attorney told the writer re- 
 cently that "the criminal lawyer too often questions a talesman 
 needlessly, not so much to disqualify him, as to get technical error 
 into the record." 
 
Commonwealth Club Bills 163 
 
 ing trial jurors was that the reading of mere newspaper 
 reports of a case should not disqualify a trial juror, un- 
 less it were shown that the newspaper article purported 
 to be a true copy of the official testimony. 
 
 The fact that under the present law the term "rea- 
 sonable doubt" is not given legal definition paves the 
 way for frequent miscarriages of justice. The Judge 
 is required to define the term for the jury. The de- 
 fendant may take exception to the definition, thus pav- 
 ing the way for technical defense in the upper Courts. 
 The Commonwealth Club bills defined "reasonable 
 doubt" to be, "that state of the case which, after the 
 entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence 
 in the cause, leaves the minds of the jurors in that con- 
 dition that they cannot say they feel an abiding convic- 
 tion to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge." 
 
 Amendments were also proposed to the law governing 
 instructions to juries. Under the present rule, each 
 side presents a long list of instructions for the Judge to 
 give to the jury. If the Judge refuse to give the in- 
 structions as requested, objections to his refusal can be 
 taken and made basis for a technical defense. 73a Under 
 the proposed amendments objection could be made only 
 to such instructions as were given, not to those which 
 were not presented to the jury. 
 
 In none of those proposed amendments could the sub- 
 
 73a It was on a technicality of this kind that the District 
 Court of Appeals found excuse for reversal of the judgment in the 
 case of Louis Glass, convicted of bribing a member of the San 
 Francisco Board of Supervisors. E. J. Zimmer, the auditor of the 
 Pacific States Telephone Company, of which Glass was an official, 
 refused to testify at Glass' trial. The trial court refused to in- 
 struct the jury to disregard the refusal. The Appellate Court held 
 this to be a fatal error. 
 
164 Commonwealth Club Bills 
 
 stantial rights of the defendant be said to be encroached 
 upon. But the proposed laws did clear away a mass of 
 technicalities which has kept many a scamp out of jail. 
 
 The proposed amendments dealing with appeals in 
 criminal cases aimed at prompt judgment and sentence 
 after conviction, prompt appeal and conclusion of the 
 case. 
 
 To this end, the measures provided that upon con- 
 viction the defendant must be sentenced forthwith, and 
 if appeals were taken, taken on the judgment. Instead 
 of the cumbersome bill of exceptions, which required 
 weeks and sometimes months to prepare, it was provided 
 that the entire testimony given at the trial, together with 
 the complete minutes of the proceedings, should be sent 
 to the higher tribunal. This would place before the Ap- 
 pellate and Supreme Courts all the facts and testimony 
 -which the Lower Court had considered. This feature 
 of the Commonwealth Club bills was also covered by the 
 measures which had been prepared by the Bar Associa- 
 tion. 
 
 Under the proposed Commonwealth Club amend- 
 ments, the defendant was not permitted to appeal on 
 questions referring to the trial jury panels or the Grand 
 Jury, nor on any error not affecting his substantial 
 rights. Error in an immaterial issue, or of not sufficient 
 importance to affect the substantial rights of the defend- 
 ant, was not, under the provisions of the Commonwealth 
 Club bills, to be held ground for reversal. 
 
 "We believe," said the Committee which drew up the 
 Commonwealth Club bills, "that what we have proposed 
 is in no way revolutionary and deprives the accused 
 
Commonwealth Club Bills 165 
 
 person of no substantial right. The amendments pro- 
 posed are merely designed to make the present law more 
 effective, to relieve the Courts from the necessity of con- 
 sidering trivial matters and to aid in determining 
 more promptly whether a person accused of crime is 
 innocent or guilty." 
 
 The bills as introduced in the Assembly were re- 
 ferred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In the 
 Senate, the bills went to the Senate Judiciary Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 The promoters of the Commonwealth Club bills made 
 the mistake of treating the machine Senators and As- 
 semblymen as men who could be won over with reason 
 and plain statement. Instead of fighting for their bills 
 and demanding their passage, the agents of the club 
 v/ere willing to listen courteously to suggestions from 
 tricksters intent upon the defeat of the measures, who 
 were only playing for time. 
 
 Carroll Cook was at Sacramento lobbying against 
 the bills, as were others of that gentleman's view of 
 affairs. Cook actually appeared before the Assembly 
 Judiciary Committee on invitation of one of its mem- 
 bers. The courtesy shown him by Grove L. Johnson, 
 chairman of the Committee, was touching or nauseating, 
 as one might view it. Johnson, who was in effect the 
 Committee, took occasion on the day of Cook's appear- 
 ance to denounce the measures as revolutionary, uncon- 
 stitutional, vicious. 
 
 It is interesting to note that sixty-three of the sixty- 
 five bills as introduced in the Assembly never got be- 
 yond Johnson's Committee. They died right there. The 
 
1 66 Commonwealth Club Bills 
 
 two exceptions got out of the Committee in the closing 
 days of the session, one on March 10th, the other on 
 March 20th. They were reported out with the recom- 
 mendation that they do pass. It was then too late to 
 take any action on them. They died on the Assembly 
 file. 
 
 Those who were making a fight for the measures were 
 kept running between the Judiciary Committee of the 
 Assembly and that of the Senate. The Senate Committee, 
 while a majority of its members were against the ma- 
 chine, was led by men who were not at all in sympathy 
 with any plan that was calculated to clear away legal 
 cobwebs. On the pretext that the reforms proposed 
 were covered by the Bar Association bills, or that the 
 measures were duplicated by other bills, or that they 
 were loosely drawn, on any pretext, in fact, the Senate 
 Committee recommended that fifty-two of the sixty-five 
 measures be withdrawn. And they were withdrawn. 
 Of the thirteen remaining, seven stuck in the Commit- 
 tee, died there; five, just before the session closed, were 
 referred back to the Senate with the recommendation 
 that they do not pass. They didn't. Of the sixty-five 
 bills, the Senate Committee gave only one favorable 
 recommendation. This lone recipient of Committee ap- 
 proval got back to the Senate on March 5th. It died 
 on the files. 
 
 Such was the fate of the measures prepared under 
 the direction of the Commonwealth Club for reform of 
 the methods of indictment, trial and appeal in criminal 
 cases. The Bar Association bills received somewhat bet- 
 ter treatment. 
 
Commonwealth Club Bills 167 
 
 Of the nine so-called Bar Association bills, eight 
 passed the Senate ; the other died in the Senate Judiciary 
 Committee. Of the eight which got through the Senate, 
 two were defeated in the Assembly, while six passed 
 that body and went to the Governor. 
 
 Four of the six Bar Association bills which passed 
 dealt with the repeal of those sections of the code which 
 provide for bills of exceptions in criminal cases and 
 substituted the plan, described in considering the Com- 
 monwealth Club bills, of providing the higher Court 
 with complete record of the testimony and the proceed- 
 ings in the trial Court. 
 
 One of the two remaining measures requires sen- 
 tence to be imposed upon a convicted felon in not less 
 than two nor more than five days after the verdict or 
 plea of guilty, with the right reserved for the Court 
 of extending the time to ten days. The sixth measure 
 defines "a motion in arrest of judgment." 
 
 Such was the outcome of the effort made by 
 reputable lawyers and public spirited laymen to eliminate 
 quackery from the practice of the criminal law. But 
 measures calculated to make the practice of the criminal 
 law even more involved and technical than it is were 
 granted more consideration. Many of them passed both 
 houses. How they were passed and what they are will 
 be considered in another chapter. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 How THE CHANGE OF VENUE BILL WAS PASSED. 
 
 Slipped Through the Assembly Without Serious Opposi- 
 tion in Closing Days of the Session Passed by 
 Trick in the Senate Although a Majority of That 
 Body Were Opposed to. Its Passage Typical Case 
 of Machine "Generalship." 
 
 Given the presiding officers of the Senate and As- 
 sembly and the appointment of the Committees of both 
 bodies, the machine minority in the Legislature had com- 
 paratively little difficulty in preventing the passage of 
 desirable measures. Thus, the Commonwealth Club bills 
 to simplify and expedite proceedings in criminal cases, 
 or, if you like, to prevent quackery in the practice of the 
 criminal law, were, by clever manipulation, defeated, al- 
 though if fairly presented to Senate and Assembly they 
 undoubtedly would have become laws. 74 
 
 74 Black's Senate bill, 1,144, came very near being defeated 
 in the Assembly by similar "good generalship." The measui-e 
 in effect prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquors within a mile 
 and a half of Stanford University. Assemblyman Bohnett was in 
 charge of the bill. 
 
 Bohnett, the day that the bill was to come up, was called 
 from the room to attend a committee meeting. Immediately did 
 the Assembly show astonishing activity in consideration of the 
 file. So fast did they go that .the Stanford bill seemed destined 
 to be reached while Bohnett was out of the room. Had it been 
 reached with Bohnett away it could have been dropped to the 
 bottom of the file, where it would have been lost, so far as the 
 session of the Legislature of 1909 was concerned. 
 
 Charles R. Detrick, of Palo Alto, happened to go to the As- 
 sembly chamber at this critical moment and took in the situa- 
 tion at a glance. He accordingly hunted up Bohnett, who got 
 back to the Assembly chamber before the bill could be reached 
 on file. For once "good generalship" had failed at the legislative 
 session of 1909. 
 
Change of Venue Bill 169 
 
 But when it came to passing vicious measures in the 
 face of the opposition of the unorganized majority of 
 both Houses, the machine had a harder job on its hands. 
 A majority vote of each House is required for the pass- 
 age of a measure. To get through its bills, then, the 
 machine had to create a situation in which vicious meas- 
 ures could be rushed through without the unorganized 
 reformers knowing what was being done. By pre- 
 venting action on a large majority of the measures pend- 
 ing before the Legislature until the end of the session, 
 such a situation was created. In the confusion of the 
 closing days of the session, not only were good bills 
 denied passage, but vicious bills, in spite of the opposition 
 of a majority of the Legislature, were passed. Some 
 normally anti-machine members in such a situation be- 
 come worn out, get discouraged and vote for machine 
 policies to secure machine support for measures, the 
 passage of which their constituents at home are de- 
 manding. Others, in the confusion of a whirlwind close 
 of the session, vote for measures which they have no 
 time to read, and which they cannot understand. Thus, 
 even with a majority of Senate and Assembly against 
 machine policies, the clever machine leaders often slip 
 through measures which could not be passed early in 
 the session, when the members have opportunity to 
 study the bills upon which they are called upon to act, 
 and before the ranks of the reform element have been 
 broken. &m 
 
 eEut&GS 
 
 This was very well illustrated at the Session of 1909 
 
170 Change of Venue Bill 
 
 by the passage of the so-called Change of Venue bill. 74a 
 This measure was introduced in the Assembly by Grove 
 L. Johnson. Under its provisions a person charged with 
 crime would have been permitted upon his whim or 
 caprice to allege bias and disqualify the Judge before 
 whom he was to be tried. The Legislature of 1907 was 
 admittedly controlled by the machine, but even the Legis- 
 lature of 1907 did not dare pass the Change of Venue 
 bill. The reform Legislature of 1909, however, did pass 
 it. The manner in which it was passed is a lesson in 
 machine methods. To the credit of Governor Gillett let 
 it be said, however, that he vetoed the measure. 75 
 
 Grove L. Johnson having introduced the bill, it was 
 referred to Johnson's committee, the Judiciary Commit- 
 tee of the Assembly. The Committee held it until Feb- 
 ruary 5, when it was referred back to the Assembly with 
 the recommendation that it "do pass." On March 13, 
 eleven days before adjournment, it passed the Assembly, 
 by a vote of 42 to 15, 41 votes being required for its 
 passage. Assemblymen like Drew, Telfer, Wilson and 
 Stuckenbruck, men who fought the machine and ma- 
 chine policies from the beginning to the end of the 
 
 74a In 1907, the Change of Venue bill was slipped through the 
 Assembly, but in a form not to affect the San Francisco graft 
 cases. In the Senate, however, it was amended to apply to Ruef, 
 Schmitz and their associates. The exposure of this turn raised 
 such a storm that the bill was not brought to vote. However, on 
 the night before adjournment, the measure was slipped through the 
 Senate as an amendment tacked on another bill. But the trick 
 was discovered in the Assembly and defeated. 
 
 75 Governor Gillett's reasons for vetoing the bill are set forth 
 in footnote 1, Chapter I. 
 
Change of Venue Bill 171 
 
 session, voted for the bill. The negative vote of any 
 two of them would have defeated it. 76 
 
 The passage in the Assembly of an important re- 
 form measure as late as March 13, would have meant 
 its defeat in the Senate. Though in the majority the anti- 
 machine Senators could not have forced a reform meas- 
 ure through the machine-controlled committees, ma- 
 chine-controlled even when a majority of a committee 
 was anti-machine. 77 Measures of the Change of Venue 
 bill stamp, however, had a clear way. The Change of 
 Venue bill was on March 15 referred to the Senate 
 Judiciary Committee. On March 16, twenty- four hours 
 after, the Committee returned the bill with the recom- 
 mendation that it do pass. On March 19, with twenty- 
 two Senators opposed to its passage, and eighteen favor- 
 ing it, with twenty-one votes necessary for its passage, 
 the bill passed the Senate. This apparently impossible 
 feat was, in the last two weeks of the session, a com- 
 paratively easy task for the machine. 
 
 To begin with, Senator Black, who opposed the bill, 
 was ill at his home at Palo Alto. This left twenty-one 
 Senators against the measure and eighteen for. The 
 line-up was as follows : 
 
 76 The Assembly vote on the change of venue bill was as 
 follows: 
 
 For the Change of Venue bill Barndollar, Beatty, Black, Cat- 
 tell, Coghlan, Collier, Collum, Cronin, Drew, Feeley, Flint, Gibbons, 
 Griffiths, Hammon, Hans, Hawk, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Holm- 
 quist, Johnson of Sacramento, Johnson of San Diego, Juilliard, 
 Lightner, Macauley, Maher, McClellan, McManus, Melrose, Men- 
 denhall, Moore, Mott, Pugh, Rech, Sehmitt, Silver, Stuckenbruck, 
 Telfer, Transue, Wagner, Wheelan, and Wilson 42. 
 
 Against the Change of Venue bill Baxter, Bohnett, Butler, Cal- 
 lan, Cogswell, Dean, Gerdes, Gillis, Kehoe, Otis, Polsley, Preston, 
 Sackett, Whitney, and Young 15. 
 
 77 The Senate Judiciary Committee for example. 
 
172 Change of Venue Bill 
 
 For the Change of Venue bill Anthony, Bates, Bills, 
 Finn, Hare, Hartman, Hurd, Leavitt, Martinelli, Mc- 
 Cartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed, Welch, Willis, 
 Wolfe,' Wright 18. 
 
 Against the Change of Venue bill Bell, Birdsall, 
 Boynton, Burnett, 76 * Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, 
 Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Lewis, Kennedy, 
 Miller, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, 
 Thompson, Walker 21. 
 
 On the face of it, the outlook for the passage of the 
 Change of Venue bill in the Senate was not good. The 
 machine, however, planned to pass the bill on March 19. 
 
 The machine leaders went at the job systematically. 
 When the Senators took their seats that Friday morning, 
 they found that at Senator Bates' request, Assembly Bill 
 6 (the Change of Venue bill) had been put on the 
 Special Urgency File. The Special Urgency File was 
 to be considered at 8 o'clock Friday evening. Senator 
 Bates stated in an interview that he had placed Assem- 
 bly Bill No. 6 on the Special Urgency File "at the re- 
 quest of a fellow Senator." Who the fellow Senator 
 was, Bates refused to say. Bates insisted, however, that 
 he knew nothing about Assembly Bill No. 6, and could 
 give no reason why it should be made a matter of "special 
 urgency." Senator Bates has since the Legislature ad- 
 journed been given a position of trust in the United 
 States Mint. 
 
 With the Change of Venue bill on the Special Ur- 
 gency File, the next step was to get it considered at the 
 
 76a The Senators whose names are printed in italics became 
 involved in the confusion which led to the passage of the measure. 
 
Change of Venue Bill 173 
 
 moment most favorable for machine purposes. Along 
 about 1 1 o'clock in the forenoon the reader should keep 
 in mind that in the ordinary course of the Senate's work 
 the Special Urgency File would not have been considered 
 until 8 o'clock that evening Senator Wolfe moved that 
 the Special Urgency File be taken up out of order. But 
 before the Change of Venue bill could be reached, Sen- 
 ator Wright, who favored the passage of the measure, 
 was found to be absent from the Senate chamber. On 
 Senator McCartney's motion, the Change of Venue bill 
 was temporarily passed on file. With the constant com- 
 ing and going of Senators, there was no time while the 
 file was under consideration, that the eighteen Senators 
 counted on to vote in a solid block for the bill, were 
 all present. The Senate concluded consideration of the 
 Special Urgency File, and still the Change of Venue bill 
 had not been taken up. The Senate then took up the 
 second reading of Assembly bills, and then the Special 
 File of Appropriation bills. A communication from Dr. 
 Howard Black and Dr. Harry D. Reynolds was read 
 setting forth that Senator Black was too ill to leave 
 Palo Alto. Bills were passed and bills were withdrawn. 
 Senator Strobridge reported that Senate Bill No. 862 
 had been correctly engrossed. And through it all the 
 machine was watching for the favorable moment to force 
 the passage of the Change of Venue bill. 
 
 The moment came just before noon. Like the snap 
 of a trap Leavitt asked for unanimous consent to take 
 up Assembly Bill No. 6, out of order. The anti-machine 
 Senators are never guilty of discourteous treatment of 
 a fellow Senator. They granted the request. 
 
174 Change of Venue Bill 
 
 Senator Wright vouched for the bill. He stated that 
 it was a good bill and should be made a law. Senator 
 Wolfe spoke for it, in fact led the debate to secure its 
 passage. On the other hand, Senator Boynton very 
 pointedly told Senator Wright that the bill was not a 
 good measure and should not be passed. "Judges of 
 the Supreme Court tell me," said Boynton, "that this is 
 a bad bill." 
 
 Senator Cutten made a strong speech against the 
 bill, which he denounced as bad in principle. Holohan 
 stated that if the measure became a law it would give a 
 bunco steerer a chance to disqualify every decent Judge 
 in the State. Roseberry denounced the measure as 
 vicious. 
 
 When the vote was taken, every Senator who sup- 
 ported it was in his seat, but Burnett, Estudillo and Rush 
 were absent. This would have made the vote 18 to 18, 
 the backers of the measure requiring three more affirm- 
 ative votes for its passage. But Miller and Lewis were 
 led to vote for the measure, which made 20 votes for 
 the bill and 16 against it. At this point the bill lacked 
 one vote of passage. Estudillo was, however, brought 
 in under call of the Senate, and under what amounted to 
 misrepresentation, voted for the measure. This passed 
 the bill by a vote of 21 to 18. Boynton changed his vote 
 from no to aye, to give notice that on the next legislative 
 day he would move to reconsider the vote by which the 
 bill had been passed. But before he could give notice 
 the Senate took its noon recess. Boynton under the 
 rules had all day in which to notify the Senate of his 
 intention, but to make assurance doubly sure, he told the 
 
Change of Venue Bill 175 
 
 clerk at the desk not to send the bill to the Assembly 
 for he would as soon as the Senate re-convened, give 
 notice of his motion to reconsider. 
 
 Nevertheless, when the Senate reconvened, Boynton 
 found that the bill had been rushed over to the Assembly, 
 "to save time," according to the excuse given. 
 
 Senator Boynton insisted that the bill be returned 
 from the Assembly. Wolfe asked Boynton "as a matter 
 of Senatorial courtesy," to permit the vote on the bill 
 to be taken on a motion to have it returned from the 
 Assembly. This request was so ludicrous, in view of the 
 treatment that had been accorded Boynton, that it pro- 
 voked a smile. Boynton refused to be "courteous," the 
 bill was returned from the Assembly and regularly recon- 
 sidered the next day. 
 
 With 21 votes against the measure, there seemed 
 little doubt that it would be reconsidered and defeated. 
 Twenty-one votes were necessary for reconsideration. 
 Lewis and Miller had thought better of their vote of 
 Friday and were prepared to vote against the bill. Estu- 
 dillo, understanding the measure thoroughly, was anx- 
 ious to set himself right in the record by voting against 
 it. These, with Burnett and Rush, gave twenty-one 
 votes, enough to force reconsideration and to defeat the 
 bill. 
 
 But there was a weak link in the combination, 
 Kennedy. Senator Kennedy voted throughout the ses- 
 sion consistently with the Wolfe-Leavitt element, but he 
 voted against the Change of Venue bill. When Satur- 
 day morning came, however, Kennedy could not be 
 found. 
 
176 Change of Venue Bill 
 
 When reconsideration of the bill came up, Burnett 
 and Rush were out in the hallway. Miller and Lewis 
 voted to reconsider, which made the vote eighteen to 
 eighteen. Twenty-one votes were necessary for recon- 
 sideration. With Kennedy, Burnett and Rush, recon- 
 sideration could be forced and the bill defeated. The 
 only way the absent Senators could be reached was 
 through a call of the Senate, which required a majority 
 vote of those present. A motion for a call of the Senate 
 was defeated by a vote of eighteen to eighteen. 78 
 
 This was the real test vote on the Change of Venue 
 bill. It will be seen that Miller and Lewis and Estu- 
 dillo, who had voted for the bill the day before, voted 
 for a call of the Senate. They would, on reconsideration, 
 have voted against the bill, and its passage on recon- 
 sideration would have been impossible. Had Kennedy 
 or Rush or Burnett been present, the motion for a call 
 of the Senate would have prevailed, the vote on the 
 Change of Venue bill been reconsidered, and the measure 
 defeated. 
 
 Half an hour later, when Kennedy's vote was neces- 
 sary to enable the machine to continue the deadlock on 
 the Direct Primary bill, Kennedy turned up to do his 
 part in that not very creditable performance. 
 
 In this way did the machine element secure the pass- 
 
 78 The vote was as follows: 
 
 For the call of the Senate Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Caminetti, 
 Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Lewis, 
 Miller, Roseberry, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker 
 18. ;> ; 
 
 Against the call of the Senate Anthony, Bates, Bills, Finn, 
 Hare, Hartman, Kurd, Leavitt, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, 
 Savage, Weed, Welch, Willis, Wolfe, Wright 18. 
 
Change of Venue Bill 177 
 
 age of the Change of Venue bill. It was a question of 
 good generalship, or, if you like, trickery. Perhaps 
 trickery is the better name for it. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 PASSAGE OF THE WHEELAN BILLS. 
 
 Measures Extended Abuses Which the Commonwealth 
 Club Bills Had Been Drawn to Prevent Went 
 Through Both Houses Without the Members Thor- 
 oughly Understanding Their Significance. 
 
 The so-called Wheelan bills were passed in much the 
 same way as was the Change of Venue bill. These 
 measures will perhaps be better understood in comparison 
 with certain of the Commonwealth Club bills which were 
 considered in a previous chapter. 
 
 Among the Commonwealth bills was one which de- 
 nied a defendant under indictment a copy of the testi- 
 mony taken in the Grand Jury room. The measure was 
 drawn on the theory that Grand Juries deal principally 
 with secret offenses, and that the testimony had better 
 be brought out before the trial Court. One object of 
 the proposed law was to prevent the defendant giving 
 out testimony with the deliberate object of prejudicing 
 the entire community against him, and thus increasing 
 the difficulty of getting petty juries to try him. 
 
 Furthermore, there are instances, as when Abe Ruef 
 was before the Grand Jury at San Francisco, when the 
 ends of justice require that the testimony given shall be 
 kept secret. But, in spite of these and other considera- 
 tions, the measure in question was allowed to die in 
 Committee, 
 
Wheelan Bills 179 
 
 On the other hand two bills requiring that transcript 
 of such testimony be given the defendant passed both 
 Senate and Assembly. They were introduced by Whee- 
 lan of San Francisco. 
 
 Section 925 of the Penal Code, as it stood up to the 
 time of the opening of the session, provided that "the 
 Grand Jury whenever criminal causes are being inves- 
 tigated before them, on demand of the District Attorney 
 must appoint a competent stenographic reporter to be 
 sworn and to report the testimony that may be given in 
 such causes in shorthand, and reduce the same upon 
 request of the District Attorney to long hand or type- 
 writing." It was thus left with the District Attorney to 
 say whether the stenographic reporter should be present, 
 and whether his notes should be transcribed. 
 
 The first of the Wheelan bills, Assembly bill 221, 79 
 amended the law by cutting out the words in italics "on 
 demand of the District Attorney" and "upon request of 
 the District Attorney," making it mandatory upon the 
 Grand Jury to have the reporter in attendance. 
 
 Further on in the section and in Assembly bill 222, 79 
 it was provided that a true copy of the testimony thus 
 taken should be given the defendant at the time of his 
 arraignment. 
 
 These two measures passed both Senate and As- 
 sembly. 
 
 Assembly bill 223, 79 also introduced by Wheelan, pro- 
 vided another cause for the setting aside of an indict- 
 ment by the Court in which the defendant is arraigned, 
 
 79 Governor Gillett signed Assembly bills Nos. 221 and 222. 
 iftey are now the law of the State. Assembly bill No. 223 he did 
 not sign. It did not, therefore, become a law. 
 
i8o Wheelan Bills 
 
 upon such defendant's motion. The Commonwealth bills 
 aimed to prevent technical attacks upon indictments. 
 The third of the Wheelan bills No. 223 opened the 
 way for further technical attacks, by providing that the 
 Court must set aside the indictment "when it appears 
 from the testimony taken before the Grand Jury that the 
 defendant has been indicted upon a criminal charge with- 
 out reasonable or probable cause." 
 
 This measure passed both Houses. It opened the 
 way for review before the Court of the testimony taken 
 in the Grand Jury room, and endless technical objections, 
 all of which by clever counsel can be employed to delay 
 the case being brought before a trial jury, and in the 
 end perhaps wear out the prosecution, thus preventing 
 the case being tried on its merits. With that section in 
 the law two years ago, it is a question whether the de- 
 fendants in the graft prosecution at San Francisco would 
 ever have been brought to trial. 
 
 It will be seen that while the Commonwealth Club 
 bills aimed to decrease the opportunities for technical 
 defense of men charged with crime, and thus permit the 
 cases being tried on their merits, the Wheelan bills in- 
 creased opportunity for technical objection. 
 
 The history of the passage of the Wheelan bills is 
 practically the same in each instance. 
 
 The three bills were introduced by Mr. Wheelan on 
 January llth, and referred to the Assembly Judiciary 
 Committee. The Committee, which pigeon-holed sixty- 
 three of the Commonwealth Club bills, and reported back 
 the two remaining too late for passage, had better treat- 
 ment in store for the Wheelan measures, They were 
 
Wheelan Bills 181 
 
 reported back to the Assembly on March 6th, at a time 
 when the Assembly was fairly swamped with pending 
 measures. On March 17th, in the midst of a mass of 
 legislation, they were slipped through the Assembly 
 without many of the members apparently knowing what 
 they were. The Assembly Journal of that date shows 
 that such men as Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, 
 Flint, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, 
 Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, Mendenhall, Pols- 
 ley, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Whitney, Wilson and Wyllie, 
 who ordinarily voted for good measures and against bad 
 ones, voted for the Wheelan bills. 
 
 With the exception of Bill No. 223, not one vote was 
 cast against the measures. The vote on Bill No. 223 
 was the last taken. Gillis, who had voted for the two 
 others, appears to have awakened to the fact that some- 
 thing was wrong. At any rate, he voted against Bill 223. 
 
 His was the only vote cast against any of the three 
 bills in the lower House. They appear to have gone 
 through the Assembly without thorough appreciation of 
 their significance. At any rate, there were members 
 enough present, who were usually against bad measures, 
 to have prevented the Wheelan bills securing the forty- 
 one votes necessary for their passage. 
 
 A reform measure passing the Assembly on March 
 17th would have had no chance whatever in the Senate. 
 The Wheelan bills were more fortunate. 
 
 The Senate Judiciary Committee, before which the 
 Commonwealth Club bills had dragged along for weeks, 
 received the Wheelan bills on March 17th, the day they 
 passed the Assembly, and the same day, March 17th, re- 
 
182 Wheelan Bills 
 
 ported them back to the Senate with the recommenda- 
 tion that they do pass. On March 18th the measures 
 were read the second time in the Senate, and on March 
 20th, three days after they had passed the Assembly, 
 the Senate passed them. 
 
 Such is the difference in action on machine-favored 
 bills and bills which the machine does not favor. Inci- 
 dentally, it may be said that at the time the Wheelan 
 bills were before the Senate, the machine had that body 
 tied up in the fight on the Direct Primary bill. 
 
 The reform element at the mercy of the Senate or- 
 ganization was compelled to devote its whole attention 
 to the Direct Primary bill. The machine was thus left 
 to run committees and Senate at its own free will. It 
 was an admirable situation from the machine standpoint. 
 
 But by the time the Wheelan bills had been hastened 
 to the floor of the Senate, the reform Senators ap- 
 parently awoke to the fact that some sort of a job was 
 on the way. When the bills came up for final passage, 
 however, the anti-machine Senators were apparently as 
 much at a loss concerning them as the anti-machine As- 
 semblymen had been. 
 
 Bill number 221 came up first, and even Senator Bell, 
 the staunchest opponent of bad laws of them all, voted 
 for it. With Senator Bell voted Caminetti, Estudillo, 
 Rush, Thompson and Walker, who were ordinarily 
 against the passage of bad bills. As the measure re- 
 ceived but twenty-three votes, any three of these by 
 voting no could have defeated it. 
 
 Price, who had voted for the bill, gave notice, at the 
 request of a fellow Senator, that on the next legislative 
 
Wheelan Bills 183 
 
 day he would move to reconsider the vote by which the 
 bill had been passed. 
 
 Before taking up Assembly bill 222, companion bill 
 to 221, the Senate passed three measures and considered 
 several others. By the time Assembly bill 222 was 
 reached, Senator Bell had got his bearings, and voted 
 against it. Caminetti had also found himself, and 
 although Caminetti voted for the measure, he gave notice 
 that on the next legislative day he would move for its 
 reconsideration. 
 
 The third of the bills, No. 223, followed 222, and 
 Walker, who had voted for the two other bills, voted 
 "no." The bill was passed by twenty-three votes, Cutten 
 voting "aye" for the purpose of giving notice to re- 
 consider. 
 
 The motions to reconsider were voted upon on the 
 afternoon of Monday, March 22, the day of the final 
 fight on the Direct Primary bill in both Senate and As- 
 sembly. Nobody was thinking of much of anything 
 else that day. In every instance reconsideration was 
 denied. 80 The vote by which they had passed the Senate 
 stood . 
 
 80 The Assembly history of March 23, fails to record that the 
 motions to reconsider were made on the three Wheelan bills. In 
 an article concerning these bills which the writer prepared for 
 the Sacramento Bee, governed by the official record of the meas- 
 ures, the History of the House in which they originated, he stated 
 that motions for their reconsideration were not made. The Senate 
 Journal of March 22, however, pages 23 and 26, shows that these 
 motions were made, and in all three cases defeated. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 DEFEAT OF THE LOCAL OPTION BILL. 
 
 Peculiar Arrangement by Which the Bill Was Side- 
 tracked in the Assembly Stanton Promised That 
 It Should Pass the Lower House if It Passed the 
 Senate How It Was Smothered in the Upper House. 
 
 4 
 
 Because there is no particular reason why California 
 should not have a Local Option law, in the face of popu- 
 lar demand for it, a large number of very worthy citi- 
 zens assumed that one would be passed. The fact seems 
 to have been lost sight of that the tenderloin element 
 opposes such legislation, and that the management of 
 the so-called liquor interests organized as the "Royal 
 Arch," takes a shortsighted view of Local Option pro- 
 visions. The machine was thus interested. Its repre- 
 sentatives in Senate and Assembly did not propose that 
 any Local Option bill should pass. So the Local Option 
 bill was smothered. The smothering process most sug- 
 gestively indicates how such things can be done. 
 
 The measure was introduced in the Assembly by 
 Wyllie and in the Senate by Estudillo. In the face of 
 the popular demand for the passage of such a bill, and 
 the exasperation of a no small portion of the voters of the 
 State, at the mistake or trick by which in 1907 the only 
 measure resembling a Local Option law was rubbed off 
 the statute books, it was not good policy to fight the bill 
 
Local Option Bill 185 
 
 in the open. So the machine proceeded to do covertly 
 what would have been "poor politics" to do openly. 81 
 
 The same bill having been introduced both in Senate 
 and Assembly, the first step was to tie up either the As- 
 sembly or the Senate measure, so that the whole crafty 
 campaign against the bill's passage could be confined 
 to one House. The way in which this was done was sim- 
 plicity itself. The Wyllie bill, as introduced in the As- 
 sembly was, at the request of Speaker Stanton, held up 
 in the Assembly Committee on Public Morals. Most 
 plausible reason was given for this course. It was 
 pointed out that since the Assembly had gone on record 
 before the Senate on the anti-gambling bill, on women's 
 suffrage 80a and other "moral" issues, it was unfair to 
 
 81 Up to the legislative session of 1907, the County Government 
 Act provided that the Supervisors of a county could submit any 
 question including the matter of regulating the liquor traffic- 
 to the voters for the purpose of ascertaining their opinion upon 
 the issue. There was, however, no way to compel the Super- 
 visors to take the action that might be thus decided upon by 
 popular vote. The Supervisors could act upon the vote or ignore 
 it, as they saw fit. 
 
 The Legislature of 1907 transferred the County Government 
 Act to the Codes. For some reason, either by intention or over- 
 sight, the section which permitted Supervisors to submit questions 
 to the people for an advisory vote was omitted. It has been held 
 that this action of the Legislature repealed the section by impli- 
 cation. It is held, therefore, that no law is upon the Statute books 
 by which the people may be permitted to vote even in an advisory 
 capacity upon any question of police regulation or public policy. 
 
 80a A fine example of a lightning switch of plan on the part 
 of the machine came in the fight on the Women's Suffrage 
 Amendment. The tenderloin and liquor interests in general are 
 opposed to the submission of this amendment to the people, which 
 means, of course, that the machine is against it. To submit the 
 amendment to the people, fifty-four votes are required in the As- 
 sembly and twenty- seven in the Senate. This year, the program 
 was to let the amendment pass the Assembly and defeat it in 
 the Senate. Assemblymen were allowed to pledge themselves to 
 its support until there were fifty-eight Assemblymen down to 
 vote for it. Grove L. Johnson had introduced the measure in the 
 Assembly, and its adoption by that body seemed assured. 
 
 But the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill got in the way of 
 Woman's Suffrage in a most curious manner. When the passage 
 of this anti-gambling bill became a certainty, that branch of the 
 group of tenderloin Senators whose interests were wrapped up in 
 
1 86 Local Option Bill 
 
 compel the lower House to go on record before the 
 Senate on the Local Option bill. Speaker Stanton as- 
 sured the proponents of the measure that if it passed the 
 Senate, it should pass the Assembly. 
 
 Stanton accordingly recognized that the Assembly, 
 given an opportunity, would pass the bill. Had it passed 
 the Assembly before the middle of February, it would 
 unquestionably have passed the Senate. But the pro- 
 ponents of the measure consented to the plan to make 
 the Senate act first. The fight for the passage of the 
 bill accordingly took place in the Senate. 
 
 Before taking up the Senate measure introduced by 
 Estudillo, the Wyllie bill may as well be disposed of. It 
 was introduced in the Assembly January 8th, and was 
 sent to the Committee on Public Morals. There it lay 
 
 racetrack gambling, became "very sore." In their disgruntlement 
 they decided to give reform full swing, and put the Woman's Suf- 
 frage Amendment through the Senate. This attitude seriously 
 alarmed the safe, sane and respectable leaders of the machine, 
 who see all sorts of trouble for the machine if women are given 
 the ballot. So to prevent its tenderloin associates in the Senate 
 doing anything rash, the machine decided rather late in the day 
 to defeat the amendment in the Assembly. 
 
 When this decision was reached, and the order to carry it into 
 effect given, the machine Assemblymen who had agreed to vote 
 for the amendment coolly forgot their pledges. Instead of fifty- 
 eight votes, only thirty-nine were cast for the amendment. 
 
 Grove L.. Johnson, who had introduced it, and who pretended 
 to support it, agreed to move for its reconsideration. When the 
 hour for the motion for reconsideration came, Johnson huddled 
 up in his seat, looking neither to right or left, let the opportunity 
 pass. 
 
 The vote by which the amendment was defeated was as follows: 
 
 For the amendment: Barndollar, Bohnett, Butler, Callan, Cat- 
 tell, Coghlan, Cogswell, Collum, Costar, Cronin, Drew, Gibbons, 
 Gillis, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hopkins, Johnson of 
 Sacramento, Johnson of San Diego, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, 
 Kehoe, Maher, Melrose, Mendenhall, Otis, O'Neil, Polsley, Pulcifer, 
 Sackett, Silver, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Webber, Wheelan, Wilson, 
 Wyllie, Young 39. 
 
 Against the amendment: Baxter, Beardslee, Beatty, Beban, 
 Collier, Cullen, Dean, Feeley, Flavelle, Fleisher, Flint, Gerdes-, 
 Greer, Griffiths, Hammon, Hanlon, Hans, Hawk, Johnston of 
 Contra Costa, Leeds, Lightner, Macaulay, McClellan, McManus, 
 Moore, Mott, Nelson, Odom, Preston, Pugh, Rech, Rutherford, 
 Schmitt, Stanton, Transue, Wagner, Whitney 37. 
 
Local Option Bill 187 
 
 until March 13th, two months and five days, when the 
 proponents of the measure, realizing that they were be- 
 ing tricked, made their protest so loud that the measure 
 was reported by the Committee, but without recommen- 
 dation. There was no time then to pass the bill, and 
 on March 15th it was withdrawn by its author. 
 
 The Estudillo bill, as it was known on the Senate 
 side of the Capitol, had a more eventful history. Intro- 
 duced in the Senate on January 8th, it had gone to the 
 famous Committee on Election Laws, which had been 
 stacked for the defeat of the Direct Primary bill. Estu- 
 dillo was, to be sure, Chairman of the Committee, but a 
 lamb herding lions never had a harder job on its hands 
 than did Estudillo. He could not get his committee to- 
 gether to consider the well-backed Direct Primary bill, 
 let alone the worthy but not politically supported local 
 option measure. 
 
 Along about the middle of February, however, Estu- 
 dillo succeeded in getting the committee to act. By a 
 vote of four to four the committee refused to recom- 
 mend the Local Option bill for passage. Senator Stet- 
 son, who favored the passage of the measure, to compel 
 committee action and get the bill before the Senate, there- 
 upon moved that the bill be referred back to the Senate 
 with recommendation that it do not pass. Senator Stet- 
 son's motion prevailed. 
 
 Thus, the measure went back to the Senate with a 
 majority committee report that it do not pass. But in 
 spite of this adverse report, the Senate passed the meas- 
 ure on second reading and sent it to engrossment 
 
1 88 Local Option Bill 
 
 and third reading. It looked very much just then as 
 though the bill would pass the Senate. 
 
 But the resourceful machine had other plans. When 
 the measure came up for final passage on February 24th, 
 instead of being voted upon, and passed or defeated, it 
 was amended. 
 
 To amend a bill on third reading exasperates those 
 who are supporting it as nothing else can. The bill must, 
 when thus amended, be reprinted and re-engrossed be- 
 fore it can be passed. The delays thus caused very often 
 result in the defeat of the measure. 
 
 But the reprinted and re-engrossed Local Option bill 
 got back to the Senate on February 26th, and its sup- 
 porters could think of no other possible excuse for de- 
 laying its passage. 
 
 But the machine could, and did. On Senator Wolfe's 
 motion the reader will no doubt remember that Senator 
 Wolfe led the fight against the Direct Primary bill, 
 against the Anti-Gambling bill and against the effective 
 Stetson Railroad Regulation bill on Senator Wolfe's 
 motion the Local Option bill, instead of being put on its 
 final passage, was sent to the Senate Judiciary Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 At that time, the closing days of February, the Judi- 
 ciary Committee was fairly swamped with important 
 measures. The Railroad Regulation bills, the Initiative 
 Amendment, the measures providing for the simplifica- 
 tion of methods of criminal procedure and other bills 
 of scarcely less importance were pending before that 
 committee. Prompt action on the Local Option bill was 
 out of the question. And, although a majority of the 
 
Local Option Bill 189 
 
 committee favored the passage of the bill, the minority 
 which was against it took precious good care that no 
 undue haste should attend its consideration. Estudillo 
 was in constant attendance upon the committee, but to 
 little purpose. It was not until March 4th that the com- 
 mittee acted. The action was, of course, recommenda- 
 tion that the bill do pass. 
 
 The bill had been amended from time to time, but as 
 it was finally approved by the Judiciary Committee was 
 a reasonably effective measure. It provided that on a 
 petition signed by 25 per cent of the electors of any city, 
 or town, or county, the question of license or no license 
 must be put on the regular election ballot. If a majority 
 of the electors voted against the issuing of liquor licenses 
 in any city or town or township, the governing body 
 could no longer issue saloon licenses. Outside incorpo- 
 rated cities and towns, the basis of prohibition was made 
 the township, although the vote was to be taken through- 
 out the county. 
 
 After the measure had been returned from the Ju- 
 diciary Committee of the Senate, Estudillo fought man- 
 fully to have it considered. He finally succeeded, on 
 March 8th, in having the bill made a special order, that 
 is to say, he arranged that the Senate should consider it 
 at 8 o'clock of Thursday, March llth. 
 
 But when Thursday came it developed that Senators 
 Stetson and Boynton could not be present that evening, 
 and they asked Estudillo to have the vote on the measure 
 postponed until noon of the next day, Friday. This Es- 
 tudillo attempted to do. The thing was done with other 
 bills every day. Had Wolfe made, the request, for ex- 
 
190 Local Option Bill 
 
 ample, or even Estudillo on any other measure than the 
 Local Option bill, the request would have been granted 
 without thought or comment. But on Wolfe's objection 
 Estudillo's request was denied. The machine saw its 
 opportunity and succeeded in having consideration of the 
 bill postponed until the following Monday, March 15th. 
 This meant the defeat of the bill. Even had it passed 
 the Senate on that date, filibustering tactics would have 
 defeated it in the Assembly. 
 
 Nevertheless, the backers of the measure although 
 pleaded with by weak-kneed Senators to withdraw the 
 bill insisted upon a vote being taken, when the measure 
 came up on March 15th. This decision compelled Wolfe 
 to make his famous "Fate of the Republican Party" 
 speech, in which he predicted that if the Local Option 
 bill became a law, utter wreck would come upon the 
 Republican party in California. Birdsall, Caminetti, 
 Holohan, Rush, Sanford and Strobridge, whose votes 
 were ordinarily recorded against the machine Senators, 
 voted against the bill, as did Anthony and Curtin. 
 Wright voted for the measure, but otherwise those who 
 had voted against the Walker-Otis Anti-Gambling bill, 
 against a State-wide vote for United States Senators, 
 against the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill, in a word, 
 those whom for the want of a better term we call ma- 
 chine Senators, voted solidly against the Local Option 
 bill. 82 
 
 82 The vote on the local option bill was as follows: 
 For the bill Bell, Black, Boynton, Campbell, Cartwright, Cutten, 
 Estudillo, Miller, Roseberry, Thompson, Walker, Wright 12. 
 
 Against the bill Anthony, Bills, Birdsall, Burnett, Caminetti, 
 Curtin, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Holohan, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, 
 Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Rush, Sanford, Stro- 
 bridge, Weed, Welch, Willis, Wolfe 25. 
 
Local Option Bill 191 
 
 The final showing for the Local Option bill was not a 
 good one, but in spite of it, many in touch with condi- 
 tions in the Senate held that had the vote been taken 
 in the middle of February instead of the middle of 
 March, the bill would have had a good chance for pass- 
 age. After the delay of ten weeks from the time of its 
 introduction until the final vote upon it, there was no 
 chance at all for it to become a law. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 DEFEAT OF THE INITIATIVE AMENDMENT. 
 
 As in the Case of Other Reform Measures It Was Held 
 Back Until Near the Close of the Session Principle 
 Adopted by Many California Municipalities Ma- 
 chine Thoroughly Aroused to Its Importance. 
 
 A most estimable old lady once tried with indifferent 
 success to hold back the incoming tide of the Atlantic 
 with a broom. As one watches the efforts of the ma- 
 chine, through such agents as Gus Hartman, Eddie 
 Wolfe and Frank Leavitt, to stem the reform move- 
 ment which is sweeping the country, he is strongly re- 
 minded of the old lady's endeavor. 
 
 To be sure, the machine, at the legislative session 
 of 1909, by trick and clever manipulation succeeded in 
 preventing any very effective reform legislation going 
 on the Statute books. But nevertheless the machine was 
 compelled in response to the popular demand to permit 
 the passage of a direct primary law, however inade- 
 quate and disappointing it may prove to be, and a rail- 
 road regulation law, however ineffective. 
 
 The machine's success was not on the whole so much 
 in its permanent defeat of good measures as in delaying 
 their adoption. The machine, except in the case of the 
 race-track gamblers, could and did put off the day of 
 the people's reckoning with machine-protected interests, 
 but on desperately small margins at times, and under 
 
Initiative Amendment 193 
 
 conditions which point plainly to the machine's ultimate 
 undoing. 
 
 A bull once attempted to stop a freight train with his 
 head. The train was brought to a standstill and the 
 animal driven off the track. A short time later the bull 
 tried the same experiment with an express train. The 
 train did not stop, nor was it seriously delayed. 
 
 The aim of the reform movement is to place the gov- 
 ernment of Nation, State and city back into the hands of 
 the people. To this end States and municipalities 
 throughout the country are trying the direct primary 
 system of nominating candidates for office, extending the 
 principle of local option, establishing the Initiative, the 
 Referendum and the Recall, and experimenting, often 
 with admirable success, sometimes with discouraging 
 failure, with other "wicked innovations," as Assembly- 
 man Grove L. Johnson would call them. 
 
 Without the machine fully appreciating what has 
 been going on, California has for a decade or more 
 been pushing rapidly to the fore in the promotion of 
 these reforms. In this State the reform policies have 
 found their best expression in recently adopted munici- 
 pal charters. These charters must be ratified by the 
 Legislature, but up to the session just closed their rati- 
 fication "wicked innovations and all" has met with no 
 particular opposition. 
 
 Thus we find most of the modern charters of Cali- 
 fornia municipalities containing provisions for really 
 
194 Initiative Amendment 
 
 effective primary nominations by the people, 83 for the 
 initiation of laws, for the referendum, even for the recall 
 from office of corrupt officials, which have placed in the 
 hands of the people of the cities a club over the machine 
 which has proved most effective. 
 
 But the machine is now fully alive to what such pro- 
 visions as the initiative and the recall mean. When, for 
 example, the machine in control of the City Council 
 attempted to deny the Western Pacific right of way 
 through the City of Sacramento, the people resorted to 
 the charter provision granting them the Initiative, and 
 by their direct vote awarded the right of way. 
 
 Even while the Legislature was in session, one of 
 the machine's most effective workers, Walter Parker, 
 could not be present at his post at Sacramento, because 
 he was required at Los Angeles, where, because of the 
 "recall," the machine was in a peck of trouble. 
 
 The people of that city were employing the recall 
 provision of their charter against the machine Mayor 
 trapped in corruption. Although the then Mayor is a 
 "Democrat" and Parker a "Republican," Parker's pres- 
 ence was required at Los Angeles to back the machine's 
 efforts to hold the Mayor in his job. 
 
 83 For example the charters of Los Angeles and of Berkeley. 
 The Berkeley charter is a model in this respect. It provides that 
 any qualified citizen may become a candidate for municipal office, 
 by petition of twenty-five electors, AND IN NO OTHER WAY. 
 The party tag is thus done away with. At the election, if a 
 candidate receive a majority of the votes he is declared elected. 
 If no candidate receive a majority, then a second election is 
 held at which the two candidates receiving the highest pluralities 
 become candidates, the names of all other candidates who partici- 
 pated at the first election are dropped. The candidate at the 
 second election who receives the majority is declared elected. A 
 movement is on foot to have a similar provision incorporated into 
 the San Francisco charter. 
 
Initiative Amendment 195 
 
 So Parker could not be at Sacramento, where the 
 machine really needed him. The machine leaders did not 
 think it possible that a real Mayor especially a machine 
 Mayor could be dismissed from office through such a 
 "fool innovation" as the recall. But that's what, in spite 
 of machine efforts, happened at Los Angeles. 
 
 These experiences and others like them, forced it 
 upon the understanding of machine leaders that the in- 
 itiative, recall and similar "innovations," have a business 
 end; that they put altogether too much power into the 
 hands of the people for the machine's safety. 
 
 Up to the session of 1909 there had been prac- 
 tically no opposition to the ratification of charters 
 adopted by the several municipalities. But this year the 
 machine leader in the Senate, Wolfe, let it be known 
 that he would henceforth oppose "freak charters," "freak 
 charters" to Senator Wolfe being those of the initiative- 
 referendum-recall order. 
 
 Several municipalities Berkeley, San Diego, Palo 
 Alto, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, Richmond, Los 
 Angeles, Pasadena and Oakland had either sent new 
 charters or important amendments to existing charters 
 to the Legislature for ratification. Many of the charters 
 and amendments came decidedly under Wolfe's ideas 
 of "freak." But there are some extremes to which the 
 machine dare not go, and it did not dare to go on record 
 as against popular municipal government. Wolfe and 
 his associates could and did grumble, but they did not 
 dare refuse the several charters and charter amendments 
 ratification. 
 
 So they let the charters and charter amendments go 
 
196 Initiative Amendment 
 
 by them and braced themselves against granting State- 
 wide initiative. 
 
 That issue came up in the form of a proposed amend- 
 ment to the State Constitution introduced by Senator 
 Black, which gave the people of the State the power en- 
 joyed by the people of Oregon and of the more advanced 
 California municipalities, the power to initiate laws. 
 
 Black's amendment provided that on petition of eight 
 per cent of the electors of the State proposing a law 
 or Constitutional amendment, such law or amendment 
 must be submitted to a vote of the people at the next 
 general election, precisely as Constitutional amendments 
 are now submitted. If the proposed law or amendment 
 received a majority vote it was to become a law of the 
 State, independent of Legislative action. In a word, the 
 people of California, had the amendment carried, would 
 have been able to initiate the laws which govern them. 
 
 Naturally, the machine, always on thin ice at best, 
 thoroughly aroused to what the initiative means, opposed 
 any such "wicked innovation." 
 
 In its opposition, the machine was backed by that ex- 
 treme conservatism, which, while sincere enough, for- 
 ever hangs on the coattails of progress ; the conservatism 
 which even in New England as late as 1860 drew back 
 its respectable skirts from abolition; the conservatism 
 which, dragged protesting over a crisis, never fails to 
 assume for itself all the credit for what has been accom- 
 plished. Thus the machine had some very respectable 
 assistance in its efforts against the Initiative Amendment, 
 the measure which more than any other before the Legis- 
 
Initiative Amendment 197 
 
 lature was calculated to take the government of Cali- 
 fornia out of machine hands. 84 
 
 On the other hand, the amendment had strong back- 
 ing. It had been drawn up at the instance of the Direct 
 Legislation League, which numbers among its members 
 many of the foremost bankers, capitalists, educators and 
 public men of the State Rudolph Spreckels, Francis J. 
 Heney, James D. Phelan, of San Francisco, and Dr. 
 John R. Haynes of Los Angeles, and others fully as 
 prominent being among the League's most active sup- 
 porters. 
 
 In addition, the amendment had the endorsement of 
 the State Grange, of the Labor Unions, of the State, 
 county and municipal Democratic conventions, and of 
 many of the municipal and county Republican conven- 
 tions. 
 
 But there were plenty of reasons given why the 
 amendment should not be submitted to the people. Per- 
 haps the most amusing came from Senator Wright, of 
 Direct Primary and Railroad Regulation notoriety. Sen- 
 ator Wright held that inasmuch as the Direct Primary 
 will result in the election of high-class legislators, the 
 initiative will not be necessary. 
 
 84 "As a source of public education upon which free government 
 must always rest, as a means of conservative progress, upon which 
 the continued life of all nations depends, as a check upon paternal- 
 ism and rich gifts calculated to lull to sleep the love of freedom, 
 as the key that may be used to open the door to equal opportunity, 
 the Initiative is fundamentally more important than all other pro- 
 posed reforms put together." Arthur Twining Hadley, LL. D., in 
 "The Constitutional Position of Property in America." 
 
 It is interesting to note, that nearly a quarter of a century ago, 
 Bryce in his American Commonwealth, pointed out that this coun- 
 try could not without the initiation of laws by The People enjoy 
 the fruits of its institutions. 
 
198 Initiative Amendment 
 
 But the two principal objections raised to the initia- 
 tive were that : 
 
 1. It would lead to a flood of bills being submitted to 
 the people. 
 
 2. That the people would not take sufficient interest 
 in the proposed laws to consider them carefully. 
 
 Both these objections were readily answered by the 
 proponents of the amendment, who gave the experience 
 of States in which the initiative has been tried. 
 
 Oregon, for example, adopted the initiative in 1902. 
 In 1904 but two proposed laws were introduced under it; 
 in 1906, five ; and in 1908, nineteen. Inasmuch as in 
 1908 California voted upon twenty-one constitutional 
 amendments and statutes which had been submitted by 
 the Legislature of 1907, it will be seen that Oregon was 
 not particularly submerged by a flood of elector-initiated 
 legislation. 
 
 In Canton Berne, Switzerland, where for half a cen- 
 tury all the laws have been adopted by the initiative sys- 
 tem, the average of laws proposed has been only rwo 
 and a half a year. 
 
 As to the second objection, it was easily shown that 
 in Oregon the keenest interest is taken in the measures 
 proposed through the initiative. Some were shown to 
 have been adopted by enormous majorities; others to 
 have been rejected by majorities as large. 
 
 Thus the objections to the amendment were easily 
 disposed of. 
 
 Their arguments answered, the opponents of the 
 amendment schemed to prevent its consideration until 
 
Initiative Amendment 199 
 
 the closing days of the session or prevent consideration 
 entirely. 
 
 In the Assembly, the amendment had been introduced 
 by Drew of Fresno. It was referred to the Committee 
 on Constitutional Amendments, where it was smothered 
 to death. Although referred to the committee on Janu- 
 ary 11, the committee took no action upon it. Coghlan 
 of San Francisco was chairman of the committee; asso- 
 ciated with him were Legislators of the types of Johnson 
 of Sacramento, McClelland and Baxter. In vain those 
 advocating the adoption of the amendment urged the 
 committee to act. Meetings were indeed arranged, at 
 which the proponents of the reform would be present, 
 but the committeemen would fail to attend. 
 
 A less exasperating, but no less effective fight was 
 carried on in the Senate. 
 
 On the Senate side, the amendment introduced by 
 Black went to the Judiciary Committee. This committee 
 was made up of the nineteen lawyers in the Senate, 
 every lawyer going on the committee. But Warren 
 Porter named the order of their rank, and the chairman 
 and the four ranking members of the committee voted 
 eternally with the Wolfe-Leavitt faction. On a straight 
 vote the majority of the committee was against the ma- 
 chine, as was shown in the fight for an effective railroad 
 regulation bill. But when it came to getting results in 
 the Senate Judiciary Committee, craft and leadership, 
 as has been shown in previous chapters, not infrequently 
 overcame numbers. 
 
 On February 16, the reform element of the com- 
 mittee insisted that action be taken on the amendment. 
 
2OO Initiative Amendment 
 
 Chairman Willis was reluctant to put the question. 
 Few machine members of the committee were in at- 
 tendance. The anti-machine members were insistent. 
 Willis was finally forced to put the question, and the 
 amendment, after the percentage of voters required to 
 sign a petition for the initiation of a law had been raised 
 from eight to twelve per cent, was favorably reported 
 back to the Senate. 
 
 But Senator Willis was able to do on the floor of the 
 Senate what he had been unable to do in the committee, 
 namely, secure further delay. He protested to the Sen- 
 ate at the "snap judgment" of his committee, with the 
 result that it was re-referred to that body. The com- 
 mittee, however, for the second time sent it back to the 
 Senate with the recommendation that it be adopted. 
 
 Then followed a series of delays in the Senate, so 
 that the measure was not brought to vote until March 
 llth. 
 
 For the adoption of a Constitutional amendment, a 
 two-thirds vote twenty-seven is required in the Sen- 
 ate. The proponents of the amendment had good reason 
 to believe that that number of Senators would vote for 
 its adoption. The Senators counted upon to vote for the 
 amendment were : Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boyn- 
 ton, Caminetti, Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Hare, Ken- 
 nedy, McCartney, Reily, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stet- 
 son, Thompson, Walker, Welch 20, who actually voted 
 for the amendment; Finn, Strobridge, Cartwright and 
 Holohan, who were absent when the vote was taken, 
 but who were pledged to the reform ; Lewis, Bills, Cur- 
 tin and Miller, who were counted on the side of the 
 
Initiative Amendment 201 
 
 amendment until it came to a vote. This made twenty- 
 eight votes, one more than enough for adoption. 
 
 Kennedy, Reily, Welch, Finn and Hare, usually 
 against reform legislation, were counted for the Initia- 
 tive because of convention obligations which could not 
 well be ignored. Lewis, McCartney and Bills were 
 counted for it because of their alleged promise of its 
 support; Curtin and Miller because the Democratic 
 State Convention had endorsed the Initiative, and for 
 the further reason that Curtin and Miller were ordi- 
 narily for reform legislation. 
 
 But on the vote, the unfortunate Hare, Kennedy, 
 Reily, McCartney and Welch remained true to their 
 obligations, while Curtin and Miller disappointed those 
 who had expected their support. The negative vote of 
 Bills and Lewis did not cause much disappointment, for 
 little else was to have been expected, and anyway, the 
 negative votes of Curtin and Miller, were enough to de- 
 feat the amendment." 
 
 Curtin and Miller, in spite of their party's endorse- 
 ment of the policy, expressed themselves as "scandal- 
 ized" at such an idea as the Initiative. But as good 
 men as Miller and Curtin were scandalized at the idea 
 of abolition in 1860, only to become the most earnest 
 supporters of the Emancipation Proclamation three years 
 later. 
 
 Reform waves, like the Atlantic Ocean, are not kept 
 back with brooms or Gus Hartmans. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 DEFEAT OF THE ANTI-JAPANESE BILLS. 86 
 
 Stir Storm in the Assembly, But All the Bills Were 
 Finally Defeated Grove L. Johnson Denounces Ac- 
 tion of Governor Gillett and President Roosevelt 
 Speaker Stanton Places Himself in a Very Embar- 
 rassing Position His Effective Speech Becomes a 
 Joke. 
 
 The Japanese problem under the bludgeoning of the 
 big stick in the skilled hands of President Roosevelt, and 
 free application of the organization switch in the hands 
 of Governor Gillett, was kept fairly well under control 
 during the entire session. That the problem is real was 
 demonstrated by the numerous resolutions and alien- 
 regulation bills which were introduced in both Houses. 
 The Assembly, however, was the scene of the final de- 
 feat of the anti- Japanese element. There the legislative 
 campaign against the Japanese was fought out, and there 
 it was lost. 
 
 The contest in the Assembly narrowed down to three 
 measures, Assembly Bill 78, introduced by Drew of 
 Fresno, known as the "Alien Land Bill"; Assembly Bill 
 14, known as the "Anti- Japanese School Bill," and As- 
 sembly Bill 32, known as the "Municipal Segregation 
 Bill," both introduced by Johnson of Sacramento. The 
 
 86 The Assembly vote on the four principal Japanese issues 
 will be found in Table I of the Appendix. 
 
Anti-Japanese Bills 203 
 
 final defeat of these bills settled the Japanese question so 
 far as the legislative session of 1909 was concerned. 
 
 Drew's Alien Land bill was by far the most important 
 of the three. It was in effect a copy of the alien land 
 law at present in force in the State of Illinois, and gen- 
 erally known as the "Illinois Law." Under its provisions 
 an alien acquiring title to lands situate in this State, was 
 given five years in which to become a citizen of the 
 United States; failing to become a citizen, he was re- 
 quired to dispose of his holdings to a citizen; failing so 
 to do, the necessary machinery was provided for the 
 District Attorney of the county in which the land was 
 situated to dispose of it, and turn the proceeds of the 
 sale over to the alien owner. Ample protection was pro- 
 vided for alien minors who might possess or might be- 
 come possessed of California real property. Further- 
 more, under the provisions of the law, the leasing of land 
 to aliens for a longer period than one year was pro- 
 hibited. 
 
 Though the word, "Japanese," did not appear, the 
 bill's introduction was a shot which if not heard round 
 the world, at least reached Washington on the East and 
 Tokio on the West. Finally, on January 25, Gover- 
 nor Gillett made the Alien bills pending before the 
 Legislature subject of a special message to Senate and 
 Assembly, in which he urged the Legislature to do 
 nothing that would disrupt the pleasant relations exist- 
 ing between America and Japan, and recommended that 
 an appropriation be made to enable the Labor Commis- 
 sioner to take a census showing the number of Japanese 
 now in the State, with such other information regarding 
 
204 Anti-Japanese Bills 
 
 them as could be used in making a proper report to the 
 President and Congress. 87a 
 
 Governor Gillett in the paragraph of his message 87 
 which dealt with the Alien Land bill, stated that the 
 measure might be amended so that its passage would not 
 embarrass the Federal Government. Mr. Drew promptly 
 sent the Governor a note, inquiring "how amended." The 
 Governor replied, 88 stating that, in his judgment the 
 
 87a A bill providing funds for such a census was introduced 
 and became a law. 
 
 87 The paragraph in Governor Gillett's message which deals 
 with the Alien Land bill, read as follows: 
 
 "If you believe the general policy of this State and its future 
 development demands that all aliens, that is, citizens of other 
 countries, should be discouraged in making investments here, and 
 that no alien should be permitted to become the owner in fee 
 simple of any lands within this State agricultural, grazing or 
 mineral, or of any city property for the purposes of trade, com- 
 merce or manufacturing then enact a law forbidding the same, 
 but see to it that it affects the subjects of all nations alike, and 
 that under its provisions the citizens of Japan shall have equal 
 privileges with those of England and other favored nations; other- 
 wise you might create a situation which may prove to be embar- 
 rassing to the Federal Government. Mr. Drew's bill might be so 
 amended, but in its present form it clearly, as no doubt was in- 
 tended, discriminates against the citizens of China and Japan. 
 Whether any bill should pass at this time which will discourage 
 foreign capital from seeking investments in our State is a most 
 serious question and one not lightly to be considered. But that is 
 a question I leave for you to solve." 
 
 88 The Governor's letter was in full as follows: 
 "Hon. A. M. Drew: Tour little note was received. 
 
 "I am inclined to think that the best possible law that can 
 be passed on the question of alien ownership of land would be 
 the law adopted by Oklahoma. You will find it in the session 
 laws of the State of Oklahoma, 1907 and 1908. The book is on 
 file in the State Library. The Act is on page 481. 
 
 "I would strike out of the first line the words 'who is not a 
 citizen of the United States,' because that is useless. No alien 
 is a citizen of the United States, and cannot be. 
 
 "Then I notice the second line of Section 3, instead of having 
 'devise,' the word is 'device.' I suppose this must be a typo- 
 graphical error. 
 
 "To this bill might be added the last section of your bill, 
 extending the time in which leases can be given so many years 
 on agricultural property and so many years on city property. I 
 think one year is rather short; inasmuch as this would apply to 
 all aliens alike, I would be reasonable as to the length of time for 
 which leases should be granted. 
 
 "I am also of the opinion that President Roosevelt and Secre- 
 
Anti-Japanese Bills 205 
 
 best possible law that could be passed on the question of 
 alien ownership of land would be the law which had 
 been adopted by Oklahoma. Furthermore, the Governor 
 expressed the opinion that such a law would be satis- 
 factory to President Roosevelt and Secretary Root. 
 
 Mr. Drew was quick to act on the suggestion. He 
 not only yielded to the Governor's wishes, 89 but in the 
 teeth of the severest opposition from the San Francisco 
 delegation, forced delay of the passage of his bill until 
 the Oklahoma law could be substituted for that taken 
 from the Illinois Statutes. 
 
 The substitute measure provided that "no alien shall 
 acquire title or own land in the State of California," but 
 the provisions of the act further provided that the law 
 "shall not apply to lands now owned in this State by 
 aliens so long as they are held by their present owners." 
 
 The substitute measure was introduced on February 
 
 tary Root would agree that this bill would be all right in fact, 
 I have telegrams from them which would indicate such to be the 
 fact. Of course, the question whether or not it would be policy 
 to pass an alien law in this State is something that the Legisla- 
 ture would have to consider, but if such a law is to pass, as I 
 say, I am inclined to believe that one like the Oklahoma law would 
 probably be the best." 
 
 89 Assemblyman Drew's reply to the Governor's letter suggest- 
 ing that the Oklahoma law be substituted for the original bill, 
 was as follows: 
 
 "Your esteemed favor of the 26th inst., is before me, and I can 
 assure you that I appreciate the spirit in which you have con- 
 sidered the Alien Land bill, presented by myself in the Assembly. 
 I am strictly in accord with the changes you suggest. The words 
 'who is not a citizen of the United States' are surplusage and could 
 easily have been left out, but they are found in both the Illinois 
 and Oklahoma laws. I am glad the President takes the view 
 of the matter that he does, and you may rest assured that 1 
 will work in harmony with yourself. However, I deem it advisable 
 that some law should be enacted at this session of the Legislature. 
 I think it will be wisdo"m on our part to take this step, and 
 surely our neighbor, Japan, cannot complain so long as the bill 
 is applicable to all aliens alike. I will submit to you a draft of 
 the amended bill as soon as I can get it in shape." 
 
206 Anti-Japanese Bills 
 
 1st; it came up for passage on February 3rd. In the 
 two days which elapsed between the introduction and 
 final action on the bill, the high State authorities decided 
 to oppose it. Speaker Phil Stanton employed his influ- 
 ence against it; one by one its supports who could "be 
 reached" were "pulled down." Drew found himself 
 at the final with slight following. The bill was defeated 
 by the decisive vote of 28 to 48. Mott gave notice of 
 motion to reconsider, but the next day reconsideration 
 was denied. 
 
 The day following the defeat of the Alien Land bill, 
 February 4th, the "Anti-Japanese School Bill" and the 
 "Municipal Segregation Bill" came up for final action. 
 There was also Assembly Bill 15, classed as an anti- 
 Japanese measure, which came up on the same day. It, 
 as in the case of the two others, had been introduced by 
 Johnson of Sacramento, by far the ablest parliamentarian 
 in the Legislature. Drew had used facts and figures 
 when arguing for his alien land bills ; Johnson seasoned 
 his statistics with a sarcasm 90 as peppery as one of Mr. 
 
 90 Johnson addressed himself directly to President Roosevelt 
 and Governor Gillett. The following paragraphs are taken at 
 random from his speech: 
 
 "I expect some member of the Assembly to introduce a bill 
 here, the first section of which shall read: 'Before any legislation 
 is enacted it shall bear the approval of James N. Gillett and 
 President Roosevelt and if it is denied, the bill shall be with- 
 drawn.' " 
 
 "Some of you think legislation is like patent medicine. It 
 must bear on the bill, the label: 'None genuine without the note, 
 This is a good bill, James N. Gillett.' " 
 
 "What right have we, mere Assemblymen, to have an opinion 
 on any matter? Why should we, who were sent here by the 
 people for the sake of convenience and formality, have any 
 independence in our thought? What right have we to do anything 
 but listen in awe and reverence to the words of wisdom that drop 
 from the tongues of Governor James N. Gillett and Theodore 
 Roosevelt? 
 
 "Of course we must surrender our individual opinion, and bow 
 
Anti-Japanese Bills 207 
 
 Roosevelt's ingenuous opinions on "nature fakers." But 
 while Mr. Johnson entertained with his wit and his in- 
 vective, he failed to overcome the tremendous influence, 
 State and Federal, that had been brought to bear against 
 his bills. Assembly Bill 15, denying aliens the right to 
 serve as directors on California corporations, was de- 
 feated by a vote of 15 for to 53 against. Assembly Bill 
 32, the "Municipal Segregation Bill," 91 was defeated by 
 
 to the superior intellects of the 'Imperial Power,' which Mr. 
 Beardslee loves so well. Since we must vote, as a matter of course, 
 what right have we to vote otherwise than as the distinguished 
 Governor and President say in their infinite certainty?" 
 
 Johnson complained bitterly of the interference of the President 
 with the State and of the Governor with the Legislature. 
 
 "I have," said Johnson, "all respect for the intellect of James 
 N. Gillett, Governor of California, and for his superior, President 
 Roosevelt. But I am sent into this Chamber by my constituents 
 and not by Governor James N. Gillett. I have been returned here 
 again and again, and not because I bowed to the authority of 
 James N. Gillett. I am here for the good of my people, the people 
 who supported me, and who expect me to support them. I know 
 more about the Japanese than Governor Gillett and President 
 Roosevelt put together. I am not responsible to either of them. 
 I am responsible to the mothers and fathers of Sacramento County 
 who have their little daughters sitting side by side in the school 
 rooms with matured Japs, with their base minds, their lascivious 
 thoughts, multiplied by their race and strengthened by their 
 mode of life. 
 
 "I am here to protect the children of these parents. To do all 
 that I can to keep any Asiatic man from mingling in the same 
 school with the daughters of our people. You know the results 
 of such a condition; you know how far it will go, and I have 
 seen Japanese 25 years old sitting in the seats next to the pure 
 maids of California. I shuddered then and I shudder now, the 
 same as any other parent will shudder to think of such a con- 
 dition." 
 
 91 The purpose of the Municipal Segregation bill, aa set forth 
 in its title, was "to confer power upon municipalities to protect 
 the health, morals and peace of their inhabitants by restricting 
 undesirable, improper and unhealthy persons and persons whose 
 practices are dangerous to public morals and health and peace to 
 certain prescribed limits, and prescribing a punishment for a 
 violation of this Act." 
 
 The bill in full was as follows: 
 
 "Section 1. Whenever in the opinion of the governing body 
 of any municipality the presence of undesirable, improper and un- 
 healthy persons, or the presence of persons whose practices are 
 dangerous to public morals and health and peace is deemed to 
 exist in the said municipality and to be dangerous to the public 
 morals and health and peace of said municipality and its inhab- 
 
208 Anti-Japanese Bills 
 
 the close vote of 39 for to 35 against, 41 votes being re- 
 quired for its passage. 
 
 And then the Assembly took another tack, and by a 
 vote of 45 to 29, passed Assembly Bill 14, the Anti-Japa- 
 nese School bill. Leeds changed his vote from no to aye 
 to give notice that he would the next legislative day 
 move to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been 
 passed. The Assembly then adjourned. The day had 
 been eventful. A more eventful was to follow. 
 
 The passage of Assembly Bill 14, after the defeat of 
 the other so-called anti-Japanese measures, brought a 
 characteristic telegram from President Roosevelt to 
 Governor Gillett. 'This (Assembly Bill 14) is the most 
 offensive bill of them all," telegraphed the President, 
 "and in my judgment is clearly unconstitutional, and we 
 should at once have to test it in the courts. Can it not 
 be stopped in the Legislature or by veto?" 
 
 Governor Gillett incorporated that telegram in a mes- 
 sage which he sent to Senate and Assembly .the next 
 day. "A telegram so forcible as this," said the Governor, 
 "from the President of the United States, is entitled to 
 full consideration, and demands that no hasty or ill- 
 considered action be taken by this State which may in- 
 volve the whole country. It seems to me that it is time 
 to lay sentiment and personal opinion and considerations 
 aside and take a broad and unprejudiced view of the im- 
 
 itants, the said governing body is hereby empowered to so declare 
 by ordinance and is hereby empowered and authorized to prescribe 
 by ordinance the district and limits within which said persons shall 
 reside in said municipality, and thereafter it shall be unlawful for 
 any person of the class so declared to reside in any other portion 
 of said municipality than within the said district and limits so 
 
 "Sec. 2. A violation of the provisions of this Act shall be 
 deemed a misdemeanor and shall be punished as such." 
 
Anti-Japanese Bills 209 
 
 portant question involved in the proposed legislation, and 
 in a calm and dispassionate manner pass upon them, 
 keeping in mind not only the interests of our State, but 
 of the Nation as well, and the duty we owe to it in ob- 
 serving the treaties entered into by it with a friendly 
 power." 
 
 "I trust," concluded the Governor, "that no action 
 will be taken which will violate any treaty made by our 
 country or in any manner question its good faith. I 
 most respectfully submit this message to you with the 
 full hope and belief that when final action shall be taken 
 nothing will be done which can be the subject of criti- 
 cism by the people of this Nation, and that no law will 
 be enacted which will be in contravention of the Consti- 
 tution or any treaty of the United States." 
 
 The Governor's message was not at all well re- 
 ceived ; 92 in fact, Governor and message were de- 
 
 92 "Never before have 1 heard of a time," said Assemblyman 
 Cronin, "when a Governor has sent such a message to a Legis- 
 lature. I am responsible to my constituents for my actions on 
 this floor and I resent such interference. I hold the Governor's 
 action to be indiscreet. He has no more right to send such a 
 message to this House than have we to dictate to the Supreme 
 Court a policy on any action pending before it, on the ground 
 that the best interests of the State depend upon their regarding 
 our instructions. 
 
 "Can we dictate to the Governor the course that is to be 
 pursued in an executive matter? Let us stand by our guns." 
 
 "If the men change their votes on account of this fanciful 
 talk from the President and the Governor," said Johnson of 
 Sacramento, "I shall certainly be pained and surprised. They 
 do not know the conditions as I know them. We have a right to 
 protect our State, and it will not interfere with any international 
 relations, and they know it. Their specious argument will not 
 change my vote one bit. I know what The People want what I 
 want. I know influence has been brought to bear. It will be 
 further brought to bear. Now I trust this vote will not suffer 
 by you men changing your minds for such groundless reasons." 
 
 "Since yesterday," said Assemblyman Gibbons, "I have changed 
 my views. I thought there were three departments in this Govern- 
 ment, but I find I was mistaken. I recognize the error of my 
 youthful belief. I know now that the Legislative and the Execu- 
 tive are one, or, rather, that the Executive is the Legislative." 
 
2io Anti-Japanese Bills 
 
 nounced by both Republican and Democratic Assembly- 
 men. 
 
 From the hour that the bill had been passed, the 
 Governor had been in consultation with his lieutenants 
 in the Assembly. Speaker Stanton made canvass of 
 the situation. But little headway was made. That re- 
 consideration would be denied was evident. Leeds, to 
 save the situation, moved that reconsideration be post- 
 poned until February 10th. An amendment was made 
 .that it be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee. It 
 was on this amended motion that the issue was fought 
 out. 
 
 "I know what you want," declared Johnson of Sac- 
 ramento in his opening speech, "and you know it. You 
 want to bury this bill. You want time to hold another 
 caucus on the question and decide what you will do. You 
 want time to take another canvass of this Assembly." 
 
 Had the question been put when Johnson had con- 
 cluded, reconsideration would unquestionably have been 
 denied. In the emergency, Speaker Stanton left his 
 desk and took the floor to plead for delay. For once in 
 his life, at least, Phil Stanton was impressive. He did 
 not say much, and as the sequel showed he had little 
 to say but there was a suggestion of thundering guns 
 and sacked cities and marching armies in his words, 
 that caused the listening statesmen to follow him with 
 unstatesmen-like uneasiness. 
 
 "It was not my intention," said Stanton, "to take 
 the floor unless we were confronted by some grave crisis. 
 Such a crisis is, in my opinion, upon us. I not only be- 
 lieve it, but I know it. But my lips are sealed. 
 
Anti-Japanese Bills 211 
 
 "I would that I could tell you what I know, but I 
 cannot for the present. But I can tell you that we are 
 treading upon dangerous ground. I can feel it slipping 
 from under my feet. 
 
 "In my judgment this matter should be postponed. 
 I believe that further information will, within a few 
 days, be given you." 
 
 The psychological moment had come in the history 
 of Assembly Bill 14. All eyes were turned on Johnson 
 of Sacramento. It was for him to say whether the 
 postponement asked should be granted. Had Johnson 
 said "no," such -was the attitude of the Assembly at 
 that moment, reconsideration of the measure would un- 
 questionably have been denied, and Assembly Bill 14 
 declared passed by the House of its origin. 
 
 But Johnson did not say "no." 93 Instead, he entered 
 upon a rambling excuse for advocating acquiescence in 
 Stanton's request for delay. He rambled on that he 
 believed that Governor Gillett had been indiscreet; that 
 he (Johnson) did not propose to be dictated to by a 
 "fanatical President eternally seeking the limelight." 
 
 "But," concluded Johnson, "I have listened to the 
 words of our Speaker, and I see that he is profoundly 
 moved. For this reason I am willing that the bill go 
 
 93 The question has been asked was Johnson sincere in his 
 advocacy of the Anti- Japanese measures? The writer does not 
 presume to answer; the workings of Grove L. Johnson's mind and 
 conscience are, for the writer at least, too intricate for analysis. 
 But Grove L. Johnson voted for anti-racetrack gambling bills for 
 years, spoke for them and fought for them as keenly as he did 
 for the Anti-Japanese bills, always on the losing side. But when 
 an anti-racetrack gambling bill was before the Assembly with 
 some prospect of passage, Grove L. Johnson was found the leader 
 of those opposed to its passage. In the case in point, to Grove L. 
 Johnson, and not President Roosevelt or Governor Gillett, or even 
 Phil Stanton, is due the credit for postponement of consideration 
 of Assembly Bill 14, a postponement which meant its defeat. 
 
212 Anti-Japanese Bills 
 
 over until Wednesday, but out of respect to our Speaker, 
 and for no one else on earth." 
 
 When Johnson sat down, one could have heard a pin 
 drop. Not a dissenting voice was heard. Further con- 
 sideration of the measure was postponed until Feb- 
 ruary 10. 
 
 The day preceding final action on the bill was given 
 over to conferences and caucuses. The Democrats cau- 
 cused and agreed to stand as a unit for the bill. Grove 
 L. Johnson's immediate followers rallied to its support. 
 On the other hand, a conference of those opposing the 
 measure was held in Governor Gillett's office. Grove L. 
 Johnson is alleged to have been called to the carpet. 
 He was asked to withdraw his support of the measure. 
 Johnson is quoted as replying: 
 
 "Show me why I should not support it. Give 
 me the reasons, the facts and figures, why Roose- 
 velt has any right to interfere with this measure. 
 I want something definite. I have heard these sup- 
 positions and insinuations for years and years. Let 
 me know, gentlemen, what information you have 
 confided to you that should induce me to withdraw 
 my support and bow to the telegram from Roose- 
 velt." 
 
 The hour for reconsideration of the bill, 11 a. m. 
 of February 10, arrived with the situation practically 
 unchanged. Assemblyman Transue, Stanton's right 
 hand man in the fight against the bill, presented an 
 elaborate resolution, laboriously prepared by the op- 
 ponents of the measure, setting forth why it should be 
 
Anti-Japanese Bills 213 
 
 defeated. 94 In it the right of the State to pass such 
 school-regulating laws as it may see fit was affirmed, 
 and the constitutionality of the pending measure alleged, 
 but the Assembly was urged to do nothing to disturb the 
 relations existing between this Government and a friendly 
 power. The resolution did not strengthen the position 
 of the opponents of the bill in the least. In fact, several 
 of their number were estranged. So worked up had 
 the Assemblymen become, that Beardslee of San Joaquin 
 moved that Transue's resolution be considered in exec- 
 utive session, but the motion was lost. The resolution 
 was later withdrawn. 
 
 The debate turned principally on demands from the 
 supporters of the bill, that Speaker Stanton tell why he 
 had felt "the ground slipping from under his feet" in 
 his speech of six days before. But Stanton wouldn't or 
 couldn't tell. He leaned on his gavel through it all 
 looking very foolish indeed. 
 
 These speeches of denunciation pleased the supporters 
 of the bill immensely, but the luxury of denouncing 
 Stanton defeated the bill. Had the vote been taken at 
 the forenoon session, reconsideration would undoubt- 
 edly have been denied. But so much time was taken in 
 making Stanton feel foolish, that the hour of recess 
 arrived, and the Assembly scattered until two o'clock. 
 
 This brief respite gave the opponents of the measure 
 a last opportunity. They improved it by bringing over 
 to their side enough members of the San Francisco dele- 
 gation to win reconsideration, and the measure's defeat. 
 
 94 The Transue resolution will be found in full in the ap- 
 pendix. 
 
214 Anti-Japanese Bills 
 
 When the Assembly re-convened after the noon recess, 
 the members by a vote of 43 to 34 granted the bill re- 
 consideration, and by a vote of 37 ayes to 41 noes de- 
 feated it. 95 
 
 . Although the Senate escaped the sensational scenes 
 that attended the suppression of the Japanese problem 
 in the Assembly, nevertheless Japanese bills and resolu- 
 tions, with attending debates, made their appearance 
 there. Caminetti, for example, introduced a duplicate of 
 the Johnson anti-Japanese School bill, which was re- 
 ferred to the Senate Committee on Education and never 
 heard from again. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 492, introduced by Senator Anthony, 
 made more trouble. This measure gave the people of 
 the State an opportunity to express themselves at the 
 polls on the Japanese question. The Committee on 
 Labor, Capital and Immigration recommended the 
 
 95 Speaker Stanton very modestly took much credit for the 
 defeat of the bill. The following telegram was on its way to 
 Washington almost before the vote had been announced: 
 
 "Sacramento, February 10. Theodore Roosevelt, White House, 
 Washington, D. C. The Assembly just reconsidered and refused 
 passage of the Japanese School bill. My congratulations. 
 
 P. A. STANTON." 
 
 The reply was as follows: 
 
 "Washington, February 10. Hon. P. A. Stanton, Speaker of 
 the Assembly, Sacramento, Cal. Accept my heartiest thanks and 
 congratulations for the great service you have rendered on behalf 
 of The People of the United States. I thank the people of Cali- 
 fornia and their representatives in the Legislature. 
 
 THEODORE ROOSEVELT." 
 
 A further telegram was sent to Governor Gillett: 
 "Washington, February 10. To Governor J. N. Gillett, Sacra- 
 mento, Cal. Accept my heartiest congratulations. All good 
 Americans appreciate what you have done. Pray extend my con- 
 gratulations indivi-lually to all who have aided you. I feel that 
 the way in which California has done what was right for the 
 Nation makes it more than ever obligatory on the Nation in every 
 way to safeguard the interests of California. All that I personally 
 can do toward this end, whether in public or private life, shall 
 most certainly be done. THEODORE ROOSEVELT." 
 
Anti-Japanese Bills 215 
 
 measure for passage, and it was finally forced to a vote, 
 being defeated by twelve votes for and twenty-two 
 against. 96 
 
 A series of Senate anti-Japanese resolutions which 
 were finally included in Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, 97 
 almost led to a riot in the Assembly. After a deal of 
 pulling and hauling in the Senate the resolution was 
 finally adopted and went to the Assembly. In the As- 
 sembly, Speaker Stanton, as "a select committee of one," 
 took the resolution under his protection. The indica- 
 tions being that the "select committee of one" would fail 
 to report, a storm was started by an attack on Stan- 
 ton's authority to be a "select committee of one" at all. 
 The assailants were repulsed. Nevertheless, "the select 
 
 96 The vote on Senate Bill 492 was as follows: 
 
 For the bill Anthony, Black, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, 
 Cartwright, Finn, Hartman, Holohan, Reily, Sanford, and Welch 
 
 Against the bill Bates, Bell, Bills, Birdsall, Boynton, Curtin, 
 Cutten, Hurd, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Miller, Price, 
 Rush, Savage, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker, Weed, Willis, and 
 Wright 22. 
 
 Absentees Estudillo, Hare, Kennedy, Roseberry, Stetson, and 
 Wolfe 6. 
 
 97 Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, which, as finally adopted, was 
 a committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution Nos. 6, 7, 11 
 and 17. It follows: 
 
 Whereas, The progress, happiness, and prosperity of the 
 people of a nation depend upon a homogeneous population; 
 
 Whereas, The influx from overpopulated nations of Asia of 
 people who are unsuited for American citizenship or for assimi- 
 lation with the Caucasian race, has resulted and will result in 
 lowering the American standard of life and the dignity and wage- 
 earning capacity of American labor; 
 
 Whereas, The exclusion of Chinese laborers under the existing 
 exclusion laws of the United States has tended to preserve the 
 economic and social welfare of the people; 
 
 Whereas, We view with alarm any proposed repeal of such 
 exclusion laws and the substituting therefor of general laws; 
 
 Whereas, The interest of California can best be safeguarded 
 by the retention of said exclusion laws, and by extending their 
 terms and provisions to other Asiatic people; 
 
 Whereas, The people of the Eastern states, and the United 
 
216 Anti-Japanese Bills 
 
 committee of one," after holding the measure a week, 
 recommended that it be referred to the Committee on 
 Federal Relations. The measure was finally adopted and 
 went to the Governor. 
 
 States generally, have an erroneous impression as to the real 
 sentiment of the people of the Pacific Coast relative to the 
 Asiatic question; 
 
 Whereas, We think it right and proper that the people of this 
 country should be advised as to our true position on that question; 
 therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, by the Senate and Assembly jointly, That we respect- 
 fully urge the Congress of the United States to maintain intact 
 the present Chinese exclusion laws and instead of taking any 
 action looking to the repeal of said exclusion laws, to extend the 
 terms and provisions thereof so as to apply to and include all 
 Asiatics; 
 
 Resolved, That our Senators be instructed and Representatives 
 in Congress requested to use all honorable means to carry out the 
 foregoing recommendation and requests; 
 
 Resolved, That the Governor of California be, and he is, directed 
 to transmit a certified copy of these resolutions to the President 
 and Speaker, respectively, of the Senate and House of Repre- 
 sentatives of the United States, and to each of our Senators and 
 Representatives in Congress. 
 
 The resolution was adopted in the Senate by the following 
 vote: 
 
 Ayes Senators Anthony, Bates, Bills, Birdsall, Black, Boyn- 
 ton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, 
 Finn, Hare, Hartman, Holohan, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, McCart- 
 ney, Miller, Reily, Rush, Sanford, Savage, Walker, Welch, and 
 Wolfe 28. 
 
 Noes Senators Bell, Price, Roseberry, Stetson, Thompson, 
 Weed, and Willis 7. 
 
 The resolution was adopted in the Assembly on March 23. There 
 was no call for the ayes and noes, and no record was made 
 of the vote. 
 
CHAPTER XXI. 
 THE RULE AGAINST LOBBYING. 
 
 Scandals of the Session of 1907 and the Dread of Pinker- 
 ton Detectives Led to a Rule Under Which Machine 
 Lobbyists Could Work with Perfect Safety, While 
 Advocates of Reform Measures Could Be Barred 
 From Both Senate and Assembly. 
 
 One of the principal scandals of the Legislative ses- 
 sion of 1907 was the openness with which machine lob- 
 byists invaded Senate and Assembly chamber. They 
 went so far as to move from member to member during 
 roll-calls, giving Senator or Assemblyman, as the case 
 might be, a proprietary tap on the shoulder, to direct 
 his vote. 
 
 Word of the scandal got as far away from Sacra- 
 mento as San Luis Obispo County, where A. E. Campbell 
 became a candidate for the Senate against H. W. Lynch, 
 largely on the machine issue. Campbell pledged himself 
 to denounce such lobbyists as Jere Burke, the Southern 
 Pacific attorney, if they appeared on the floor of the 
 Senate, and to have them ejected from the chamber. 
 
 When Campbell reached Sacramento he let it be 
 known that such would be his policy. Campbell is thick- 
 set and shaggy of eyebrow ; his beard shows black on 
 his face two hours after shaving. He has all the ear- 
 marks of a born fighter. He didn't look good to the 
 machine, and his words didn't sound good. Incidentally, 
 
2i8 Rule Against Lobbying 
 
 Jere Burke discreetly kept out of the Senate chamber 
 while the Senate was in session. 
 
 Another thing which gave machine members of both 
 Houses, as well as machine hangers-on, much concern, 
 was the rumor started along in December that certain 
 public-spirited citizens of Los Angeles and San Francisco 
 would maintain at the Capital during the session a lobby 
 to protect the interests of the people, just as the machine 
 lobby looks after the well-being of machine-protected 
 corporations and individuals. 
 
 This rumor caused great distress. It had all sorts 
 of versions. One story was that a corps of Pinkertons 
 would be employed to look for bugs in bills, boodle in 
 sacks, and boodle-itching palms. Another account had 
 it that the supervision was to be carried on by the San 
 Francisco graft prosecution, and that Burns men would 
 be in constant attendance. A report, started early in the 
 session, that a Burns detective had secured a job as As- 
 sembly clerk almost threw that body into hysterics. 
 
 Campbell's threats and the anti-machine lobby ru- 
 mors seem to have had their effect upon the Committee 
 on Rules of each House. At any rate, both Senate and 
 Assembly adopted rules that no person engaged in pre- 
 senting any business to the Legislature or its Committees 
 should be permitted to do business with a member while 
 the House to which the member belonged was in session. 
 Persons transgressing this rule were to be removed from 
 the floor of the House in which the offense was com- 
 mitted, and kept out during the remainder of the session. 
 
 The rule was employed in one instance only. George 
 Baker Anderson, of The People's Legislative Bureau, 
 
Rule Against Lobbying 219 
 
 was ruled out of the Assembly, and, in effect, out of the 
 Senate Chamber. Jere Burke kept away from both, but 
 it was probably Campbell's threat more than the rule that 
 influenced Burke. With these two exceptions, the lobby- 
 ists had pretty much the run of both chambers. It should 
 be said, however, that while none of those lobbyists 
 were threatened with expulsion from the floor of either 
 House for advocating machine-backed measures and 
 policies, persons advocating reform measures were 
 threatened with the anti-lobbying rules. But Anderson 
 was the only one to suffer because of them. 
 
 The curious feature of Anderson's case was that no- 
 body seems to have been able to discover that he ever did 
 any lobbying, or asked a member of either body to sup- 
 port or oppose any measure or policy, or that he even so 
 much as spoke to a legislator while the House to which 
 the legislator belonged was in session. 
 
 Anderson was in charge of a Legislative Bureau, one 
 purpose of which was to keep the newspapers of the 
 State which were not represented by correspondents at 
 the Capital, informed of the votes on the various meas- 
 ures, and other items of importance or interest. Some- 
 body early in the session called the bureau a "lobby," and 
 somebody else improved the title by calling it "People's 
 Lobby." 
 
 And then certain Senators and Assemblymen awoke 
 to the startling discovery that in the Legislative Bureau, 
 presided over by Anderson, was the People's Lobby that 
 was to employ Pinkerton's or Burns' men to watch the 
 Legislature. Anderson was a marked man from that 
 moment. 
 
22O Rule Against Lobbying 
 
 Curiously enough this theory of Anderson's purpose 
 didn't anger a single member of Senate or Assembly 
 who, during the nearly three months that followed, voted 
 against machine-advocated measures, and for measures 
 which the machine opposed. Assemblymen of the type 
 of Bohnett, Hinkle, Cattell, Callan and Drew, Senators 
 like Bell, Black, Campbell and Holohan either treated the 
 Pinkerton story as a joke or thought that a little Pinker- 
 ton watchfulness might be a pretty good proposition, all 
 things considered. 
 
 On the other hand, many of the Senators and As- 
 semblymen who were in constant opposition to reform 
 policies, were very much exercised that anybody should 
 have the audacity to have a watch kept upon the Legis- 
 lature. This intense feeling found perhaps its best ex- 
 pression in Assemblyman McManus' denunciation of An- 
 derson, when the question of having Anderson "investi- 
 gated" was before the Assembly. 
 
 "It is a sad state of affairs," said McManus, "if a 
 band of Pinkertons are here to follow the members up. 
 We aren't everyday street-car conductors. We don't 
 have to have spotters to watch us." 
 
 But perhaps the most astonishing feature of the whole 
 astonishing Anderson incident is that nobody was ever 
 able to connect him with a detective of any stripe what- 
 soever, Burns, Pinkerton, or unclassified. But this did 
 not prevent his being ruled off the floor of the Assembly, 
 and, in effect, of the Senate. 
 
 As the most amazing rumors about Anderson many 
 
Rule Against Lobbying 221 
 
 started as jokes 98 multiplied, the indignation of certain 
 Assemblymen and Senators increased. Matters came 
 to a climax when Anderson sent a ^number of letters to 
 members who had been absent from the chamber when 
 the first vote was taken on the Walker-Otis Anti-Gamb- 
 ling bill, asking them if they would be willing to give the 
 reasons for their absence. 
 
 The difference in the effect of the letters was aston- 
 ishing. Assemblyman Prescott F. Cogswell, who had 
 been favored with one of them, stated on the floor of the 
 Assembly that he had been glad of the opportunity to 
 make known the cause of his absence when the vote was 
 taken. On the other hand, Assemblyman Wheelan, who 
 had received a duplicate of the letter which Cogswell had 
 welcomed, was very much cast down. Wheelan, arising 
 to a question of personal privilege, read the letter, and 
 wanted to know if he hadn't been "insulted." " 
 
 98 A party of newspapermen were in Anderson's office one 
 evening, when two or three machine men came in. With a wink 
 to Anderson one of the newspapermen asked "The head of your 
 detective bureau is that keen looking young fellow, with reddish 
 brown hair and brown eyes, is he not, Anderson?" Anderson joined 
 in the joke and nodded. One of the machine men left the room 
 immediately. Within an hour, a hunt was being made from one 
 end of Sacramento to the other, for a "keen-looking young man 
 with reddish brown hair and brown eyes." 
 
 99 The communication which insulted Wheelan read as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 The Hon. Albert P. Wheelan, 
 
 Member of Assembly. 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 The People's Legislative Bureau, organized chiefly for the col- 
 lection and dissemination of accurate information regarding legis- 
 lation, and the attitude of members of the Legislature thereon, 
 notes that you are recorded as having been absent when the 
 roll was called on the motion to refer the Anti-Racetrack Gam- 
 bling bill back to the committee. 
 
 As our record is intended to be permanent, and will be placed 
 in the hands of all the newspapers and civic organizations through- 
 put the State, we wish to ask if you have any objection to furnish- 
 ing us the reason for your absence, so that we may enter it upon 
 our record. Respectfully yours, 
 
 GEORGE B. ANDERSON, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
222 Rule Against Lobbying 
 
 Assemblyman Beardslee hastened to assure Mr. 
 Wheelan that he had been. Furthermore, Beardslee 
 thumped his ample chest a thump, and announced : 
 
 "I, too, am insulted, for my brother has been insulted, 
 and who insults my brother, insults me." 
 
 That seemed to settle it. The Committee on Rules was 
 instructed to investigate the letter incident. 
 
 The Committee on Rules consisted of Johnston of 
 Contra Costa, Transue, Grove L. Johnson, Beardslee and 
 Stanton, the Committee, by the way, of "gag rules" no- 
 toriety. The investigation was held behind closed doors. 
 
 Anderson was asked about the letter and his purpose 
 in writing it, to all of which he replied directly and with- 
 out hesitation. And then came the burning question of 
 the hour: 
 
 "How many Pinkertons are there in your employ in 
 Sacramento, Mr. Anderson?" asked Johnson. 
 
 Anderson refused to answer the question. His wiser 
 course would perhaps have been to answer truthfully, 
 "None at all," and end the joke. But that was Ander- 
 son's business. He declined to answer. 
 
 Anderson's refusal to answer was solemnly reported 
 by the committee back to the Assembly. Some mem- 
 bers when the report was read laughed, others were 
 made very serious indeed. It was finally decided that the 
 investigation of Anderson should be turned over to the 
 Judiciary Committee, of which Grove L. Johnson was 
 chairman. 
 
 The Judiciary Committee was solemnly authorized to 
 send for persons and papers, and administer oaths. 
 While the investigation was pending, Anderson was de- 
 
Rule Against Lobbying 223 
 
 nied admittance to the Assembly chamber. As the press 
 badge, admitting Anderson to both Assembly and Senate 
 chambers had been taken from him, he was unable to 
 enter the Senate chamber either. 
 
 And the Assembly Judiciary Committee failed to 
 investigate. Although Anderson demanded that he be 
 given a hearing, and the matter settled, one way or the 
 other, the Judiciary Committee would not and did not 
 act. Under the Assembly resolution ordering the inves- 
 tigation, however, Anderson was for nearly two months 
 barred from both the Assembly and Senate chambers. 
 The session closed without the investigation being held. 
 
 It may be said in this connection that neither in the 
 State Statutes, nor in the rules of either Senate or As- 
 sembly, is there a word which prohibits the employing 
 of detectives at a Legislative session. Even though John- 
 son's committee had investigated Anderson's case, and 
 discovered tUat he was really employing detectives, it is 
 difficult to see how his punishment could have been jus- 
 tified. The incident is certainly one of the most ex- 
 traordinary of the session of any Legislative session 
 ever held in this State, in fact. 
 
 The most interesting point in the Anderson case was 
 that when pinned down for a reason for excluding him 
 from the Assembly chamber, the offended Assemblyman 
 would invariably reply that he was excluded under the 
 rule which prohibited lobbying. 
 
 Curiously enough, however, lobbying, in spite of the 
 rule, continued on the floors of both Houses even during 
 sessions. 
 
 When the Islais Creek Harbor bill was under con- 
 
224 Rule Against Lobbying 
 
 sideration in the Assembly, for example, Carroll Cook, 
 and others interested in the defeat of the measure as it 
 had passed the Senate, appeared openly on the floor and 
 in the lobby of the Assembly, even when the debate was 
 going on, and worked for amendment of the measure to 
 suit their aims. All this resulted in the greatest con- 
 fusion. But Speaker Stanton seemed absolutely unable 
 to cope with the situation. The lobbying and the con- 
 fusion continued in spite of Stanton's efforts to enforce 
 something of the appearance of order. 
 
 Such scenes were often duplicated in the Senate. 
 When the fight over the Direct Primary bill had the 
 Senate by the ears, Johnnie Lynch, George Van Smith, 
 even President of the Senate Warren Porter, exerted 
 themselves to compel concurrence in the machine-backed 
 Assembly amendments. This was done in the Senate 
 chamber, when the Senate was in session, and Johnnie 
 Lynch and Van Smith in particular were conspicuous in 
 the work in behalf of the machine's policy. 
 
 But it was noticeable, that those who advocated re- 
 form policies took no such liberties on the floor of either 
 House. They knew "better. The danger involved for 
 the lobbyist for reform measures was emphasized the 
 night the measure prohibiting the sale of intoxicants 
 within a mile and a half of Stanford University passed 
 the Assembly. 
 
 Charles R. Detrick of Palo Alto, during the call of 
 the House ordered on account of the Stanford bill, was 
 discussing the merits of the measure with Assemblyman 
 Bohnett, who was leading the fight for its passage. It 
 
Rule Against Lobbying 225 
 
 was not a case of lobbying at all, for both men were 
 for the bill. 
 
 Nevertheless, Assemblyman Schmitt, 99a who over- 
 heard Detrick mention the measure, warned the Stanford 
 man, that if he (Detrick) did not cease his "lobbying" 
 for the bill that he (Schmitt) would have him (Detrick) 
 excluded from the chamber. 
 
 Senator Walker, although a member of the Senate, 
 had much the same experience. Walker was discussing 
 the Stanford bill with a friend, when one of the op- 
 ponents of the measure threatened him with expulsion 
 from the floor of the Assembly if he did not desist. 
 
 And even while these threats were being made against 
 the proponents of the bill, opponents of the measure were 
 working openly on the floor of the Assembly chamber 
 against its passage. No suggestion was made that the 
 rule prohibiting lobbying be enforced against them. 
 
 99a This is the same Schmitt who objected so strenuously to 
 professors of the State University being identified with reform 
 movements. 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 THE MACHINE LOBBYIST AT WORK. 
 
 How Jere Burke Arrayed the County Officials of the 
 State Against Two Beneficial Measures How the 
 Power of the Southern Pacific Was Employed 
 Against a California Enterprise Danger Which 
 Constantly Menaces Legitimate Enterprises. 
 
 The problem of drawing the line between legitimate 
 and reprehensible lobbying has perplexed wiser men than 
 sat in the California Legislature of 1909. 
 
 On the side of the lobbyist it may be said there seems 
 no good reason why a citizen or representative of a cor- 
 poration which is interested in pending legislation should 
 not appear at the Capitol and in a legitimate way pre- 
 sent his case to the members of the Legislature. In 
 fact, the theory of committee consideration of measures 
 introduced in Senate or Assembly, is based on the prin- 
 ciple that it is the citizen's right to be heard on any 
 matter that may be pending before the Legislature. The 
 citizen cannot be heard before either the Senate or 
 Assembly ; he can, however, present his case to the com- 
 mittee the decision of which carries weight with that 
 branch of the Legislature for which it acts. No one 
 can object, for example, that Mr. P. F. Dunne appeared 
 before the Senate Committee on Corporations, when the 
 Railroad Regulation bill was under consideration, to 
 present the railroad's side. Mr. Dunne appeared openly 
 
Machine Lobby 227 
 
 and aboveboard, and although he sought deliberately to 
 misrepresent the situation to the Committee, nevertheless 
 to object to his visiting Sacramento, or even to the work 
 which he did while there, would be forced and far- 
 fetched. 
 
 In the same way, Mr. Seth Mann, representing the 
 shippers of California, appeared before the Committee 
 and presented the side of the shippers. Mr. Mann spoke 
 for the shippers precisely as Mr. Dunne spoke for the 
 railroads. Mr. Mann, however, did not stoop to mis- 
 representation and deception. 
 
 But if Mr. Dunne for the railroads or Mr. Mann for 
 the shippers had departed from openly-presented argu- 
 ment to buttonhole Senators or Assemblymen to tell 
 them they must vote for or against a given measure, or 
 look out for trouble, immediately would he be open to 
 criticism. If either went during roll call from Legis- 
 lator to Legislator to tell the members how they were 
 to vote, again would he be justly criticized. Or had 
 Mr. Dunne employed the influence of the great corpo- 
 ration which he represents to defeat or pass a measure 
 in which his company can have no legitimate interest, 
 again would there be good reason for complaint. Mr. 
 Dunne could very properly while acting as agent of 
 the Southern Pacific Railroad Company urge in a legiti- 
 mate way the corporation's objections to the Demurrage 
 bill, to the Full Crew bill, to the Railroad Regulation 
 bill, or any other measure affecting common carriers. 
 But for Mr. Dunne to have employed the influence of 
 his position as political representative of a common car- 
 rier to force the passage of the Change of Venue bill for 
 
228 Machine Lobby 
 
 example, or defeat an effective Direct Primary bill, or 
 the Party Circle bill, or the Judicial Column bill, would 
 have been most reprehensible, for the Southern Pacific 
 Company can have no legitimate interest in any of these 
 measures. 
 
 So far as the writer knows, Mr. Dunne did not con- 
 cern himself with any measure, except those in which his 
 company was legitimately interested. But paid servants 
 of the Southern Pacific Company were at Sacramento 
 throughout the entire session, and managed to have their 
 fingers in about all that was going on. The most con- 
 spicuous of them was Mr. J. T. Burke, more familiarly 
 known as "Jere" Burke. 
 
 A fair sample of Burke's methods and Burke is 
 merely typical of the objectionable lobbyist is found in 
 the campaign which was carried on against Senate Bills 
 1229 and 1230. Had these measures become laws, it 
 would have been possible for county assessors to dis- 
 cover property, owned principally by public service cor- 
 porations, which at present escapes taxation. It is esti- 
 mated that the total taxable value of this untaxed prop- 
 erty is $100,000,000. It is not taxed because assessors 
 have no means of reaching it. Mr. Burke's company 
 could have no legitimate interest in Senate Bills 1229 and 
 1230. This statement is made, of course, on the as- 
 sumption that the officials of the Southern Pacific Com- 
 pany aim to make honest returns to the tax collector. 
 But to return to Senate Bills 1229 and 1230, and Burke's 
 connection with them. 
 
 The two measures were intended to amend sections 
 of the Codes relating to the assessment of property. 
 
Machine Lobby 229 
 
 Section 3681 of the Political Code provides that "during 
 the session of the Board (of Supervisors sitting as a 
 Board of Equalization) it may direct the Assessor to 
 assess any taxable property that has escaped assessment, 
 or to add to the amount, number and quality of prop- 
 erty, when a false or incompetent list has been rendered." 
 
 Under this section, as it at present reads, the Super- 
 visors may direct the Assessor to assess property that 
 may have escaped assessment, but there is no machinery 
 provided by which the property may be discovered. 
 Senate Bill 1229 provided the machinery by which the 
 unassessed property might be discovered, by adding to 
 the section quoted above: "And the Board (the Super- 
 visors sitting as a Board of Equalization) may employ 
 legal or other assistance in discovering any taxable prop- 
 erty that has escaped assessment in the performance of 
 their duties under this section." 
 
 Senate Bill 1230, the companion bill, provided that the 
 Supervisors may subpena witnesses in all matters pend- 
 ing before them when sitting as a Board of Equalization. 
 Under the present law, they can compel attendance of 
 witnesses only upon the particular point under considera- 
 tion. 
 
 The necessity of the amendments was generally ad- 
 mitted. The task of the Assessor is at best no easy one. 
 Through his deputies he must list all the property in his 
 county that he can find. 
 
 The holdings of the small property owners are in 
 sight, and, down to the last chicken, go on the assessment 
 roll. 
 
 The property of the large corporation is not so readily 
 
230 Machine Lobby 
 
 discovered and $100,000,000 worth of it, according to 
 conservative estimate, escapes assessment. The Asses- 
 sors, with comparatively small force of deputies, have no 
 way to force its assessment. 
 
 The Board of Supervisors, sitting as a Board of 
 Equalization, may know that the unassessed property is 
 in existence, but has no way to reach it. The Board 
 may, under section 3681 of the Political Code quoted 
 above, direct the Assessor to assess it, but the law stops 
 there. There is no machinery provided for the discovery 
 of the property. Senate Bills 1229 and 1230 provided 
 the machinery. They were introduced by Senator San- 
 ford of Mendocino. Before their significance was appre- 
 ciated by Southern Pacific lobbyists, the Senate Judiciary 
 Committee had recommended thern for passage. 
 
 When Burke did grasp the significance of the meas- 
 ures, he demanded of Sanford that they be withdrawn. 
 The argument which Burke advanced against them was 
 in effect as follows : 
 
 "These bills are the most un-American propositions I 
 ever heard of," said Burke. "They make of the Boards 
 of Supervisors inquisitorial bodies. The corporations 
 have property which they prefer to conceal. They pre- 
 fer arbitrary assessments. They do not care to make 
 returns to the Assessor. The passage of these bills would 
 compel them to make returns." 
 
 In other words, the corporations, if Jere Burke, their 
 legislative representative, reflects their sentiments, prefer 
 that the Assessors continue to guess at the value of their 
 properties. If the guess be too high, the corporations 
 can compel reductions ; if the guess be too low, they rest 
 
Machine Lobby 231 
 
 content. But, however the corporations may approve 
 the guessing method of assessment, it has not proved 
 equable, has not been fair to the farmer, the merchant 
 and the householder, who under oath make honest re- 
 turns to the Assessor. 
 
 Burke's argument, however, failed to move Sanford. 
 The Senator from Mendocino refused to withdraw the 
 bills. And then a curious thing happened. The mem- 
 bers of the Senate were, within three days after Sanford 
 had refused to withdraw the bills, fairly swamped with 
 telegrams and letters from County Assessors and County 
 Supervisors, protesting against the passage of the bills, 
 on the ground that their passage would be a reflection 
 upon the County Assessors of the State. Many who thus 
 telegraphed or wrote, stated that they had not seen the 
 bills but added in effect, "We understand that they are 
 bad bills and should be defeated." 
 
 Of course, there was no evidence that Burke or his 
 agents had instigated the telegrams. But there was a 
 shrewd suspicion that such was the case. Sanford's an- 
 swer to the Supervisors and Assessors was most effective. 
 He mailed them copies of the Sacramento Bee which set 
 forth the actual purpose of the bills, and copies of the 
 bills themselves. Immediately Assessors and Supervisors 
 who had wired their Senators to oppose the bills, sent 
 telegrams withdrawing their opposition. 
 
 In passing it may be said that neither bill passed the 
 Senate. Bill No. 1229 passed second reading, but was 
 amended on third reading, March 11, and was not heard 
 of again. Bill No. 1230 passed second reading, but was 
 not read the third time. There are other ways to kill good 
 
232 Machine Lobby 
 
 bills than to bluff their authors into withdrawing them, 
 or by stirring up State- wide antagonism to them. The 
 incident shows, however, the State-wide ramifications of 
 the machine. Within three days it was possible for the 
 machine to create the impression from one end of the 
 State to the other, that Senate Bills 1229 and 1230 were 
 bad bills, measures casting reflection upon the County 
 Assessors. Only the prompt action of Senator Sanford 
 dispelled this impression. It also demonstrates the pow- 
 erful backing behind the machine agents kept at Sacra- 
 mento during a Legislative session. 
 
 It is bad enough when the far-reaching influence of 
 the machine is employed to defeat measures which pro- 
 vide the machinery to enable public officials to enforce 
 the law, against beneficiaries of the system, but when one 
 of the agents employs this influence to promote his per- 
 sonal interests in a matter in which the particular cor- 
 poration which he represents can have no interest what- 
 ever, particular emphasis is given the evils of the ma- 
 chine domination and reprehensible lobbying. To illus- 
 trate : 
 
 A peculiar situation which has developed at Owens 
 Lake in Inyo County, made it necessary and proper that 
 slight amendment be made to the law of eminent domain. 
 The water of Owens Lake is heavily charged with soda. 
 Some years ago, the Inyo Development Company was 
 organized to recover this soda. The company invested 
 $200,000 in establishing a soda-ash plant at the lakeside. 
 This does not include the cost of building a railroad from 
 the Lake to Mound House, Nevada, a distance of about 
 400 miles. The investment proved a success. The com- 
 
Machine Lobby 233 
 
 pany harvests as high as 10,000 tons of soda ash a year. 
 As the product is worth as high as $30 a ton at San 
 Francisco, the enterprise adds an important industry to 
 the developed resources of the State. The method of 
 recovering the soda is simple. The water is drawn 
 from the lake into vats, where it is left to evaporate. 
 The soda is then recovered. 
 
 Owing to the fact that the waters of Owens Lake 
 are constantly receding, a considerable strip of land has, 
 during recent years, been uncovered between the com- 
 pany's holdings near the lake and the water. The water 
 from which the soda is reclaimed has to be piped over 
 this land. 
 
 Recently former employees of the Inyo Development 
 Company took up the land lying between the company's 
 property and the lake, and under the name of the Natural 
 Soda Products Company, propose to go into the business 
 of manufacturing soda ash on their own account. 
 
 Not long since the new company began to complain 
 of the old company's pipe, which crosses the new com- 
 pany's land. The old company saw that it had trouble 
 ahead unless it could condemn a strip of the recently re- 
 claimed land for a pipe line. It was found, however, 
 that there is no law in California by which this could be 
 done. Under the law of eminent domain land could be 
 condemned for almost any other purpose than to establish 
 a pipe line to carry water not to be used for irrigation 
 or domestic purposes. An attempt was therefore made 
 to have the law governing eminent domain amended so 
 as to read that land could be condemned "for oil pipe 
 lines and pipe lines for conducting the waters of any 
 
234 Machine Lobby 
 
 lake which are not fit for irrigation or domestic pur- 
 poses, and which contain soda or other minerals, or 
 chemical substances in solution, and also pumps and 
 machinery for raising the same and forcing the same 
 through such pipes." 
 
 This amendment was included in Senate Bit! 797, 
 and in the companion Assembly Bill 815. Senate Bill 
 797 passed the Senate and was referred to the Judiciary 
 Committee of the Assembly, where the amendment pro- 
 viding for the soda water pipe line was added. This 
 bill received a favorable recommendation from the As- 
 sembly Judiciary Committee and was returned to the 
 Assembly. And then a very mysterious thing happened. 
 Without apparent reason the bill was referred to the 
 Assembly Committee on Corporations. Provision for 
 soda water pipe lines, so far as the Assembly was con- 
 cerned, came to a sudden ending. 
 
 At the time Senate Bill 797 was undergoing sup- 
 pression in the Assembly, the companion bill, Assembly 
 Bill 815, was pending before the Senate Judiciary Com- 
 mittee. The measure was amended to make possible the 
 condemnation of land for a soda water pipe line. Chair- 
 man Willis of the Committee expressed himself as satis- 
 fied with the amendment. And as amended, the bill was 
 referred back to the Senate with the recommendation that 
 it do pass as amended. Two days later, however, Sena- 
 tor Willis stated on the floor of the Senate that he had 
 information from Inyo County which convinced him that 
 the amendment was not desirable, and should be excluded 
 from the bill. He stated that the county officials of Inyo 
 County opposed the amendment, and for that reason 
 
Machine Lobby 235 
 
 suggested that the amendment be dropped. He stated 
 that the Assembly would refuse to concur in the amend- 
 ment even though the bill were passed with it. Mr. 
 Willis' wishes were respected and the bill re-amended. 
 Provisions for condemning land for soda water pipe lines 
 came to as dead a stop in the Senate as in the Assembly. 
 The next development in this comparatively unimportant 
 incident of the session, was the discovery that Mr. J. T. 
 Burke of Berkeley, member of the Southern Pacific law 
 department, the Jere Burke of Southern Pacific lobbying, 
 is one of the directors of the Natural Soda Products 
 Company, which owns the land over which the Inyo De- 
 velopment Company would build a pipe line, a pipe line 
 upon which the future prosperity of the Inyo Develop- 
 ment Company largely rests. Burke was alleged to have 
 opposed the amendment and so far as the writer knows 
 the charge was never denied and with having brought 
 about the defeat of the amendment. In other words, Mr. 
 Burke is charged with throwing the full weight of the 
 influence of the large corporation (the Southern Pacific 
 Railroad Company, which he represents) on the side of 
 a small corporation in which he is a director, and against 
 a third corporation, which has large interests at stake. 
 And the citizen who stands for fair play should not lose 
 sight of the fact that Mr. Burke's corporation, the South- 
 ern Pacific Railroad Company, is the principal factor in 
 the machine which works against good government, fair 
 play, the "square deal" in business and politics which 
 President Roosevelt insisted upon. The Inyo Develop- 
 ment Company failed in its perfectly legitimate purpose 
 because arrayed against it was in effect the political in- 
 
236 Machine Lobby 
 
 fluence of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the 
 tenderloin, and all the other elements that go to make 
 up the political machine in California. And the fact 
 should not be lost sight of that no other independent 
 enterprise in California, even where it has, as has the 
 Inyo Development Company, hundreds of thousands of 
 dollars invested, is immune against similar experiences. 
 
 Early in the session when the lobbying question was, 
 because of the excitement over Anderson, decidedly 
 prominent, Sanford in the Senate and Callan in the As- 
 sembly introduced bills requiring lobbyists who appear 
 at the Capitol during a legislative session to register their 
 names, the names of their employers and the amount and 
 nature of their compensation. At the close of the session 
 they were, under the terms of the measures, required to 
 file a detailed statement of their expenditures. 
 
 Had these measures become laws they might have 
 proved very embarrassing to certain gentlemen who were 
 very well received by the machine element in both Senate 
 and Assembly chamber. 
 
 But they didn't become laws. 
 
 The Assembly bill went to the Assembly Judiciary 
 Committee, which held it two months, finally, on March 
 16th, reporting it to the Assembly without recommenda- 
 tion. On March 19th, the measure was refused passage. 
 
 The Senate bill went to the Senate Judiciary Com- 
 mittee. The Committee referred it back to the Senate 
 with the recommendation that it do not pass. On Janu- 
 ary 29th, it, too, was defeated. 
 
 The lobbying problem, like Jere Burke, continues 
 with us. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII. 
 INFLUENCE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO DELEGATION. 
 
 Casts Nearly Twenty-five Per Cent of the Vote in Each 
 House Majority Invariably Found on the Side of the 
 Machine Opposed Passage of the Walker-Otis 
 Bill Instrumental in Amending the Direct Primary 
 Law Defeated Local Option Bill. 
 
 The popular idea that the State outside San Francisco 
 is not concerned about political conditions at the me- 
 tropolis is not borne out by the record of the legislative 
 session of 1909. The San Francisco delegations in Sen- 
 ate and Assembly had, as they always have had and will 
 have for many a year to come, the deciding voice in 
 practically all important issues. 
 
 San Francisco elects within one of 25 per cent of 
 the members of the State Senate, and within two of 25 
 per cent of the Assembly. In other words, nine of the 
 forty Senators come from San Francisco, and eighteen 
 of the eighty Assemblymen. The nine San Francisco 
 Senators and the eighteen San Francisco Assemblymen 
 join with the outside members in making laws not for 
 San Francisco alone, but for the entire State. Their 
 numbers give them decided advantage. The character 
 of the laws passed at a legislative session almost in- 
 variably bears the stamp of the character of the San 
 Francisco delegation. The character of the delegation 
 depends upon political conditions at San Francisco. The 
 
238 San Francisco Delegation 
 
 whole State, then, is concerned in the efforts of the best 
 citizenship of the metropolis to oust from power the 
 corrupt element that has so long dominated San Fran- 
 cisco politics. 
 
 The record of the San Francisco delegation at the 
 session of 1909, while better in the Assembly than in the 
 Senate, is not one for San Francisco or the State for 
 that matter to enthuse over. The votes on test ques- 
 tions of the eighteen members of the Assembly and. of 
 the nine members of the Senate, will be found set forth 
 in tables in the appendix. 
 
 The table showing the votes of the nine San Fran- 
 cisco Senators covers sixteen roll calls, on which the 
 San Francisco Senators cast 128 votes, ninety-nine of 
 which were in support of machine policies and only 
 twenty-nine against. Thus the nine Senators averaged 
 on sixteen roll calls, eleven votes for the machine and 
 three votes against. Had the San Francisco Senators 
 broken even on the issues involved; that is to say, had 
 sixty-four of the 128 votes been cast for the machine, 
 and sixty-four against the machine, and the sixty-four 
 anti-machine votes been evenly distributed among the 
 several issues, the machine would have been defeated on 
 every issue coming before the Senate. 
 
 The Assembly showing is not quite so overwhelm- 
 ingly machine as that of the Senate, but it is bad enough. 
 Eleven roll calls are considered. On these the eighteen 
 San Francisco Assemblymen cast a total of 165 votes, 
 of which 108 were for machine policies and fifty-seven 
 against. Thus, even in the Assembly, the vote was ap- 
 proximately 2 to 1 in favor of the machine. Of the fifty- 
 
San Francisco Delegation 239 
 
 seven anti-machine votes, eleven were cast by Callan, 
 who made an absolutely clean record, nine by Gerdes 
 and seven by Lightner, a total of twenty-seven for the 
 three. Deducted from the total of anti-machine votes, 
 this leaves only thirty anti-machine votes for the re- 
 maining fifteen members of the delegation. Or to put 
 it the other way, Callan, Gerdes and Lightner cast 
 among them only four machine votes, which leaves 104 
 machine votes cast by the other fifteen San Francisco 
 members. 
 
 On the individual issues the San Francisco Senators 
 and Assemblymen made as bad a showing as does their 
 vote in the aggregate. The passage of the Walker-Otis 
 Racetrack Gambling bill for example demonstrates that 
 the poolsellers had little hold upon the legislators of any 
 community of the State outside of San Francisco. In 
 the Senate but seven votes were cast against the bill. 
 Five of the seven came from the San Francisco delega- 
 tion Finn, Hare, Hartman, Reily and Wolfe. The two 
 remaining came from Alameda and Shasta-Siskiyou 
 Counties. Leavitt, representing Alameda, and Weed, 
 representing Shasta and Siskiyou, voted with the five 
 San Francisco Senators against suppressing book- 
 making and pool-selling. 
 
 The record of the San Francisco Assembly delega- 
 tion on the anti-gambling measure is scarcely less sug- 
 gestive. Before the Walker-Otis bill could pass the As- 
 sembly the proponents of the measure had to win six 
 fights, as is shown by the table giving the several votes 
 taken in the Assembly on the Walker-Otis bill. The 
 three most important of the six were: 
 
240 San Francisco Delegation 
 
 1. To prevent the bill being referred back to the 
 Committee on Public Morals. 
 
 2. To pass the measure on third reading without 
 amendment. 
 
 3. To prevent reconsideration of the vote by which 
 the bill had been passed. 
 
 In the first fight twenty-three Assemblymen voted to 
 refer the bill back to the Committee. Of these twelve- 
 more than one-half were from San Francisco. 
 
 The day of the second fight, only ten Assemblymen 
 voted on the side of the gamblers. Every one of the 
 ten was from San Francisco. 
 
 In the third fight, on the motion to reconsider, nine- 
 teen Assemblymen voted for reconsideration. Of these, 
 ten, more than fifty per cent, were from San Francisco. 
 
 Or, to put it in a lump, in the three most important 
 fights over the Walker-Otis bill in the Assembly, in the 
 aggregate fifty-two votes were cast against the measure. 
 Of these, thirty-two were from San Francisco Assembly- 
 men. Only twenty were from outside San Francisco. 
 
 The universal demand throughout the State for the 
 passage of an anti-pool selling measure offset the influ- 
 ence and the vote of the San Francisco delegation in 
 both Senate and Assembly. But in the issues more in- 
 volved, where the lines were more closely drawn, San 
 Francisco practically made the laws for the whole State. 
 This could be demonstrated by many instances. The 
 most striking perhaps are shown by the histories of the 
 Direct Primary measure and the Railroad Regulation 
 bills. 
 
 When the first fight over the Direct Primary bill came 
 
San Francisco Delegation 241 
 
 up in the Senate, it will be remembered, the anti-machine 
 forces defeated the machine by a vote of twenty-seven to 
 thirteen. Of the thirteen Senators who voted to amend 
 the bill to the liking of Wolfe and Leavitt, six almost 
 fifty per cent were from San Francisco. They were 
 Finn, Hare, Hartman, Kennedy, Reily, Wolfe. 
 
 When the machine element had succeeded in amend- 
 ing the Direct Primary measure to its liking in the As- 
 sembly, and there came a new alignment on the bill in 
 the Senate, eight of the nine San Francisco Senators 
 voted with Wolfe and Leavitt for the amendments, which 
 denied the people of California State-wide vote on can- 
 didates for the United States Senate. <3ne San Fran- 
 cisco Senator only, Anthony, voted with the better ele- 
 ment in the Senate, against the amendments. 
 
 Had only two of the nine Senators from San Fran- 
 cisco voted for the bill in its original form, the measure 
 would have been passed by a vote of twenty-one to nine- 
 teen without the machine amendments. 
 
 The influence of the San Francisco members in shap- 
 ing the Direct Primary law was even more forcibly illus- 
 trated in the Assembly. Of the eighteen San Francisco 
 Assemblymen, fifteen voted for the Assembly amend- 
 ments, two, Callan and Gerdes, voted against them, and 
 Hopkins is not recorded as voting. 
 
 It will be remembered that the amendments were read 
 into the bill by a vote of thirty-six to thirty-eight. Had 
 the San Francisco delegation divided even on this vote, 
 had nine voted for the amendments and nine against, the 
 vote would have been forty-three against putting them 
 in the bill, and thirty-two for, the bill would not have 
 
242 San Francisco Delegation 
 
 been amended in the Assembly; it would have become 
 a law in the same shape that it had originally passed the 
 Senate. It is noticeable that in an Assembly of eighty 
 members, only twenty-three of the Assemblymen who 
 voted for the Assembly amendments to the Direct Primary 
 bill were from outside San Francisco. In the Senate 
 eight of the twenty Senators who voted for the amend- 
 ments were from San Francisco, only twelve were from 
 outside that city. Thus, out of 120 members in the Legis- 
 lature, ninety-three of whom were from outside San 
 Francisco, only thirty-five from districts outside the me- 
 tropolis voted for the Assembly, or machine amendments 
 to the Direct Primary bill. But twenty-three of the 
 twenty-seven San Francisco Senators and Assemblymen 
 did vote for them, and only three of the San Francisco 
 members voted against them. 
 
 It will be seen that the people of California who live 
 outside San Francisco are decidedly interested in the 
 character of Senators and Assemblymen whom that city 
 sends to the Legislature. 
 
 The people of San Francisco are, of course, as much 
 concerned over reasonable regulation of the transporta- 
 tion companies as Californians living outside that city. 
 But the San Francisco Senators were a unit in their op- 
 position to the passage of an effective railroad regulation 
 measure. 
 
 The fight over the railroad regulation came in the 
 Senate. The final line-up showed eighteen Senators for 
 the effective Stetson bill and against the ineffective 
 Wright bill ; while twenty-two Senators were against the 
 Stetson bill and for the Wright bill. The Wright 
 
San Francisco Delegation 243 
 
 bill was accordingly passed. Every one of the nine San 
 Francisco Senators voted for the Wright bill. Only 
 thirteen Senators who voted for the Wright bill were 
 from outside San Francisco. 
 
 In a word, the proponents of the Stetson bill were 
 from the start handicapped by a solid delegation of nine 
 from San Francisco which they could not overcome. Had 
 three of the nine San Francisco Senators been for the 
 Stetson bill, that measure would now be the law of 
 California. 
 
 The transportation issue was fought out in the As- 
 sembly over the Sanford Senate resolution endorsing 
 Bristow's plan to establish a line of Government steamers 
 between San Francisco and Panama. The fruit growers 
 of Southern California are particularly interested in this 
 project. The Assembly, however, amended all reference 
 to the Bristow report and all criticism of the Pacific Mail 
 Steamship Company and the railroads out of the resolu- 
 tion. 
 
 Of the eighteen San Francisco Assemblymen only 
 one, Callan, voted against the amendments; fourteen 
 Beatty, Beban, Coghlan, Collum, Cullen, Hopkins, Light- 
 ner, Macauley, McManus, Nelson, O'Neil, Pugh, Perine 
 and Wheelan voted for the amendments, while three 
 Black, Gerdes and Schmitt did not vote at all. 
 
 The Local Option bill was also killed by San Fran- 
 cisco votes. This measure was strongly backed by the 
 rural districts. The various counties, particularly those 
 engaged in farming, dairying and fruit growing, sent 
 representatives to the Legislature instructed to vote for 
 Local Option. The issue in all ways concerned the coun- 
 
244 San Francisco Delegation 
 
 try districts rather than the large cities. But the votes of 
 the San Francisco Senators defeated the Local Option 
 bill. 
 
 The first fight over the Local Option bill came when 
 in the ordinary course of events it reached third reading. 
 Instead of letting a vote be taken on the measure, Wolfe 
 moved that it be referred to the Judiciary Committee. 
 This was clearly a move against the passage of the bill, 
 for it meant delay which might prove fatal. But Wolfe's 
 motion prevailed by a vote of twenty to fifteen. The 
 nine San Francisco Senators voted to refer the bill to the 
 committee, only eleven Senators from outside San Fran- 
 cisco voted with them. 
 
 The nine members from San Francisco continued 
 consistent in their opposition to the measure. When the 
 Local Option bill did come to a vote their nine votes were 
 cast against it. 
 
 The people of Del Norte county and the people of 
 San Diego county are denied the privilege of voting 
 "wet or dry" because of the opposition to the Local 
 Option bill of the solid San Francisco delegation in the 
 Senate. It will be seen that the people of these distant 
 counties are decidedly interested in political conditions in 
 San Francisco, for in a large way the character of the 
 San Francisco delegation in the Legislature is unmistak- 
 ably reflected in the laws which are passed for the govern- 
 ment of the entire State. 
 
 Taken as a whole, the San Francisco delegation in 
 Senate and Assembly were nothing for that city to 
 be proud of, and at a critical moment San Francisco 
 came near paying dearly for her Hartmans, Hares, 
 
San Francisco Delegation 245 
 
 Macauleys and McManuses. But for the intervention of 
 the country members the Islais Creek bond project would 
 have been defeated.- 
 
 The improvement calls for the purchase of sixty-three 
 water blocks at Islais Creek to be converted into an 
 inland harbor. The future development of San Fran- 
 cisco depends largely upon this improvement. But 
 private interests demanded that nineteen of the sixty- 
 three blocks be excluded from the plan, which would 
 have rendered the whole project impracticable. When 
 the fight came on, San Francisco Senators and Assem- 
 blymen opposed the purchase of the sixty-three blocks. 
 
 To begin with, Senator Wolfe, as member of the State 
 Harbors Committee, had signed a report which recom- 
 mended that forty-four blocks only be purchased. But 
 Wolfe afterwards insisted that he had signed the report 
 not knowing what he was doing. 
 
 When the fight for the improvement came up in the 
 Senate, only two Senators, Hartman and Reily, both of 
 San Francisco, opposed the project. They were in the 
 end ignominiously defeated, every Senator present vot- 
 ing against them. But both Hartman and Reily did the 
 best they knew how to defeat the purchase of the area 
 necessary for the improvement. 
 
 The San Francisco delegation in its opposition to the 
 Islais Creek project had better success in the Assem- 
 bly. Nine San Francisco Assemblymen, Beban, Black, 
 Cullen, Lightner, Macauley, McManus, O'Neil, Ferine 
 and Wheelan, united against the measure as it had 
 passed the Senate. They succeeded in throwing doubt 
 upon the necessity of the purchase of sixty-three blocks, 
 
246 San Francisco Delegation 
 
 and finally won twenty-two outside members over to 
 their way of thinking. Had it not been for the efforts 
 of Assemblymen Callan, Beatty and Nelson of San Fran- 
 cisco, backed by the Los Angeles delegation, the Islais 
 Creek Harbor project would unquestionably have been 
 defeated in the Assembly, solely because of the oppo- 
 sition of nine San Francisco Assemblymen. 
 
 But there is plenty of evidence of improved political 
 conditions at San Francisco. An anti-machine Board of 
 Supervisors is standing out manfully against the de- 
 mands of machine-protected interests. The District At- 
 torney's office is, indeed, pressing representatives of those 
 interests pretty close to the doors of the penitentiary, 
 although the District Attorney is handicapped by laws for 
 which San Francisco is largely responsible, because 
 of the character of the men whom session after session 
 she has sent to the Legislature. 
 
 There is, however, enough to warrant the belief that 
 San Francisco will improve the character of the Assem- 
 bly and Senate delegation. Upon such improvement, 
 the well-being of the whole State largely depends. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV. 
 ATTACKS ON AND DEFENSE OF THE FISH COMMISSION 
 
 Fast Becoming a Powerful Political Factor Enormous 
 Fund Which It Expends Practically Without Check. 
 Legislative Investigation Blocked Scheme to 
 Give Commissioners Salary Fails. 
 
 Without the general public realizing just what is go- 
 ing on, the machine is, in the State Fish and Game Com- 
 mission, building up an adjunct which seems destined to 
 play an important part in any fight that may be carried 
 on by the independent electors to break the machine's 
 strangle-hold upon the State. Naturally the machine 
 element in the Legislature was prepared always to rally 
 to the defense of the Commission, and the defense was 
 necessary, for the Commission is vulnerable, and was 
 attacked at many points. 
 
 The Commission is perhaps the most extraordinary 
 institution in the State. At its head is General George 
 Stone, one-time chairman of the Republican State Cen- 
 tral Committee. At its tail is Jake Steppacher, another 
 one-time potent politician who has passed the days 
 of his usefulness. Between Stone at the lead and Step- 
 pacher at the tail, is an astonishing array of formerly 
 prominent politicians, as well as politicians who are de- 
 cidedly in the present. In fact, the Fish and Game Com- 
 mission is fast becoming one of the most potent adjuncts 
 to the State political machine, that strictly non-partisan 
 
248 Fish and Game Bills 
 
 organization which guards the interests of the tender- 
 loin, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the race- 
 track gamblers, their associates and allies, and which 
 rather presumptuously assumes to be the Republican 
 Party of California. 
 
 One of the features of the session of 1909 was the 
 keen little fight of the anti-machine members of the 
 Legislature to restore the Fish and Game Commission 
 to its one-time simplicity, legitimacy and usefulness, and 
 the efforts of the machine members to prevent this. 
 
 Up to two years ago, under the name of Fish Com- 
 mission, the now Fish and Game Commission did most 
 admirable work on an allowance of about $50,000. So 
 far as the writer can ascertain, the Commission's income 
 up to 1907 never exceeded $54,000 in any one year; 
 usually it was a trifle under $50,000. 
 
 But in 1907 a tax of $1 a year was imposed upon all 
 citizens of California who wished to go hunting. Citi- 
 zens of other States, wishing to hunt in California, are 
 under the same law taxed $10 a year, while foreigners 
 are taxed $25. The law provides that the income thus 
 raised be turned over to the Fish Commission. 
 
 The first year that the law was in force, the Commis- 
 sion received $116,579 on account of it. This, with 
 moneys received from State appropriations, fines col- 
 lected and the like, swelled the Commission's income for 
 that year, the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, to $184,- 
 467.70, an increase of more that $130,000 from the 
 previous fiscal year. 
 
 For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, the cost of 
 conducting the Governor's office, including the Governor's 
 
Fish and Game Bills 249 
 
 salary, the salaries of his secretaries and clerks, station- 
 ery, postage stamps, secret service, everything in a word 
 in connection with the office, was $32,377. 
 
 In the same way the expense of conducting the 
 State Controller's office was $23,417; of the State Treas- 
 urer's office, $16,751 ; of the Attorney General's office, 
 $33,082 ; of the Surveyor General's office, $20,679 ; of the 
 State Superintendent of Schools' office, $22,380. 
 
 But the General Stone captained or perhaps gener- 
 aled Fish Commission had for that year a modest bit of 
 $184,467. The Fish Commission then, for the fiscal year 
 ending June 30, 1908, cost California almost six 
 times as much as did the Governor's office, eight 
 times as much as did the Controller's office, eleven 
 times as much as did the State Treasurer's office, 
 almost six times as much as did the Attorney General's 
 office, more than nine times as much as the Surveyor 
 General's office, and eight times as much as did the State 
 Department of Public Instruction. And let it be borne in 
 mind that this does not include the sums which the va- 
 rious counties paid for game wardens and for local pro- 
 tection of game, the best protection, by the way, and the 
 most practical. 
 
 The $184,467, did not go to the counties. It went 
 exclusively to General Stone's Commission. It will be 
 seen that General Stone's Commission has a very good 
 thing of it. 
 
 Another surprising feature of the Stone-Generaled 
 Commission .is that there is little check upon its expendi- 
 tures. If the Governor wishes to raise the salary of his 
 secretary or one of his stenographers he must appeal to 
 
250 Fish and Game Bills 
 
 the Legislature for permission. The State Controller, 
 the State Treasurer, the Secretary of State, the State 
 Superintendent of Schools, and so on down the list of 
 State officials, are powerless to increase the salary of 
 an assistant or of a clerk, or of an office boy, without leg- 
 islative sanction. 
 
 But not so General Stone's Commission. The Com- 
 mission is left to do pretty much as it pleases with its 
 income. So, recently, without saying a word to any- 
 body, it increased the salary of one of its deputies (Vog- 
 elsang) from $200 to $300 a month. Three hundred dol- 
 lars a month is $3600 a year. Up to this year the salary 
 of the State Controller, of the Secretary of State, of the 
 State Treasurer, of the Surveyor General, of the Super- 
 intendent of Public Instruction, etc., was only $3,000 a 
 year. So it will be seen that one of General Stone's 
 Deputies was drawing $600 a year more salary from the 
 State than the elected State officials. 
 
 Jake Steppacher and other politicians, finding easy 
 berths in the Commission, were also granted generous 
 salary increases. 
 
 But in ways other than generous increase in the sal- 
 aries of its deputies has the Fish Commission shown its 
 kingly independence. The law provides that each State 
 official and Commission shall, biennially, in the Septem- 
 ber before the Legislature convenes, file with the .Gov- 
 ernor a report of its activities and expenditures. This 
 enables the Governor to make such recommendations as 
 ne may deem necessary in his message to the Legis- 
 lature. The Controller, Attorney General, in fact all 
 the State officials and departments, observed the law last 
 
Fish and Game Bills 251 
 
 September with but one exception. The Fish Commis- 
 sion, costing the State from six to eleven times more 
 money that the State departments, did not file a report 
 with the Governor. 
 
 The fact that the Commission had filed no report in 
 September, the generous increase in salaries of its 
 deputies, alleged instances of arbitrary conduct of its 
 representatives, resulted in a resolution being introduced 
 by Assemblyman Harry Polsley, demanding that the 
 Commission be made the subject of legislative inquiry. 
 
 The resolution was referred to the Assembly Com- 
 mittee on Fish and Game, a committee notoriously in 
 sympathy with the Commission. The Committee held a 
 sort of preliminary hearing which resulted in a general 
 whitewashing. 100 Polsley made out what was generally 
 regarded as a prima facie case against the Commission, 
 but the Committee did not choose to consider it such, and 
 so the investigation got no further. 100a 
 
 100 That the Fish and Game Committee would whitewash the 
 Commission was recognized from the first. Even members of 
 the machine who stand for genuine game protection objected 
 to this committee making the investigation. When the -motion was 
 made to refer the resolution to this committee, Assemblyman 
 Greer of Sacramento, took the floor to protest: 
 
 "It is useless to refer the matter to the Committee on Fish and 
 Game," said Greer, "for we all know what that committee will 
 do. We'll get no action there. Let it go to some committee 
 that will give it consideration." 
 
 lOOa The Fish and Game Commission was very bitter against 
 Polsley and all who approved his course. Because of the inci- 
 dent, Game Warden Welch of Santa Cruz County lost his posi- 
 tion. Welch was a county official, paid by the county. The 
 Commission complained that he had written a letter to Polsley 
 commending the Assemblyman for his effort to secure a report 
 from the Commission. Santa Cruz County receives a monthly 
 stipend from the Commission toward the support of the Brookdale 
 hatchery. The writer is reliably informed that one of the Com- 
 missioners stated that the Commission would do nothing for Santa 
 Cruz County so long as "that man Welch" remained in office. 
 Welch was removed by the Supervisors. Welch has a national - 
 wide reputation as a game warden, and such papers as the "For- 
 
252 Fish and Game Bills 
 
 But it was noticeable after the "preliminary hearing" 
 that the advocates of the Fish Commission measures did 
 not show up so sprightly confident of their passage as 
 before. Polsley's efforts were by no means lost. Many 
 measures intended to strengthen the already giganti- 
 cally strong Commission failed of passage, or had their 
 viciousness amended out of them, which, had it not been 
 for Polsley's efforts, might have become laws. 
 
 The most important of these was Senate Bill 741. 
 The measure as originally introduced by Senator Willis 
 provided that "every person in the State of California, 
 who hunts, pursues or kills any of the wild birds or 
 animals, excepting predatory birds or animals, or fishes 
 for or catches with hook and line any of the protected 
 fish of this State, without first procuring a license there- 
 for, as provided in this Act, is guilty of a misdemeanor." 
 
 Had the act become a law as introduced, not only 
 those who hunt, but those who fish, would have been 
 obliged to pay one dollar for a license. Thus, if a 
 family of father, mother and three children wanted to 
 go fishing, they would first have had to pay five dollars 
 for the privilege. 
 
 The writer has it from a gentleman who has made 
 careful study of the Fish Commission and its ways that 
 the licensing of amateur fishers would have increased 
 
 est and Stream," New York, and "Sports Afield," Chicago, have 
 joined the California press in denunciation of his dismissal. 
 
 As these pages are going through the press, word comes from 
 Santa Cruz that Welch has been reinstated by Judge Lucas P. 
 Smith of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County. 
 
 In summarizing his findings, Judge Smith holds that the local 
 Board of Supervisors exceeded its legal power in declaring vacant 
 the office of voluntary warden, which Welch held; exceeded its 
 legal authority in removing Welch without specific charges being 
 prepared, notice served on him and an opportunity given for a 
 hearing. 
 
Fish and Game Bills 253 
 
 the income of the Fish and Game Commission $150,000 
 a year. This, with the income already enjoyed by the 
 Commission of $184,000 a year, would have swelled its 
 annual income to more than $330,000. This sum is $90,- 
 000 more than it cost to maintain the Stockton Hospital 
 for the Insane for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908; 
 $125,000 more than the maintenance of the Agnews 
 Asylum for that year; $122,000 more than the cost of the 
 maintenance of the Folsom State Prison. The Fish and 
 Game Commission was scarcely modest in its demands. 101 
 
 Naturally, the backers of the Fish and Game Com- 
 mission made a hard fight for the measure's passage. But 
 in spite of their efforts they could not edge it through 
 the Senate until March 3d. In the Assembly, the meas- 
 ure met genuine opposition. 
 
 The Assembly Committee on Fish and Game of 
 course recommended it for passage, and on March 15th, 
 after a hot fight, it actually passed the Assembly. But 
 Cattell gave notice of reconsideration. Incidentally, Gov- 
 ernor Gillett let it be known that he would veto any 
 measure that required amateur fishermen to pay license. 
 This was a damper upon the Fish Commission crowd. 
 When Cattell called the bill up for reconsideration it was 
 reconsidered and defeated. However, Leeds accepted an 
 amendment which struck out the clause which provided 
 that amateur fishermen must pay a license tax. On 
 Leeds' motion the next day, the amended bill was re- 
 considered and passed. 
 
 101 All sorts of estimates have been made of the income that 
 would have been enjoyed by the Fish and Game Commission, had 
 this bill become a law. The lowest that the writer knows of. 
 made by a disinterested person, places the increase at $50,000 a 
 year. 
 
254 Fish and Game Bills 
 
 The three Fish and Game Commissioners serve with- 
 out salary. Their compensation comes from the pleasure 
 of disbursing upwards of $200,000 a year, what political 
 prestige there may be in it, and rather generous expense 
 money. 102 But a bill was introduced to give each Com- 
 missioner a salary of $3,000 a year. The measure did 
 not become law, for which the writer believes much 
 credit is due Assemblymen Polsley of Red Bluff. The 
 State was thus saved $9,000 a year. General Stone and 
 his associates are just that amount out of pocket. They 
 have, however, given no indication of resigning their 
 offices because the salary has been denied them. 
 
 But if the Fish and Game Commission was unsuc- 
 cessful in increasing its revenue and putting through 
 other measures from the standpoint of its members ad- 
 vantageous, its opponents were quite as unsuccessful in 
 their attacks upon the Commission. Like the panther 
 cat that guards her young, the agents of the Commis- 
 sion fought to retain the advantages which they had se- 
 cured in 1907, and were generally successful. 
 
 The chief of the attacks was that of Assemblyman 
 Polsley, author of Assembly Bill 433. This bill wasn't 
 very long, contained less than five lines, in fact, and just 
 forty-three words, but its passage would have saved 
 the people of California more than $100,000 a year, or 
 almost as much as it costs the State to run the Gov- 
 ernor's office, the Controller's office, the State Treasur- 
 er's office and the office of State Superintendent of 
 
 102 Some of the Commission's expense accounts on file with the 
 State Controller are curiosities. For example, General Stone when 
 he is on commission business taxes the fund $1 for breakfast, 
 $1 for lunch, $1 for dinner. It thus costs the Commission three 
 annual hunter's licenses to feed General Stone for a day. 
 
Fish and Game Bills 255 
 
 Schools combined. Assembly Bill 433 repealed the law 
 of 1907, under which hunters are required to pay the 
 Fish and Game Commission for the privilege of going 
 hunting. The bill was introduced January 15th. It was 
 referred to the notorious Assembly Committee on Fish 
 and Game. There it was held until March 10th. It was 
 then referred back to the Assembly with the recommenda- 
 tion that it "do not pass." That settled Assembly Bill 
 433. 
 
 Another measure which caused the agents of the 
 Fish Commission much worry was introduced in the 
 Assembly by Preston and in trie Senate by Sanford. 
 This bill provided that $50,000 should be paid out of the 
 Fish and Game Commission fund each yea'r to be used 
 in paying bounties for exterminating coyotes. This 
 would have left the Commission only about $130,000 a 
 year. Naturally, the agents of the Commission resented 
 the raid on their funds. The measure was referred to 
 the Assembly Committee on Fish and Game. This was 
 on January 18th. And it never was heard of after. 
 
 The companion Senate measure, introduced by San- 
 ford, got further, but not much. The Senate Commit- 
 tee reported it "without recommendation." But even 
 so, it passed second reading and went to engrossment 
 and third reading. There it languished. On March 
 18th it was withdrawn by its author. 
 
 Another measure which gave the Commissioners a 
 deal of worry was one introduced by Johnson of Placer, 
 which provided that to each hunter who took fifty blue 
 jay heads to the County's Clerk's office should be issued 
 a hunter's license free. It was thought that this would 
 
256 Fish and Game Bills 
 
 encourage boys to kill blue jays for the hunter's license 
 prize, value one dollar. But General Stone could not see 
 it that way. 
 
 "If this bill becomes a law," said General Stone, "we 
 shall have to retrench somewhere." 
 
 The bill didn't become a law, and the Fish and Game 
 Commission was saved. 
 
 But the most "unkindest cut of all" came when the 
 Assembly attempted to break into that sacred Fish and 
 Game Commission fund by way of resolution. The As- 
 sembly actually adopted a resolution calling for a Com- 
 mission to be appointed by the Governor for the purpose 
 of ascertaining the feasibility of dividing the State into 
 game districts, and generously providing $5,000 out of the 
 Fish Commission fund for that purpose. Naturally the 
 agents of the Fish Commission were scandalized at this 
 proposed reckless expenditure of moneys from their fund 
 by somebody else. But they were powerless. The reso- 
 lution went through. 
 
 Rather late in the session the Assembly discovered 
 that under the law it cannot "resolute" money out of 
 any fund other than the Assembly contingent fund. The 
 resolution was not, therefore, worth the paper it was 
 printed on. Once again the sacred Fish Commission 
 fund was saved. 
 
 But the Assembly could switch money out of the 
 fund by legislative enactment, and a bill covering the 
 same ground as the resolution was introduced^without 
 delay. 
 
 The measure passed the Assembly but did not reach 
 the Senate until March 22d, two days before adjourn- 
 
Fish and Game Bills 257 
 
 ment. That was very late for such a measure, but a 
 heroic effort was made to secure 'its passage. 
 
 On Estudillo's motion, an attempt was made to sus- 
 pend the State Constitution, declare the bill a matter of 
 special urgency, and pass it forthwith. But the motion 
 failed. Again did the Fish Commission escape a raid on 
 its fund. 
 
 Senator Walker and Assemblyman Rutherford intro- 
 duced measures providing for a distribution of the fund 
 with counties, which at any rate looked pretty good to 
 the counties, although the agents of the Fish Commis- 
 sion were not pleased at all. 
 
 The bills provided that one-half of the moneys col- 
 lected from the sale of hunters' licenses, and on account 
 of fines for infringement of the State game laws, should 
 be paid to the counties in which collected, and -the bal- 
 ance go to the Fish Commission fund. 
 
 Walker's bill was introduced on January 8th. It 
 went to the Senate Committee on Fish and Game and 
 was never heard of after. 
 
 . Rutherford's bill was introduced on January 15th. It 
 went to the Assembly Committee on Fish and Game. 
 Like the Walker bill, the Rutherford bill was lost in 
 committee oblivion. 
 
 Such, from the standpoint of the more important bills 
 to increase and to decrease the Fish Commission fund, 
 was the record of fish and game legislation. The Fish 
 and Game Commission and its overgrown fund is still 
 with us. But it might have been infinitely worse. Bad 
 little boys who play hookey from Sunday-school to go 
 
258 Fish and Game Bills 
 
 fishing, for example, might have in addition to the 
 other frightful penalties imposed on them been com- 
 pelled to pay a license tax of $1 for the privilege. 
 
CHAPTER XXV. 
 THE REWARDING OF THE FAITHFUL. 
 
 Senators and Assemblymen Whose Votes Were Cast 
 Against Reform Measures Given State and Federal 
 Positions in Some Instances, in Others Appointed to 
 Holdover Committees or Sent on Trips at the Ex- 
 pense of the State. 
 
 The machine has many ways of rewarding the faith- 
 ful who persist until the end. The faithful member of 
 Senate or Assembly may be rewarded by a Federal ap- 
 pointment (Senator Bates has just been graciously recog- 
 nized in this way 102a ) or he may be given a State job 
 (witness Senator Price or Assemblyman Beardslee) ; or 
 he may be put on a legislative hold-over committee to in- 
 vestigate something, or to represent the State at some- 
 thing, or to prepare some kind of a bill to be introduced 
 at the next session of the Legislature. 
 
 This last is perhaps the most genteel method of re- 
 ward. It entails little work, gives the beneficiary a cer- 
 tain distinction and pays very well. 
 
 Nine Senators were rewarded in this way in the clos- 
 ing hours of the session of 1909. There might have been 
 ten, but that prince of "bandwagon" Senators, Welch, 
 had to be rewarded twice, so but nine got holdover com- 
 mitteeships. They are Wolfe, Welch, Wright, Willis, 
 Leavitt, Bills (labeled Republicans), Kennedy, Hare and 
 
 102a As these forms are going through the press, word comes 
 that Senator "Willis has been made Assistant United States Dis- 
 trict Attorney at Los Angeles. See Willis' record, Table "A" of 
 the appendix. 
 
260 Rewarding the Faithful 
 
 Curtin (labeled Democrats). The names of the nine are 
 not unfamiliar. With the exception of that of Curtin, 
 their votes during the session were consistently cast on 
 the side of the machine. For them to be rewarded came 
 as a matter of course. 
 
 The machine will continue to reward such men until 
 the people take the Legislature out of machine hands. 
 But that is another story. 
 
 The Legislative Holdover Committee is about as use- 
 less a thing as can be imagined. This is very well illus- 
 trated by the State's experience with the so-called Har- 
 bors Committee, appointed by the Legislature of 1907 to 
 inquire into harbor conditions throughout the State. 
 
 The committee consisted of three Senators and three 
 Assemblymen. The Senators managed to incur expenses 
 of $2,524.20. Assemblymen were more modest. Their 
 expenses were only $1,851.80, making a total expense 
 charge for the committee of $4,376. 
 
 But the $4,376 covers the committee's expenses only, 
 does not provide compensation for the committeemen. 
 A bill appropriating $6,000 for that purpose was intro- 
 duced at the session of 1909. This gave the committee- 
 men $1,000 each for their services. It made the inves- 
 tigation cost the State $10,376. 102b 
 
 102b The State Constitution provides no method of compensa- 
 tion for such services. The providing of this compensation, there- 
 fore, becomes a matter of great delicacy. It is done, under a 
 decision of the Supreme Court that that tribunal cannot go back 
 of a legislative Act, but must abide by the wording of the Act. 
 The appropriation bills to compensate the members for their 
 services on hold-over Committees are worded to meet the opinion 
 of the courts. The money is invariably appropriated "to pay 
 the claim of," etc. The Legislature is, according to the courts, 
 the sole judge of whether the alleged claim is a claim and not 
 a petition for a gift. The "to-pay-the-claim-of" bills never fail 
 to pull down the money. 
 
Rewarding the Faithful 261 
 
 The Harbors Committee or somebody or something 
 else, the writer is not sure which prepared an elab- 
 orate report of the committee's findings. But owing 
 to a surprising blunder that involved Senator Wolfe 
 most curiously, the report was not filed until March 23, 
 the day before the Legislature adjourned. The report 
 was ordered printed in the Journal, but it did not appear 
 in the Journal of the 23rd, which was circulated on the 
 morning of the 24th. Instead, was a note to the effect 
 that it would appear in the corrected Journal. So, few 
 knew that it had been filed at all, and it went unnoticed 
 by the daily press. 
 
 But the details of the report 102c were known to the 
 general public long before it was filed with the Senate, 
 and its provisions made Senator Wolfe appear to excep- 
 tional disadvantage. Wolfe was a member of the Har- 
 bors Committee, as was Senator Wright. Among the 
 recommendations set forth in the report as originally 
 prepared, was one that forty-four blocks only of land be 
 purchased by the State for the improvement of the San 
 Francisco Harbor at Islais Creek, instead of the sixty- 
 three blocks necessary for practical harbor development. 
 
 Senator Wolfe was a warm advocate of the sixty- 
 three block plan which is the only practical plan, by the 
 way, and shows that Senator Wolfe can land on the right 
 side of things occasionally. But it was very discourag- 
 ing for Senator Wolfe to be confronted with the unfiled 
 report of his own Harbors Committee, endorsed by his 
 own signature as committeeman, in which the purchase 
 of only forty-four blocks was urged. 
 
 102c The report as orignally drawn, and as it was signed by 
 Senator Wolfe and his associates. 
 
262 Rewarding the Faithful 
 
 Senator Wolfe's defense was ingenious. He stated 
 that he had signed the report as a matter of courtesy, 
 not really knowing what it contained. The incident il- 
 lustrates the value to the State of such legislative investi- 
 gations. 
 
 But in spite of the curious history of Wolfe's Har- 
 bors Committee, he was given another holdover com- 
 mittee in 1909. The Senate on Wolfe's motion 
 adopted a resolution setting aside $5,000 to meet the ex- 
 penses of a holdover committee to consist of three mem- 
 bers to investigate the cause of recent advances in the 
 cost of foodstuffs. Senators Wolfe, Welch and Hare are 
 honored with the appointments. Lieutenant-Governor 
 Porter appointed. 
 
 Senator Wolfe, from the machine standpoint, certain- 
 ly earned the distinction thus thrust upon him, and his 
 share of the money. Senator Wolfe was not in good 
 health during the session, but in spite of his indispo- 
 sition he managed to be present in the Senate Chamber, 
 where often, pale, haggard and plainly on the verge of 
 breakdown, he fought valiantly against the reform meas- 
 ures which were aimed at the prestige of the State ma- 
 chine, and the domination of the tenderloin, the South- 
 ern Pacific Railroad, the racetrack gamblers and allied 
 interests in State politics. 
 
 Wolfe led the fight against the Walker-Otis Anti- 
 Gambling bill, against the Local Option bill, against the 
 effective Stetson Railroad Regulation bill, against the 
 Direct Primary bill, against admitting Senator Bell of 
 Pasadena to the Republican caucus, against the bill to 
 prohibit the sale of intoxicants within a mile and a half 
 
Rewarding the Faithful 263 
 
 c 
 
 of Stanford University, against the initiative amendment 
 to the Constitution, against the amendment to the Con- 
 stitution to correct ambiguities as to the powers and du- 
 ties of the State Railroad Commission, and against Bur- 
 nett's resolution for the investigation of the cause of the 
 increase in freight rates and express charges. Senator 
 Wolfe also led the fight for the passage of the Change 
 of Venue bill. 
 
 Curiously enough, Senator Wolfe's stock argument, 
 used in most of the opposition to reform measures, was 
 to the effect that if such measures became laws, the Re- 
 publican party in California would be undermined. 
 Senator Wolfe's argument had great weight with Re- 
 publicans like Leavitt and Weed and Democrats like 
 Hare and Kennedy. For the "good of the Republican 
 party," these gentlemen generally voted as Senator Wolfe 
 dictated. 
 
 Senator Welch, the second member of the Pure Food 
 Committee, is at least entitled to gracious consideration 
 at the hands of the Wolfe-Leavitt element. Senator 
 Welch was one of the twenty-seven Call-heralded heroes 
 who defeated the Wolfe-Leavitt element in the first 
 fight on the Direct Primary bill in the Senate. And 
 Senator W r elch was one of the seven heroes who 
 "flopped" to the Wolfe-Leavitt side when the psychologi- 
 cal moment came. Welch's one vote in the final struggle 
 would have decided the Direct Primary fight for the side 
 of the reform element. But when the reform element 
 needed Welch he was found snugly quartered with Wolfe 
 and Leavitt. 
 
 Welch voted for the W T alker-Otis bill, but he was 
 
264 Rewarding the Faithful 
 
 one of the last members of the Senate to be counted for 
 that measure. Indeed, Welch caught the rear of the 
 bandwagon on that issue just in time. 
 
 On railroad issues Welch's record is as good as the 
 Southern Pacific Railroad could wish. He voted against 
 the adoption of the practical absolute rate, and for the 
 impracticable maximum rate; he voted for the ineffec- 
 tive Wright bill and against the effective Stetson bill. 
 He voted against the Constitutional Amendment simply- 
 fying the wording of the Constitution in those sections 
 which prescribe the powers and duties of the Railroad 
 Commissioners. 
 
 So Senator Welch had his appointment to the Food 
 Investigation Committee due him. He was also made 
 member of the Legislative Committee to represent the 
 State at the Alaska- Yukon Exposition, of which more 
 later. Thus Senator Welch rounded out the session very 
 satisfactorily to Senator Welch and to the machine, if not 
 to the State of California. 
 
 Senator Hare is down in the legislative records as 
 a Democrat. He voted on most measures consistently 
 under the lead of Wolfe and Leavitt. His appointment 
 need not, therefore, cause surprise. 
 
 When the Direct Primary bill was before the Senate 
 Committee on Election Laws, Hare's vote was with those 
 of Wolfe and Leavitt to make the measure as ineffective 
 as possible. Hare was among the thirteen unworthies 
 who voted against the measure when the first fight was 
 made for it on the floor of the Senate ; he was among the 
 twenty who finally, under Wolfe's leadership, held the 
 measure up in the Senate until by trick it could be 
 
Rewarding the Faithful 265 
 
 amended to the machine's liking. Hare was one of the 
 seven Senators who voted against the Walker-Otis Anti- 
 Gambling bill. He was one of those who voted for the 
 passage of the Change of Venue bill. 
 
 On railroad measures Hare voted against the Stetson 
 bill and for the Wright bill, against the absolute rate and 
 for the maximum rate. He voted against the amend- 
 ment to the Constitution to clear up the alleged ambi- 
 guity regarding the powers and duties of the Railroad 
 Commissioners. 
 
 Lack of space prevents continuance of the review 
 of Hare's votes. But enough has been said to show that 
 this "Democrat" was entitled to the honor at the hands 
 of the Performer, Republican Lieutenant Governor 
 Warren Porter, of appointment to the Holdover Com- 
 mittee which, under the leadership of Senator Eddie 
 Wolfe, will investigate the cause of the increase in the 
 price of foodstuffs. 
 
 But a far more desirable appointment was to the 
 committee which is to represent the State at the Alaska- 
 Yukon Pacific Exposition. By concurrent resolution the 
 Senate and Assembly decided that seven Senators, seven 
 Assemblymen, one Lieutenant Governor (Warren Por- 
 ter) and one Governor (Gillett) should attend the ex- 
 position at the State's expense. For this purpose $7,000 
 of the State's money has been provided. 
 
 The seven Senators appointed by Performer Porter 
 are Wright, Willis, Welch, Leavitt, Bills, Kennedy, 
 Curtin. 
 
 The seven Assemblymen appointed by Speaker Stan- 
 
266 Rewarding the Faithful 
 
 ton are Transue, Beardslee, Leeds, Hewitt, McManus, 
 McClellan and Schimtt. 
 
 The records of the Senators thus honored show them 
 worthy the machine's consideration. Their votes on the 
 banner measures before the Legislature last winter were 
 as follows: 
 
 Against the Walker-Otis bill, to prohibit poolselling 
 and bookmaking (Anti-Gambling bill) Leavitt 1. 
 
 For the Walker-Otis bill Bills, Curtin, Kennedy, 
 Willis, Welch, Wright 6. 
 
 Only seven Senators voted against the Walker-Otis 
 bill. Of the seven Leavitt is given the Alaska trip; 
 Wolfe and Hare are put on the Food Investigation Com- 
 mittee. Thus of nine Senators who got on holdover com- 
 mittees three were among the seven who voted in the 
 interest of the gambling element. 
 
 The records made by the State Senators who will at- 
 tend the exposition at the State's expense in the Direct 
 Primary fight are quite as suggestive. When the first 
 attempt was made in the Senate to force the machine 
 amendments into the bill, February 18, the seven Sena- 
 tors voted as follows: 
 
 For the machine's amendments Bills, Kennedy, 
 Leavitt, Willis. 
 
 Against the machine's amendments Curtin, Welch, 
 Wright. 
 
 Thirteen Senators on February 18 voted for the 
 machine's amendments. Of their number Hare and 
 Wolfe are on the Food Investigation Committee; Bills, 
 Kennedy, Leavitt and Willis are to attend the exposition 
 
Rewarding the Faithful 267 
 
 at the State's expense. Thus six of the thirteen have been 
 rewarded. 
 
 The machine, having failed to amend the Direct 
 Primary bill in the Senate, amended it in the Assembly. 
 When the measure was returned to the Senate, six of the 
 seven Senators who will attend the exposition voted to 
 concur in the Assembly amendments. They were, Bills, 
 Kennedy, Leavitt, Welch, Willis and Wright. Only one 
 of the seven voted against the machine amendments, 
 Curtin. 
 
 The records of the seven favored, trip-taking Sena- 
 tors on railroad regulation measures are as follows : 
 
 For the Wright bill, against the Stetson bill; for 
 the maximum rate, against the absolute rate Leavitt, 
 Welch, Willis, Wright, Bills, Kennedy 6. 
 
 Against the Wright bill, for the Stetson bill, against 
 the maximum rate, for the absolute rate Curtin 1. 
 
 Against the constitutional amendment to make clear 
 the powers and duties of Railroad Commissioners 
 Bills, Kennedy, Leavitt, Welch, Willis 5. 
 
 For the amendment Curtin, Wright 2. 
 
 Against the Burnett resolution calling for an inves- 
 tigation of the cause for an increase in freight rates 
 Bills, Kennedy, Leavitt, Willis, Wright 5. 
 
 For the resolution 0. 
 
 Absent or not voting Curtin, Welch 2. 
 
 The records of the seven on the Local Option bill 
 and the Change of Venue bill are: 
 
 Against Local Option Leavitt, Welch, Willis, Bills, 
 Curtin, Kennedy 6. 
 
 For Local Option Wright 1. 
 
268 Rewarding the Faithful 
 
 For the Change of Venue bill Bills, Leavitt, Welch, 
 Willis, Wright 5. 
 
 Against the Change of Venue bill Curtin, Kennedy 
 2. 
 
 Kennedy, to be sure, voted against the Change of 
 Venue bill when that measure passed the Senate. But 
 Senator Kennedy was unaccountably absent the next 
 morning when the Change of Venue bill was taken up 
 on a motion for reconsideration. Because of Kennedy's 
 absence, the motion to reconsider the measure was lost, 
 and its defeat prevented. Senator Kennedy is scarcely 
 entitled to credit for being recorded on the right side of 
 this measure. 
 
 Nine Senators are included in the two hold-over com- 
 mittees which are under consideration. As Wolfe and 
 Hare invariably voted with Leavitt, it will be seen that 
 eight of the nine voted against the Stetson bill and for 
 the Wright bill; seven of the nine voted against the 
 Constitutional amendment to make plain the constitutional 
 powers and duties of the Railroad Commissioners ; seven 
 of the nine voted against investigating the cause of in- 
 crease in freight and express rates to the Pacific Coast; 
 eight of the nine voted against local option ; seven 
 voted for the Change of Venue bill, and one of the two 
 others as good as voted for it, although on record 
 against the measure. 
 
 As Republican Senators Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boyn- 
 ton, Cutten, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge and 
 Thompson, who were invariably on the right side of 
 things, look upon the records of the "Democrats" and 
 "Republicans" included among the nine favored receiv- 
 
Rewarding the Faithful 269 
 
 ers of plums, they can scarcely be blamed for demand- 
 ing with the discouraged little boy What's the use of 
 being good, anyhow? 
 
 And as the Democratic Senators, Caminetti, Camp- 
 bell, Cartwright, Holohan, Miller and Sanford, who 
 worked with the anti-machine Republicans for the pass- 
 age of good laws and the defeat of bad ones look upon the 
 favored Hare and Kennedy they cannot be blamed if the 
 same question occurs to them also. 
 
 The indications are that the Senators who were thus 
 overlooked will have "to wait for theirs," until The 
 People of California, and not the machine, award the 
 prizes for faithful public service. 
 
 Of the seven Assemblymen who will attend the 
 Alaska- Yukon Exposition, one, Hewitt, voted against the 
 machine on every important issue that came up. The 
 other six are a spotted lot. 
 
 The six Beardslee, Leeds, McManus, McClellan, 
 Schmitt and Transue voted for the famous "gag rules" 
 which the Assembly rejected by a vote of 41 to 32. In- 
 deed, Beardslee and Transue were on the Committee on 
 Rules which the Assembly, when it rejected the Com- 
 mittee's rules, repudiated. 
 
 In the fight for the passage of the Walker-Otis 
 Anti-Gambling bill, two of the six, Leeds and Transue, 
 managed to keep their records straight. On the six 
 roll-calls taken on the measure before it passed the As- 
 sembly, Beardslee voted five times against the bill and 
 once for it ; McManus voted six times against it ; Schmitt 
 voted five times against it, on one roll-call he did not 
 
270 Rewarding the Faithful 
 
 vote; while McClellan voted four times for it and twice 
 against. 
 
 Five of the six, Beardslee, Leeds, McManus, Mc- 
 Clellan and Schmitt voted against forcing out of the 
 Committee on Federal Relations the San ford resolution, 
 which called for a government line of steamers from 
 Panama to San Francisco. The five voted for the John- 
 son amendments to the resolutions, which cut out all 
 criticizing reference to the rate-boosting combinations 
 between the great transportation companies. Transue 
 was absent when the vote to force the resolution out 
 of committee was taken. But he was present to vote for 
 the Johnson amendments. 
 
 Five of the six, Leeds, McManus, McClellan, Schmitt 
 and Transue, voted for the machine amendments to the 
 Direct Primary bill, which were read into that measure 
 in the Assembly, and which resulted in the Senate dead- 
 lock over the measure. Beardslee voted against the 
 amendments. 
 
 Five of the six Beardslee, Leeds, McManus, McClel- 
 lan and Transue voted against the Holohan bill to re- 
 move the party circle from the election ballot. Schmitt 
 did not vote on this measure. 
 
 Assemblyman Hewitt will, at the Alaska- Yukon, find 
 himself in distinguished company. From the Wolfe- 
 Leavitt- Johnson standpoint, he is the only one of his 
 associates who cannot be said to have earned the prefer- 
 ment thrust upon him. 
 
CHAPTER XXVI. 
 THE HOLDOVER SENATORS. 
 
 Eleven of Them May Be Counted Upon to Vote Against 
 the Machine at the Session of 1911, Two Are Doubt- 
 ful, One Will Probably Vote with the Majority, While 
 Six May Be Counted Upon to Support Machine 
 Policies. 
 
 Twenty of the 120 members who sat in the Legis- 
 lature of 1909 half of the forty Senators hold over 
 and will serve in the Legislature of 1911. The twenty 
 constitute the strength with which the machine and the 
 anti-machine forces will enter the field in the struggle 
 for control of the Legislature two years hence. 
 
 The machine has, long before this, taken stock of 
 those twenty holdover Senators. Machine agents un- 
 questionably know what the holdover members owe and 
 to whom indebted; know their family history; know the 
 church to which they belong, their lodges, their likes, 
 their dislikes and their prejudices; know how they can 
 be "reached" if vulnerable ; know how they can be "kept 
 in line" if already tarred with the machine brush. 
 
 But the plain citizen, not within the charmed circle of 
 machine protection, is not concerning himself much about 
 these holdovers. He scarcely knows their names. It is 
 safe to say that not 2 per cent of the voters of Califor- 
 nia could off-hand name the twenty holdover members 
 of the Upper House of the Legislature. 
 
272 The Holdover Senators 
 
 In other words, the machine is posted, and the citizen 
 is not. And here is the secret of much of the machine's 
 success. In its campaign for control of affairs, the ma- 
 chine knows to a nicety just what to expect from men 
 in public life; the plain citizen is without such informa- 
 tion. 
 
 In the Appendix will be found a table, "Table H," 
 showing the votes of the twenty holdover Senators on 
 sixteen roll calls. Representative citizens, all standing 
 for good government, may differ as to the desirability 
 or undesirability of several of the measures included 
 in the list. But by and large the average normal citi- 
 zen will hold that certain of the sixteen measures are 
 desirable and others undesirable. Thus all would prob- 
 ably agree that the Change of Venue bill is undesirable 
 legislation, and declare the Walker-Otis Anti-Racetrack 
 Gambling measure to be desirable, although they might 
 honestly differ on the Local Option bill. 
 
 On the sixteen roll calls the twenty holdover Sena- 
 tors cast 283 votes. Of the 283, 164 are recorded against 
 what the normal citizen would regard as bad measures, 
 or for what the normal citizen would regard as good 
 measures. In other words, speaking broadly, 164 of the 
 283 votes were cast against machine policies. Only 119 
 were cast with the machine. In other words, over the 
 whole session, on what may be fairly considered the 
 most important roll calls taken in the Senate, the hold- 
 over Senators cast 164 votes against the machine and 
 only 119 votes for the machine. This isn't a bad show- 
 ing to start with. 
 
 The showing is strengthened by the fact that ninety- 
 
The Holdover Senators 273 
 
 two of the 119 machine votes were cast by eight Sen- 
 ators, Finn, Wolfe, Bills, Martinelli, Hurd, Hare, Lewis 
 and Welch. Senator Finn of San Francisco heads the 
 list with fifteen of these negative votes. On one occasion 
 Senator Finn didn't vote. After Finn comes Wolfe, also 
 from San Francisco, with thirteen of the ninety-two 
 negative or machine votes to his credit or his discredit; 
 Bills of Sacramento and Martinelli of Marin follow with 
 twelve each ; Hurd of Los Angeles with eleven ; Hare of 
 San Francisco and Lewis of San Joaquin with ten each, 
 and Welch of San Francisco with nine. 
 
 This leaves twenty-seven machine votes to be di- 
 vided among twelve of the holdover Senators, about two 
 votes on an average each. 
 
 Burnett is credited with seven of the twenty-seven, 
 which reduces the number to twenty for eleven Sena- 
 tors. Of the twenty votes, seven were cast in the two 
 ballots taken on the Local Option issue, again the bill; 
 and eight were cast in two ballots against the Holohan 
 bill to remove the party circle from the election ballot. 
 
 Thus, excluding the votes on local option, and on 
 the Party Circle bill, on twelve important ballots, eleven 
 of the holdover Senators cast only five votes for machine 
 policies. 
 
 The eleven are Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, 
 Holohan, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge, Thomp- 
 son and Walker. 
 
 These eleven Senators, as judged by their perform- 
 ances at the session just closed, may be depended upon to 
 vote for. good bills and against bad ones at the session 
 of 1911. 
 
274 The Holdover Senators 
 
 To this list should be added the name of Burnett. 
 Burnett got off wrong on the Stetson Railroad Regula- 
 tion bill, and managed to land with the Wolfe element 
 in the direct primary fight. But there is good reason to 
 believe that Burnett was very sick of his company before 
 the session closed. The probabilities are that Senator 
 Burnett feels more at home with Senators Stetson, Stro- 
 bridge, Thompson and Cutten than with Hare, Finn and 
 Wolfe. 
 
 Senator Hurd is another holdover who started out 
 very well, but went badly astray after the vote on the 
 Railroad Regulation bills. Like Burnett, Hurd showed 
 signs toward the end of the session of feeling himself 
 in uncongenial company. There is reason to believe 
 that Hurd at the next session will be found voting with 
 the Thompson-Stetson-Strobridge element. 
 
 Senator Welch will be found voting with the ma- 
 jority. This reduces the number of holdover Senators 
 who can be counted upon to accept Wolfe's leadership, 
 machine Senators, if you like, to six. The line-up of the 
 twenty holdovers, then, would on this basis be as follows : 
 
 Anti-machine Birdsall, Cutten, Estudillo, Roseberry, 
 Rush, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker (Repub- 
 licans), Campbell, Holohan (Democrats) 11. 
 
 Doubtful Burnett, Hurd (Republicans) 2. 
 
 With the majority Welch (Republican) 1. 
 
 Machine Bills, Finn, Lewis, 103 Martinelli, Wolfe 
 (Republicans), Hare (Democrat) 6. 
 
 103 Lewis voted with the anti-machine element in the Railroad 
 Regulation fight, one of the most severe tests of the session. Per- 
 sons who know Lewis well stated that he will, if the anti-machine 
 forces be effectively organized at the session of 1911, be found 
 against the machine. It is "up to Senator Lewis." 
 
The Holdover Senators 275 
 
 On this basis the anti-machine element will start with 
 all the advantage in the struggle for control of the Senate 
 in 1911. If Burnett and Hurd vote with the eleven anti- 
 machine Senators, it will be necessary to elect only eight 
 anti-machine Senators that the reform element may con- 
 trol the Senate. This will mean twenty-two votes for the 
 reform element, for Welch, if he is to be judged by past 
 performances, will be found with the majority. 
 
 From present indications, four important fights will 
 be made at the Legislative session of 1911. 
 
 (1) To pass an effective railroad regulation measure 
 and to amend those sections of the State Constitution 
 which prescribe the duties and powers of the Railroad 
 Commissioners. 
 
 (2) To amend the Direct Primary law passed at the 
 session just closed to meet with the popular demand for 
 an effective measure. 
 
 (3) To grant local option to the counties. 
 
 (4) To adopt an amendment to the State Constitu- 
 tion granting the initiative to the electors of the State. 
 
 Significantly enough, the line-up of the holdover 
 Senators in the Direct Primary deadlock of the last ses- 
 sion was nine to eleven, the eleven Senators who divide 
 but five machine votes between them standing out against 
 Wolfe and Leavift for an effective provision for the se- 
 lection of United States Senators by State-wide vote, 
 while the six machine Senators, the "bandwagon" Sen- 
 ator and the two doubtfuls, voted with Wolfe and 
 Leavitt. 
 
 But the probabilities are that in the event of the anti- 
 machine element controlling the Senate of 1911, Bur- 
 
276 The Holdover Senators 
 
 nett, Httrd, Lewis, Martinelli and Welch would join 
 with the reform forces to make necessary amendments 
 to the measure. When the Direct Primary bill was first 
 before the Senate, these five Senators united with the 
 Good Government forces and assisted in defeating the 
 machine's amendment. When the bill was amended in 
 the Assembly, however, the five flopped to the machine 
 side. Indeed, only four of the twenty holdover Senators 
 voted for the machine's amendments to the Direct Pri- 
 mary bill when the measure was first passed upon by 
 the Senate. They were Bills, Finn, Hare and Wolfe. 
 
 The holdover Senators made their poorest showing 
 on the railroad measures. When the test came on the 
 Stetson bill the twenty holdovers split even, ten being 
 for the effective Stetson bill, ten for the ineffective 
 Wright bill. The line-up was as follows : 
 
 For the Stetson bill Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, 
 Holohan, Lewis, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge, 
 Thompson 10. 
 
 For the Wright bill Bills, Burnett, Estudillo, Finn, 
 Hare, Kurd, Martinelli, Walker, Welch, Wolfe 10. 
 
 Lewis, who usually voted with the performers, voted 
 for the Stetson bill. But the reform forces lost two 
 votes, those of Walker and Estudillo. On another vote 
 on the same issue, however, Burnett, Estudillo and 
 Walker would probably be found with the anti-machine 
 forces supporting an effective measure. This would 
 make the vote of the holdover Senators, thirteen for 
 effective railroad regulation, and seven for a measure 
 of the Wright law variety. 
 
 The holdovers made a good showing on the Initiative 
 
The Holdover Senators 277 
 
 amendment, eleven voting for it and five against it, four 
 not voting at all. The vote was as follows: 
 
 For the Initiative Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, Estu- 
 dillo, Hare, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Thompson, Walk- 
 er, Welch 11. 
 
 Against the Initiative Bills, Hurd, Lewis, Martinelli, 
 Wolfe 5. 
 
 Not voting Burnett, Finn, Holohan, Strobridge 4. 
 
 Of the four who did not vote, three, Burnett, Holo- 
 han and Strobridge, would have voted for the amend- 
 ment. Finn would probably have voted against it. This 
 would have made the vote fourteen to six in the amend- 
 ment's favor. It will be seen that those who would have 
 the initiative granted the people, have a good start for 
 the next session. 
 
 The outlook for local option is not so reassuring. Of 
 the holdover Senators who ordinarily were for meas- 
 ures which give the people a voice in the management of 
 public affairs, Birdsall, Holohan, Rush and Strobridge 
 were unalterably opposed to the local option idea. The 
 six machine Senators, of course, opposed it, which with 
 the votes of Burnett, Welch and Hurd placed thirteen of 
 the twenty holdover Senators against the measure. 
 
 Six of the holdovers voted for the Local Option bill 
 Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Roseberry, Thompson and 
 Walker. 
 
 Stetson was absent and did not vote. He, however, 
 favored the bill. His vote would have made it 13 to 7. 
 Thus on the vote on their bill at the last session, the 
 local option forces have seven of the holdover Senators 
 with them, and thirteen against. 
 
278 The Holdover Senators 
 
 On the other hand, seventeen of the holdover Sena- 
 tors voted for the Walker-Otis Anti-Racetrack Gambling 
 bill, while only three, Finn, Hare and Wolfe, voted 
 against it. Thus on the moral issue, as well as the po- 
 litical and the industrial, the anti-machine element is 
 stronger in the holdover delegation in the Senate than 
 is the machine. It rests with the good citizenship of 
 California to maintain its advantage by electing to the 
 Senate in 1910, men who will stand with the majority 
 of the holdover members for the passage of good and 
 the defeat of vicious measures. 
 
CHAPTER XXVII. 
 THE RETIRING SENATORS. 
 
 Of the Twenty Whose Terms of Office Will Have Ex- 
 pired, the Machine Loses Eleven, the Anti-Machine 
 Element Seven Two Who Voted With the Machine 
 on Occasion Were Usually on the Side of Good 
 Government. 
 
 Twenty of the forty Senators who sat in the Legis- 
 lature of 1909, must, if they sit in the Legislature of 
 1911, be re-elected at the general elections in Novem- 
 ber 1910. They are: Senators Anthony of San Fran- 
 cisco, Bates of Alameda, Bell of Pasadena, Black of 
 Santa Clara, Boynton of Yuba, Caminetti of Amador, 
 Cartwright of Fresno, Curtin of Tuolumne, Hartman of 
 San Francisco, Kennedy of San Francisco, Leavitt of 
 Alameda, McCartney of Los Angeles, Miller of Kern, 
 Price of Sonoma, Reily of San Francisco, Sanford of 
 Mendocino, Savage of Los Angeles, Weed of Siskiyou, 
 Willis of San Bernardino and Wright of San Diego. 
 
 By consulting Table A of the Appendix, it will be 
 seen that on sixteen roll calls the forty members of the 
 Senate of 1909 voted 570 times. Of the 570 votes 311 
 were cast against what are regarded as machine policies ; 
 259 for such policies. Of the 311 anti-machine votes, 
 164 were cast by holdover Senators, and were consid- 
 ered in the last chapter, while 147 were cast by Senators 
 whose successors will be elected in 1910. Thus it will 
 
280 The Retiring Senators 
 
 be seen, that on this basis, more desirable Senators will 
 hold over than those whose terms of office will have 
 expired before the next Legislature convenes. 
 
 On the basis of the machine votes the result is as 
 satisfactory. On the sixteen roll calls, 259 machine votes 
 were cast. Of these 140 were cast by the retiring Sen- 
 ators, and only 119 by those who will hold over, and who 
 will sit in the Legislature of 1911. So, on the whole, 
 the machine loses and the people gain in the retirement 
 of the twenty Senators. 
 
 In point of numbers the result is as satisfactory. The 
 machine will lose eleven Senators: Bates, Hartman, 
 Kennedy, Leavitt, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, 
 Weed, Willis and Wright; while the anti-machine forces 
 will lose only seven who can be counted constantly for 
 reform policies: Bell, Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Cart- 
 wright, Miller and Sanford. 
 
 This leaves only Anthony and Curtin to be accounted 
 for. Both these men stood out against the machine's 
 amendments to the Direct Primary bill, Anthony in par- 
 ticular standing against the severest pressure that could 
 be brought to compel him to vote against the interests 
 of his constituents and of the State. But Anthony could 
 not be moved. On the railroad measures, however, An- 
 thony voted with the machine. But he voted for the 
 Walker-Otis bill, and, generally speaking, for all meas- 
 ures which made for political reforms. With any sort 
 of organization of the reform forces, Anthony could be 
 counted upon as safe for reform. His record on the 
 Direct Primary bill certainly entitles him to the highest 
 consideration. 
 
The Retiring Senators 281 
 
 Curtin also was as a general thing with the reform 
 element. He voted, however, against the bill to do away 
 with the party circle and he voted against the Local Op- 
 tion bill, but in so doing he merely followed the lead of 
 such men as Birdsall, who, while out and out against the 
 machine, were at the same time against local option and 
 lukewarm on ballot reform. Birdsall, however, finally 
 voted for the bill to remove the party circle from the 
 election ballot, although he had on the first ballot voted 
 against the bill. Curtin did not, however, change his 
 vote. But Curtin did vote against the Initiative Amend- 
 ment. On the other hand, Curtin's record on the Direct 
 Primary bill, on the Railroad Regulation bills, and on 
 the Anti-Gambling bill is all that could be desired. 
 
 While the retirement of all the Senators who do not 
 hold over would strengthen the reform element in the 
 Senate, nevertheless the State can ill afford to lose the 
 services of the seven who stood out so valiantly against 
 machine policies. Senator Bell heads the list, with Cami- 
 netti, Black, Boynton and Sanford close seconds. 
 
 Senator Bell not only made the best record made in 
 the Senate of 1909, but he made the best record of the 
 Senate of 1907. Conscientious, fully awake to the re- 
 sponsibilities of his position, alive to the tricks of the 
 machine leaders, in constant attendance, Senator Bell 
 proved himself during the two sessions that he has served 
 in the Senate, a power for good government. His ab- 
 sence from the session of 1911 would be a loss to the 
 State. 
 
 Senators Black and Boynton at the session of 1909 
 made records quite as good as that made by Senator Bell. 
 
282 The Retiring Senators 
 
 On the sixteen roll calls taken as tests of the standing 
 of the several Senators, Black voted but once against 
 reform policies. On the first ballot on the Party Circle 
 bill he voted against the measure, but the day following 
 corrected his mistake by voting for the measure. Boyn- 
 ton voted to return the Local Option bill to the Judiciary 
 Committee, but at the final test his vote was recorded 
 for the bill. 103a Thus neither of the two Senators can be 
 said to have voted with the machine even on compara- 
 tively unimportant issues. 
 
 Senator Carninetti probably gave the machine more 
 worry during the session than any other one Senator. 
 Caminetti has a way of saying out loud what his anti- 
 machine associates are thinking, which is not at all pop- 
 ular with the machine. True to principle, he, a Demo- 
 crat, voted for United States Senator Perkins because, 
 from Caminetti's view-point, no other candidate came 
 so near to being the popular choice of the people as Per- 
 kins, and Caminetti holds that the people and not the 
 Legislature should select the United States Senator. 
 The machine was glad of Caminetti's vote for Perkins, 
 but was not at all pleased with the departure of a Demo- 
 crat voting for a Republican. Caminetti's course con- 
 tinued in by all the members of the Legislature, and the 
 machine would lose its monopoly of Federal Senator- 
 making. 
 
 Caminetti's record is admirable. To be sure, he op- 
 
 103a Senator Boynton was a consistent supporter of the 
 Local Option bill from the beginning to the end of the session. 
 He held, however, that the bill as originally drawn was not in 
 proper form, and explained that he voted to have the bill re- 
 turned to the committee that amendments, which he deemed 
 necessary, could be made. 
 
The Retiring Senators 283 
 
 posed Local Option, but he fought as few others fought 
 for an effective Direct Primary law, for effective rail- 
 road regulation, in fact for practically all the reform 
 policies which the anti-machine forces advocated and the 
 machine opposed. Senator Sanford also voted for and 
 worked for reform policies. Like Caminetti, however, 
 he opposed the Local Option bill and voted against it. 
 Senator Miller, on the other hand, supported the Local 
 Option bill, but slipped more seriously than did either 
 Caminetti or Sanford, by voting with the machine Sen- 
 ators against the Initiative amendment. Miller's work 
 for effective railroad regulation and for an effective 
 Direct Primary law, won him the deserved admiration 
 and confidence of the better element of the Legislature. 
 Senator Cartwright voted but twelve times on the six- 
 teen roll calls, but the twelve included the votes on the 
 Direct Primary issues, on railroad regulation, and on 
 all the moral issues considered. And each time, Senator 
 Cartwright's vote was cast on the side of good govern- 
 ment. 
 
 On the other side, the machine side, Senator Bates 
 distinguished himself but once during the session. It 
 was Senator Bates who, to oblige a friend, had the 
 notorious Change of Venue bill placed on the Special 
 Urgency File, thus making the passage of the bill pos- 
 sible. Senator Bates' vote and influence such as it 
 was were thrown in the balance against giving the 
 people of California a State-wide vote the only prac- 
 tical vote for United States Senators. He voted against 
 the effective Stetson bill; he voted for the ineffective 
 Railroad Regulation bill. In fact, aside from the Walker- 
 
284 The "Retiring Senators 
 
 Otis bill, Bates was on the machine side of practically 
 every issue. 104 
 
 Senator Hartman was during the session a mere 
 machine vote. He was always on hand, always voted, 
 and voted with the machine. It was Senator Hart- 
 man who named an employee of the notorious Sausalito 
 gambling rooms for an important committee clerkship. 
 So far as the writer can recall, Hartman made but two 
 speeches during the session; one against the Walker- 
 Otis Anti-Gambling bill, one against the Islais Creek Har- 
 bor bill, the passage of which meant so much for San 
 Francisco, the city, by the way, responsible for Hart- 
 man's presence at Sacramento. 
 
 On the sixteen roll calls under consideration, Hart- 
 man voted sixteen times for machine policies. As a vote, 
 Hartman is a valuable machine asset ; otherwise a 
 nonentity. 
 
 Those who have read the previous chapters have al- 
 ready formed their opinion of the advisability of return- 
 ing to the Senate, Kennedy, the hero of the passage of 
 the Change of Venue bill ; McCartney, the author of the 
 famous amendment to the Direct Primary bill; Weed, 
 who introduced the resolution to drag Senator Black 
 from his sick bed at Palo Alto ; Reily, who with Senator 
 Hartman, alone of all the Senate stood out against the 
 passage of the Islais Creek Harbor bills ; Willis, who as 
 Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, backed such meas- 
 ures as the Change of Venue bill, and opposed such 
 measures as the Commonwealth Club bills ; Savage, who 
 
 104 Since the Legislature adjourned Senator Bates has been 
 given a lucrative position in the United States Mint. 
 
The Retiring Senators 285 
 
 in committee and out of it, opposed the State-wide vote 
 plan for nominating United States Senators, and Senator 
 Price. 
 
 Price did not distinguish himself particularly. On 
 the sixteen roll calls included in Table A, his vote was 
 recorded against the machine as many as four times. 
 But there were ten Senators who did even worse. How- 
 ever, a story of the closing days of the session is quite 
 characteristic of Senator Price. 
 
 An important roll call was on if the writer remem- 
 bers correctly, it was on Burnett's motion to continue 
 the investigation into the causes of the increase of freight 
 and express rates. Price was present, but did not an- 
 swer to the call of his name. The advocates of the res- 
 olution insisted that all vote, and demanded a call of the 
 Senate. The doors were ordered closed, at which order 
 Price made a run for the door. Caminetti saw the move, 
 understood it and started to intercept the fleeing Senator. 
 But if Caminetti were quick, Price was quicker. 
 Caminetti missed his grab at Price, and so chased that 
 gentleman to the door of the Senate chamber. The as- 
 sistant Sergeant-at-Arms at the door was just swinging 
 it closed as Price shot through. The determined Cam- 
 inetti made a last grab at Price's coattails, but too late. 
 The massive doors banged closed, with Price, coattails 
 and all, on the outside, and the balked Caminetti on the 
 inside. Price didn't vote on that roll call. 
 
 The failure to return Leavitt to the Senate will be a 
 decided loss for the machine, one hard to offset. Next 
 to Wolfe, Leavitt was by far the ablest floor leader in the 
 Senate. The brute force of the man, his grossness, his 
 
286 The Retiring Senators 
 
 indifference to public opinion, made him an ideal machine 
 leader. Leavitt's return from Alameda seems extremely 
 doubtful. His district takes in the notorious gambling 
 community, Emeryville, which will be purged of the thug 
 element that has dominated it, by the enforcement of the 
 Walker-Otis law. With the loss of this portion of his 
 constituency, Senator Leavitt's chance of re-election from 
 Emeryville appears slim indeed. 
 
 But, according to rather persistent rumor, Senator 
 Leavitt may be returned to the Senate, not from Alameda, 
 but from the Siskiyou-Shasta District, the district rep- 
 resented by Weed. Leavitt has property up there, and 
 the story runs that he will be a candidate from that part 
 of the State. The voters of Shasta and Siskiyou, how- 
 ever, may conclude that they have something to say 
 about it. 
 
 Senator Wright, the last of the Senators whose terms 
 will have expired before the next session of the Legisla- 
 ture convenes, is being mentioned as a "reform candidate" 
 for Governor. The idea seems to be that he will run on 
 his record made at the session of 1909. If this be true, he 
 may not be a candidate for re-election to the Senate. 
 Senator Wright's record as a State Senator has already 
 been treated at length. 
 
CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Events of the Session of /pop Show That Before Any 
 Effective Reform Can Be Brought About in Califor- 
 nia, Good Government Republicans and Democrats 
 Must Unite to Organise Senate and Assembly Ap- 
 pointment of Senate Committees May Be Taken Out 
 of the Hands of the Lieutenant-Governor. 
 
 In the opening chapter it was stated that the machine 
 element in the Legislature of 1909, although in the 
 minority, defeated the purposes of the reform majority, 
 because of three principal reasons : 
 
 (1) The reform element was without organization. 
 
 (2) The reform members had, except in the anti- 
 racetrack gambling fight, no definite plan of action. 
 
 (3) The reform members of both Houses permitted 
 the machine to name presiding officers and appoint com- 
 mittees. 
 
 This third reason must appeal to those who have read 
 the foregoing pages as the most important of all. The 
 story of every machine success, in face of opposition, is 
 that of advantage gained through the moral support given 
 by the presiding officers, 105 or of co-operation of com- 
 mittees, or of both. But, unfortunately, a stupid parti- 
 sanshipa partisanship which the machine finds far more 
 
 105 See, for example, Speaker Stanton's ruling on the Direct 
 Primary bill when the Assembly was considering the question of 
 receding from its amendments. 
 
288 Conclusion 
 
 potent than bribe money makes this cause of machine 
 success more difficult to overcome than either of the 
 others. Already a movement is on foot, the details of 
 which the writer is not at liberty to make public, that will 
 unite the reform element of the next Legislature into a 
 working body, from the day nominations are made. 
 Steps to this end were taken before the last Legislature 
 adjourned. In the same way, the work of bringing re- 
 form issues before the public reform of the ballot laws, 
 amendment of the Direct Primary law, the simplification 
 of the mode of criminal procedure is being taken up 
 in the same effective, commonsense way as was the Anti- 
 Racetrack Gambling bill. But here the progress of the 
 commonsense element of machine opposition seems to 
 halt. In spite of their experience of the last session, 
 Democrats and Republicans who stand for good govern- 
 ment hesitate at the suggestion of non-partisan organiza- 
 tion of Senate and Assembly. The writer has shown in 
 the foregoing chapters that the machine Republicans and 
 the machine Democrats were for practical purposes a unit 
 in the organization of the Legislature of 1909. Why, 
 then, should not the anti-machine Republicans and the 
 anti-machine Democrats unite for purposes of organiza- 
 tion, just as they united, at the session of 1909, to oppose 
 vicious measures and to work for the passage of good 
 bills? That is a question which has never been satis- 
 factorily answered. It leads us, however, to the ques- 
 tion of the real line of division in Senate and Assembly, 
 and, for that matter, in State politics. 106 
 
 106 The machine recognizes the real division, if the reform ele- 
 ment does not. The machine, for example, calls itself Republican, 
 and as such controls the patronage of the San Francisco water 
 front. The appointments to water front jobs are, of course, par- 
 
Conclusion 289 
 
 That the real division is no longer between political 
 parties, or even between party factions, is apparent to the 
 observer who has given the question any attention at all. 
 Not once, for example, did the California Legislature 
 of 1909 divide on a party question; nor did it have to 
 deal with any problem that had not at one time or an- 
 other been endorsed by both parties. Both Democrats 
 and Republicans in either State or county platforms had 
 declared for the passage of an Anti-Racetrack Gambling 
 law, for an effective Direct Primary law, for an effective 
 Railroad Regulation law, for the submission to the 
 people of a Constitutional Amendment granting the people 
 the privilege of initiating laws. In the same way, county 
 conventions of both parties and county conventions are 
 the closest to the people and most representative of them 
 had declared for local option, for the election of United 
 States Senators by direct vote of the people, for amend- 
 ments to the codes that should simplify proceedings in 
 criminal cases, for effective railroad regulation. Esti- 
 mating the purposes of the two parties by their county 
 and State platforms, none of these reforms can be re- 
 garded as any more Democratic than Republican, and 
 these were the issues with which the Legislature of 1909 
 was called upon to deal. 
 
 A glance at the tables of votes in the appendix will 
 show that the Assemblymen and the Senators who voted 
 
 tisan, but the writer is reliably informed that as many "Demo- 
 crats" as "Republicans" are employed there. Senators Hare and 
 Kennedy, we have seen, although Democrats, got appointments to 
 holdover committees. The machine recognizes but one line in 
 politics, that which divides those who support machine policies 
 from those who stand for good government and the square deal. 
 When those who stand for good government and the square deal 
 become as clear sighted, the fight against the machine will not 
 be quite so unequal. 
 
290 Conclusion 
 
 against the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, generally 
 speaking, voted against the effective Stetson Railroad 
 Regulation bill and for the ineffective Wright bill, op- 
 posed the provision in the Direct Primary bill giving the 
 people an effective part in the selection of United States 
 Senators, supported the passage of the Change of Venue 
 bill, opposed the passage of the Local Option bill, opposed 
 the submission of the Initiative amendment to the elec- 
 tors of the State. This negative element, opposed to 
 policies which the normal citizen regards as making for 
 the State's best interests, has in these pages been called 
 the machine. 107 
 
 As has been shown in these pages, the interests of the 
 several beneficiaries of the system are in effect pooled; 
 one element helps the other. The managers of the sev- 
 eral elements, the political agents, if you like, of the 
 tenderloin, Southern Pacific, racetrack, and public-service 
 monopolies generally; in a word, all who seek to evade 
 the law or to secure undue special privileges or to con- 
 tinue secure in the possession of such privileges already 
 secured, recognize that they must hang together or sub- 
 mit to a reckoning with the public, which must necessarily 
 result in the breaking of the particular monopoly which 
 each enjoys, be it in transportation, nickel-in-the-slot 
 graft, or traffic in the bodies of young women. Should 
 the political bureau of the Southern Pacific Railroad Com- 
 
 107 The term "machine" is, as a general thing, rather lightly 
 used. It is made to stand for everything, from what might be and 
 should be perfectly legitimate party organization, to the Southern 
 Pacific political bureau. The Southern Pacific political bureau is, 
 as a matter of fact, the dominating factor in machine affairs, which 
 gives some reason for dubbing the machine Southern Pacific. But 
 it is no more the Southern Pacific machine than it is the Tender- 
 loin machine or the Racetrack gamblers' machine, or the United 
 Railroads machine, or the Electric Power Trust machine. 
 
Conclusion 291 
 
 pany, for example, lose the support of the tenderloin, or 
 of the racetrack gamblers, or of any other powerful 
 group of its political associates, the corporation could no 
 longer continue its strangle-hold upon the State. But 
 none of its associates would dare thus offend. Such is 
 the machine, which, in the name of a protective tariff, 
 "sound money," Abraham Lincoln, or Theodore Roose- 
 velt, has organized the Legislature of California for six- 
 teen years. Previous to 1895, there were California Leg- 
 islatures organized in the name of Thomas Jefferson. 
 But the machine has not taken the name of Thomas Jef- 
 ferson in vain in California for many years. 108 
 
 Nevertheless, although acting under the name Re- 
 publican, the machine is quite as dependent upon "Demo- 
 crats" as upon "Republicans," and as dependent upon 
 either as upon the tenderlpin, the brewery trust or the 
 racetrack gambling element. It monopolizes neither 
 party, but it divides both parties. Or it may be described 
 as a canker that has eaten into both, diseased both, ren- 
 dered both unwholesome, until a condition exists in the 
 dominating parties that requires that the uncorrupted ele- 
 ment of both unite to cut the diseased portion away. 109 
 
 108 Bryce in his American Commonwealth, more than a quarter 
 of a century ago, showed the hollowness of the contention of the 
 machine element for party consideration. "The interest of a Boss 
 in political questions," said Bryce in one of his admirable chapters 
 on this subject, "is usually quite secondary. Here and there one 
 may be found who is a politician in the European sense, who, 
 whether sincerely or not, purports and professes to be interested 
 in some principle or measure affecting the welfare of the country. 
 But the attachment of the ringster is usually given wholly to the 
 concrete party, that is, to the men who compose it, regarded as 
 office-holders or office-seekers; and there is often not even a 
 profession of zeal for any party doctrine. As a noted politician 
 happily observed to a friend of mine: 'You know, Mr. R. f there 
 are no politics in politics.' " 
 
 109 One has a wider view of this condition if he look out be- 
 yond the Sacramento Capitol, into the Senate Hall at Washington. 
 
292 Conclusion 
 
 As the machine divides the parties, so did it divide 
 the Republican and Democratic delegations in the Senate 
 and the Assembly of the California Legislature of 1909. 
 Hare and Kennedy, for example, Democratic Senators, 
 voted constantly with Wolfe and Leavitt, Republican Sen- 
 ators, for machine policies. Nor was the opposition re- 
 stricted to party lines. Black and Boynton and Cutten, 
 Republican Senators, were found voting constantly with 
 Campbell and Holohan, Democratic Senators, against the 
 machine. Between Black and Wolfe, Republicans, there 
 was nothing in common during the entire session; nor 
 was there anything in common between Campbell and 
 Kennedy, Democrats. On practically every important 
 issue, however, Kennedy, Democrat, and Wolfe, Repub- 
 
 The following is from an editorial article which appeared in the 
 Saturday Evening Post, of June 12 last: 
 
 "The iron trade is still in a depressed state. Output is much 
 below the capacity of the mills, and prices have not recovered from 
 the demoralization of early spring. Yet the other day the common 
 stock of the Steel Trust sold higher than ever before. When is- 
 sued, this common stock was rather thinner than water, and it 
 represented mostly a capitalization of the Trust's tariff graft. At 
 the new high price the market valuation of the graft, therefore, is 
 some three hundred million dollars. A few days before this new 
 high price was made, eighteen Democratic Senators voted with the 
 Aldrich Republicans to take iron ore from the free list where the 
 House bill had put it and protect it by a substantial duty. This 
 action was generally regarded as insuring a continuation of the 
 Trust's tariff graft. Hence a record price for the common stock 
 was logical enough, although the iron trade was not exactly flour- 
 ishing at the moment. 
 
 "Similar acts by Democratic Senators were denounced by Pres- 
 ident Cleveland as party perfidy and dishonor; but the regrettable 
 fact is there is only one party in the United States Senate just 
 one party, with some scattering Republicans and Democratic in- 
 surgents. For the purpose of getting elected and making stump 
 speeches, different labels and catchwords are employed; but when 
 it comes down to real business in the matter of taxing eighty-odd 
 million users of iron and steel products for the benefit of an opu- 
 lent trust, we find forty-three Republican Senators and eighteen 
 Democratic Senators stanchly voting aye, against fourteen Repub- 
 licans and ten Democrats who vote nay. 
 
 "With over half of the Democratic members of the Upper House 
 fondly recording themselves as Little Brothers to Protection, there 
 is slight danger that the tariff will be revised otherwise than by 
 its friends." 
 
Conclusion 293 
 
 lican, made common cause, while Black, Republican, and 
 Campbell, Democrat, opposed them. 
 
 The same comparisons could be made in the Assembly, 
 where such Democrats as Wheelan and Baxter were found 
 with Mott and Coghlan, Republicans, supporting machine 
 policies, while opposed to them were anti-machine Re- 
 publicans of the character of Bohnett and Callan, and 
 anti-machine Democrats like Polsley and Mendenhall. 
 
 Thus, for practical purposes, the Legislature can not 
 be divided on party lines. The only practical line of divi- 
 sion is between the machine element, and the anti- 
 machine element. Such, at the session of 1909, was the 
 division on every important issue; such will it be at the 
 legislative session of 1911. Why should not the same 
 division govern the organization of Senate and Assembly ? 
 
 As a matter of fact, the machine disregards party lines 
 even in organizing. In making up its committees it con- 
 siders fealty to machine interests above party name. For 
 example, Hare and Kennedy were the Democratic Sena- 
 tors who this year affiliated with the machine. Kennedy 
 was appointed to practically every important committee, 
 at least to those before which important fights were to be 
 made. Thus we find him on the Committee on Commerce 
 and Navigation, Contingent Expenses, Elections and Elec- 
 tion Laws, Prisons and Reformatories, and Public Morals, 
 Hare was appointed to the Committee on Commerce and 
 Navigation, Elections and Election Laws, Labor, Capital 
 and Immigration, Municipal Corporations, Printing, and 
 Public Buildings and Grounds. In committees, as well 
 as on the floor of the Senate, Hare and Kennedy were 
 
294 Conclusion 
 
 found as a general thing casting their influence and their 
 votes on the side of machine policies. 
 
 Had the anti-machine Democrats and the anti-machine 
 Republicans in Senate and Assembly, who worked to- 
 gether for the same ends and voted together on prac- 
 tically every important issue, taken the same course, and 
 united for the organization of the two Houses, reform 
 measures which were defeated by narrow margins would 
 have been made laws, and machine measures which be- 
 came laws defeated. 
 
 Such being the case, is it not the duty of the anti- 
 machine Republicans and the anti-machine Democrats 
 who may sit in the Legislature of 1911, to organize both 
 Senate and Assembly to resist machine purposes and 
 policies ? 
 
 This can be done comparatively easily in the Assembly, 
 where a movement to elect the Speaker such as was 
 started by Drew of Fresno this year, if carried out, would 
 take the Assembly out of machine hands. Although the 
 organization of the Senate looks more difficult, because 
 the Senate has no voice in the selection of its presiding 
 officer, nevertheless, even though a Warren Porter oc- 
 cupy the post of Lieutenant-Governor, at the session of 
 1911 the reform element can elect its President pro tern., 
 and appoint the Senate committees. In other words, a 
 majority of the Senate, may if it see fit, take the ap- 
 pointing of the committees out of the hands of the 
 Lieutenant-Governor. 
 
 There are two important precedents for this course, 
 one established by a Democratic Senate; the other by a 
 Republican Senate. 
 
Conclusion 295 
 
 The Democratic precedent was established in 1887. 
 In that year Robert W. Waterman, a Republican, was 
 Lieutenant-Governor and presiding officer of the Senate. 
 The Senate was made up of twenty-six Democrats and 
 fourteen Republicans. The Democratic majority organ- 
 ized the Senate under the following rule, which will be 
 found in the Senate Journal of that session: 
 
 "All Committees of the Senate, special and standing, 
 and all joint Committees on the part thereof, shall be 
 elected by the Senate unless otherwise ordered." 
 
 The Republican precedent was made in 1897. In that 
 year, William T. Jeter, a Democrat, was Lieutenant- 
 Governor, while a majority of the Senators were Repub- 
 licans. Instead of leaving the appointing of the commit- 
 tees to the Democratic Lieutenant-Governor, the Repub- 
 lican Senators adopted a rule that "all standing commit- 
 tees of the Senate shall be named by the Senate, unless 
 otherwise ordered, and the first named shall be chairman 
 thereof. All other committees shall be appointed in such 
 manner as the Senate shall determine." 
 
 In other words, the Republican majority of the Senate 
 named the Senate committees of the session of 1897, 
 taking their appointment out of the hands of the Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor as the Democrats had done ten years be- 
 fore. There is no good reason why the members of the 
 anti-machine majority in the Senate should not have 
 taken the some course in 1909, and named the commit- 
 tees. Had they done so, and named the President pro 
 tern., they would have organized the Senate in the inter- 
 est of those policies in advancing which they were soon 
 in open revolt against Lieutenant-Governor Porter, the 
 
296 Conclusion 
 
 machine Senators and the machine lobby. Failing to do 
 so, they placed themselves under a handicap which they 
 were unable to overcome. 
 
 The reform element of the Legislature of 1911 will 
 have in the experience of the reform element of the ses- 
 sion of 1909, an important lesson. And The People of 
 California, who will elect that Legislature, have a lesson 
 as important. The successes of the machine at the ses- 
 sion of 1909, where a clear majority of both Houses op- 
 posed machine policies, demonstrated that the well-being 
 of the State requires that the opponents of the machine 
 in Senate and Assembly, regardless of party label, organ- 
 ize the Legislature. But back of this is the even more 
 important requirement that there be elected to the Leg- 
 islature American citizens, with the responsibility of their 
 citizenship upon them, rather than partisans, burdened 
 until their good purposes are made negative, by the re- 
 sponsibility of their partisanship. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 TABLES OF VOTES. 
 
 The test votes given in the several tables record in every 
 instance the result of a contest between the machine and the 
 anti-machine forces in Senate or Assembly. It is quite evi- 
 dent that a unanimous vote cannot be counted a test vote. 
 Thus the unanimous vote by which the Reciprocal Demur- 
 rage bill passed the Senate cannot be regarded as a test, 
 although the machine fought the demurrage principle 
 viciously in 1907. 
 
 Nor can a vote on a measure be taken as a test vote, 
 where the vote was taken without the members fully realiz- 
 ing what was before them. Thus the votes on the Wheelan 
 bills do not appear in either Senate or Assembly tables. 
 These measures were slipped through Senate and Assembly 
 without the members of either House fully realizing what the 
 bills were, their purpose, or far-reaching effects. To be sure, 
 a member of the Legislature should know what he is voting 
 on, but when one considers the incidents of the whirl-wind 
 close of the session of 1909, the injustice of holding a mem- 
 ber accountable for inadvertently voting for a measure 
 which he had intended to oppose, becomes apparent. 
 
 Following this rule, a vote on a given measure may be 
 a test vote in one House and not in the other. The Change 
 of Venue bill is an example in point. The Change of Venue 
 bill was slipped through the Assembly, without the mem- 
 bers fully realizing its import, and hence without opposition. 
 But in the Senate the issue was fought out. The Senate 
 vote on the Change of Venue bill, then, is taken as a test 
 vote, while the Assembly vote on the same measure is not 
 so regarded. In the same way, the vote on the substitution 
 of the Wright bill for the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill 
 was a test vote in the Senate. But in the Assembly there 
 was no test vote taken on the railroad regulation measures, 
 
11 
 
 for the Wright bill was put through practically without op- 
 position. The test railroad vote in the Assembly came on 
 the Sanford resolution providing for government steamships 
 on the Pacific. There was no test vote on this in the Senate, 
 for in the Senate it was adopted practically without oppo- 
 sition. 
 
 TABLE A RECORDS OF SENATORS. 
 
 The records of the members of the Senate on sixteen test 
 votes are shown in Table A. The names of the Senators are 
 arranged in the order of the number of times their votes 
 were recorded on the side of progress and reform, the name 
 of the Senator with the most positive votes to his credit ap- 
 pearing at the top of the list, and the Senator with the least 
 number at the bottom. 
 
 While few will quarrel with the fact that Senator Bell's 
 name leads the list, while Senators Finn and Hartman 
 divide negative honors at the bottom, nevertheless the ar- 
 rangement is not, strictly speaking, fair, although it is prob- 
 ably as fair as it could be made. 
 
 Senator Walker, for example, has only one anti-reform 
 vote registered against, him, but it was, perhaps, the most 
 important test vote of the session, that on the Railroad 
 Regulation measures. Senator Cutten, on the other hand, 
 voted on the reform side of every question with the excep- 
 tion of the measure intended to work political reform by 
 removing the party circle from the election ballot. Senator 
 Cutten is recorded twice against this bill, it being necessary, 
 in justice to all the Senators, to give both the votes taken 
 on this measure. But considering the relative importance 
 of the Railroad Regulation bills and the Party Circle bill, 
 all must admit that Senator Cutten made a better record 
 than Senator Walker, although Cutten's name appears be- 
 low that of Walker. 
 
 Unavoidable absence from the Senate Chamber cut down 
 the records of several of the Senators. Black and Stetson, 
 whose severe illness kept them from Sacramento toward the 
 end of the session, furnish examples of this. 
 
Ill 
 
 Then again, the Party Circle bill and the Local Option 
 bill were measures on which several of the strongest of the 
 opponents of the machine differed with the majority of their 
 anti-machine associates. With the four votes taken on these 
 two issues out of the reckoning, Bell, Thompson, Roseberry, 
 Cutten, Campbell, Boynton, Sanford, Cartwright, Black, 
 Holohan, Birdsall, Stetson, Rush and Strobridge, have not 
 one vote for a machine-backed policy against them. Cami- 
 netti's vote to amend the Stanford bill excludes him from 
 the list, but as this measure was of the same character and 
 policy as the Local Option bill, Caminetti's name should in 
 justice be included among those of the Senators who made 
 practically clear records. Looking at the table in a broad 
 way, the first nineteen Senators of the list made anti- 
 machine records. Of the eleven caucus Republicans among 
 them, only one voted against admitting Bell to the Repub- 
 lican caucus. 
 
 The nineteen voted for the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, 
 they voted every time against the machine on the Direct 
 Primary issue, only two of them voted for the Change of 
 Venue bill, only two of them voted against the Railroad 
 Regulation bill. These comparisons can be carried out in- 
 definitely, and always to the advantage of the nineteen. 
 
 Senator Wright is twentieth on the list; Senator Anthony 
 is twenty-first. Those who followed these two Senators 
 through the Direct Primary bill fight will see immediately 
 that Wright has crowded into undeserved standing. There is 
 a very good reason for this. In the Senate, the roll of Sena- 
 tors is called alphabetically, and Senator Wright's name is 
 the last on the list. A glance at the table will show that 
 Senator Wright did not vote once against the machine 
 when his vote would have decided the issue. He voted for 
 the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, but before him thirty-two 
 Senators had voted for the bill, and only seven against it. 
 Wright's thirty-third affirmative vote counted for nothing. 
 On the other hand, when Wright's name was reached on 
 roll call on the Change of Venue bill, with the vote standing 
 
IV 
 
 nineteen for the bill and sixteen against, and twenty-one votes 
 necessary for its passage, Senator Wright cast the twen- 
 tieth affirmative vote, thus ensuring the measure's passage. 
 In the same way, Senator Wright's vote the following day, 
 tied the score on the motion for a call of the Senate, thus 
 defeating the motion, and preventing reconsideration of the 
 Change of Venue bill which would have meant its defeat. 
 
 The query is: Had the vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gam- 
 bling bill stood nineteen against the bill, and twenty for, 
 when Wright's name was reached, with twenty-one votes 
 necessary for its passage, would Wright's vote have been cast 
 for or against it? Any person who has any doubt on the 
 question, is referred to Senator Wright's part in the passage 
 of the amended Direct Primary bill, and in the defeat of the 
 Stetson bill. 
 
 It is most advantageous to have one's name at the bottom 
 of a roll call. Senator Weight's position above that of Sen- 
 ators Anthony and Burnett, emphasizes the necessity of con- 
 sidering these tables in connection with the chapters dealing 
 with the several issues involved. From the first days of the 
 session Senators Anthony and Burnett gave indications that 
 had the anti-machine forces been organized, they would have 
 been found consistently against the machine. At any rate, 
 their records are admittedly more creditable than that made 
 by Senator Wright. 
 
 THE SIXTEEN TEST VOTES. 
 
 Senator Bell did not vote in the Senate Republican cau- 
 cus, nor did the nine Democratic Senators. Thus in the 
 sixteen votes recorded, Bell and the Democratic members 
 voted only fifteen times. An outline of each of the several 
 issues involved follows: 
 
 Senate A The first test vote of the Republican majority 
 which came in the Republican caucus described in Chapter 
 II, on motion to admit Senator Bell to caucus privileges. 
 Lost by a vote of 16 to 14. 
 
 Senate B Vote on proposed McCartney Amendments to 
 
Direct Primary bill. Amendments defeated by vote of 27 
 to 13. See Chapter IX. 
 
 Senate C Senate vote on Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. 
 See Chapter VII. 
 
 Senate Vote on Wolfe's motion to send the Local 
 Option bill back to the Judiciary Committee. See Chapter 
 XVIII. 
 
 Senate E First vote on Senate Bill 220, abolishing the 
 party circle on the election ballot. Measure was defeated 
 by vote of 15 to 23. 
 
 Senate F Vote by which the above Senate Bill 220 was 
 passed on reconsideration. Note the Senators who changed 
 to the side favoring the measure. 
 
 Senate G Test vote on Senate Bill 1144, known as the 
 "Stanford Bill," which prohibited the sale of intoxicants 
 within a mile and a half of a University. The measure was 
 aimed at the low groggeries maintained in the vicinity of 
 the campus at Stanford. It was fought by the same tender- 
 loin element that had opposed the Anti-Racetrack Gambling 
 bill. Senator Wolfe moved to amend the measure to ex- 
 clude fraternal club houses and hotels of fifty bed-rooms or 
 more, from its provisions. The amendment would have de- 
 layed and perhaps defeated the bill. Wolfe's motion was 
 defeated. 
 
 Senate H Vote by which the above Senate Bill 1144 was 
 finally passed. 
 
 Senate I First test railroad vote in the Senate Senator 
 Stetson moved that Stetson bill be substituted for the Wright 
 bill. The motion was defeated by a vote of 16 to 22. Had 
 Rush and Roseberry been present they would have voted 
 on the side of the Stetson measure. This would have made 
 the vote twenty-two for the Wright bill, and eighteen for 
 the Stetson bill. See Chapter XIII. 
 
 Senate J Vote on the Initiative Amendment. See Chap- 
 ter XIX. 
 
 Senate K Vote on the Local Option bill. See Chapter 
 XVIII. 
 
VI 
 
 Senate L Vote on Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 
 4, to eliminate ambiguities from those sections of the State 
 Constitution which prescribe the powers and duties of the 
 Railroad Commission. See Chapter XIV. 
 
 Senate M Vote on Assembly amendments to the Direct 
 Primary bill. Wright moved that the Senate concur in the 
 amendments. The motion was lost, but on Wolfe's motion 
 to reconsider the vote, the Senate was held in deadlock for 
 more than a week. See Chapters X and XI. 
 
 Senate N Vote on Change of Venue bill. See Chapter 
 XVI. 
 
 Senate O Vote on motion to reconsider vote by which 
 Change of Venue bill was passed. See Chapter XVI. 
 
 Senate P Vote on Burnett's motion that the investiga- 
 tion into the causes for the increase of freight and express 
 rates be continued after the Legislature adjourned. See 
 Chapter XIV. 
 
 TABLES B AND C RECORD OF ASSEMBLYMEN. 
 
 The two tables showing the votes of the members of the 
 Assembly include eleven test votes. The names of the 
 Assemblymen are arranged as in the case of the Senators 
 with the names of those who made the best records at the 
 top. 
 
 It will be seen that fourteen Assemblymen voted against 
 the machine on every roll call, eight were absent on one 
 roll call each, but voted the ten times they were present 
 against the machine, while three members voted once each 
 with the machine, and ten times against it. These twenty- 
 five members, voting 267 times, cast 264 votes on the side 
 of progress and reform, and three votes for machine policies. 
 The record indicates what might have been done in the 
 Assembly had the reform forces been organized. Indeed, the 
 forty leading Assemblymen, casting 421 votes, cast only 48 
 votes for machine policies and 373 against. 
 
 The same considerations governed the selection of test 
 votes in the Assembly as in the Senate. The votes are as 
 follows: 
 
Vll 
 
 Assembly A The first test vote in the Assembly was on 
 Drew's resolution to reject the report of the Committee on 
 Rules. The resolution was adopted, and the machine's plan 
 to force "gag rules" on the Assembly failed. See Chap- 
 ter III Organization of the Assembly. 
 
 Assembly B The test vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gam- 
 bling bill. The Committee on Public Morals had recom- 
 mended that the bill "do pass." Mott moved that the bill 
 be re-referred to the committee. Motion lost by a vote of 
 S3 to 23. See Chapter VII. 
 
 Assembly C Vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. 
 See Chapter VII. 
 
 Assembly D Vote on motion to reconsider the vote by 
 which the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill was passed. See 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 Assembly E The test railroad vote in the Assembly came 
 on Drew's motion to recall Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 
 from committee. The resolution called for a line of govern- 
 ment-owned steamships on the Pacific from San Francisco 
 to Panama. The resolution, having been adopted by the 
 Senate, went to the Assembly and was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Federal Relations. To hasten action on the reso- 
 lution, Drew moved that it be recalled from the committee. 
 A two-thirds vote was necessary for Drew's motion to pre- 
 vail. The motion failed to carry by a vote of 36 for to 29 
 against. 
 
 Assembly F Vote on motion to strike out of Senate 
 Joint Resolution No. 3 considered under E those sections 
 which referred to Commissioner Bristow's report recom- 
 mending that the Government steamship line be established, 
 and criticizing the combinations made between the several 
 transportation companies. The motion prevailed by a vote 
 of 43 to 30. 
 
 Assembly G Assembly test vote on the Direct Primary 
 bill. Vote taken on Leed's motion that vote on United 
 States Senators be advisory and by districts. The motion 
 prevailed by a vote of 38 to 36. See Chapter X. 
 
Vlll 
 
 Assembly H Vote on proposed amendments to the Islais 
 Creek Harbor bill. Motion was made to amend by substi- 
 tuting 44 blocks for the 63 necessary for the improvement. 
 Had this been done, the work would have been made im- 
 practicable. Motion lost by a vote of 30 to 45. See Chap- 
 ter XXIII, "Influence of the San Francisco Delegation." 
 
 Assembly I Leeds moved that Senate Bill 220 removing 
 the party circle from the election ballot be denied second 
 reading. The motion prevailed by a vote of thirty-six for, 
 to thirty-five against. 
 
 Assembly J Vote on Senate Bill 1144 (the Stanford 
 bill), to prohibit the sale of intoxicants within a mile and 
 a half of Stanford University. 
 
 Assembly K Vote on the Judicial Column bill. This 
 measure provided that the names of candidates for the 
 judiciary be placed in a separate non-partisan column on the 
 election ballot. The bill passed the Senate, but was de- 
 feated in the Assembly. 
 
 THE OTHER TABLES. 
 
 Table D shows the six votes on the Anti-Racetrack Gam- 
 bling bill. See Chapter VII. 
 
 Tables E and F Show the records of the San Francisco 
 delegation in the Senate and Assembly. See Chapter XXIII. 
 
 Table G Shows the records on sixteen test votes of the 
 twenty Senators whose terms of office will have expired be- 
 fore the next session convenes. See Chapter XXVII. 
 
 Table H Shows the records on sixteen test votes of the 
 twenty Senators who were elected in 1908, and who hold 
 over to serve in the session of 1911. See Chapter XXVI. 
 
 Table I Shows records of the members of the Assembly 
 on the four principal votes arising out of the fight for the 
 passage of the so-called Anti-Japanese bills. See Chap- 
 ter XX. 
 
Table A Records of Senators 
 
 
 A || B || C || D || E (I F || G || H 
 
 
 3 
 
 | 
 
 
 si 
 
 6 
 
 -M 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 . 
 
 * 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 09 
 
 o 
 
 I? 
 
 1 3 
 
 go 
 
 5 
 
 
 "s 
 
 a'fc 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 *s 
 
 d 6 
 
 > W 
 
 
 
 > 3 
 
 
 11 
 
 g 5 
 
 !l 
 
 "i 
 
 H 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 g 
 
 sfc 
 
 Second 
 Circle 
 
 t> 
 
 s m 
 
 n 
 
 CO 
 
 Senator | Aye|No || Aye|No | |Aye|No || Aye|No 1 1 Aye|No| |Aye|No| | Aye|No| | Aye|No 
 
 1 Bell 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 1 
 
 
 
 2 Thompson . 
 3 Roseberry . 
 4 Walker .... 
 5 Cutten 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 o j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 6 Campbell .. 
 7 Boynton . . . 
 8 Sanford ... 
 9 Cartwright 
 10 Caminetti . 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 11 Estudillo .. 
 12 Black 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 13 Holohan ... 
 14 Miller 
 15 Birdsall ... 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 16 Stetson .... 
 17 Rush 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 18 Curtin 
 19 Strobridge . 
 20 Wright .... 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 21 Anthony . . . 
 22 Burnett ... 
 23 McCartney 
 24 Kennedy . . 
 25 Lewis 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 26 Willis . 
 27 Welch .... 
 28 Bates 
 29 Price . 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 30 Savage .... 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 31 Bills 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 * 
 
 
 32 Leavitt .... 
 33 Hare 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 34 Kurd . . 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 35 Martinelli . 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 36 Wolfe 
 37 Reily 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 * 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 38 Weed . . 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 39 Finn 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 40 Hartman . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Totals ...| 14 |16 || 13 |27 || 33 | 7 || 20 
 
 16 |22 || 23 |15 || 8 |22 || 29 | 5 
 
 Character "*" indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform. 
 Character "0" indicates vote against Progress and Reform. 
 
 Names of Senators are arranged in the order of their records, with the name of 
 the Senator making the best record at the top. 
 
on Sixteen Test Votes 
 
 N 
 
 I 
 
 -i 
 
 
 
 il 
 
 <D 
 
 ;-. o> 
 3 
 
 
 TOTALS 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 I s 
 
 1 
 
 ~ 
 
 s | 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 d 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 "o, 
 
 
 S* 
 
 "o 
 
 
 
 
 
 " -u 
 
 | 
 
 i 
 
 
 H 
 
 Initiatlv 
 ment. 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 Railroad 
 ment. 
 
 Assembl 
 ment 
 Primal 
 
 Js 
 
 1 L 
 
 <D j- 
 
 If 
 
 & 
 1 
 
 Against 
 
 Absent. 
 
 Aye|No||Aye|Nol|Aye|No||Aye|No[|Aye|No ||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 15 
 15 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 12 
 12 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 12 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 4 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 9 
 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 7 
 
 6 
 4 
 2 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 7 
 5 
 5 
 5 
 5 
 
 8 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o ! 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ooooo 
 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 4 
 4 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 11 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 11 
 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 4 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 12 
 12 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 
 
 
 2 
 2 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 ooooo 
 
 1 
 
 ooooo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 
 1 ooooo 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 
 
 13 
 12 
 13 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 16 |22 || 20 |15 || 12 |25 || 19 |16 || 20 |19 || 21 |16 || 18 |18 || 12 |16 ||311 |259 [60 
 Character "*" indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform. 
 Character "0" indicates vote against Progress and Reform. 
 
 Name's of Senators are arranged in the order of their records, with the name of 
 the Senator making the best record at the top. 
 

 
 02 ;u9sq V 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 ooooo 
 
 OOOOrH 
 
 
 
 
 ^ -uiaojga ISUIBSV 
 O 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 ooooo 
 
 ooooo 
 
 ooooo 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 o 
 
 
 lua uuintoo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 Bpjpnr uo 9 j o A 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 +J 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 (U 
 
 
 iua 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <: 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 STJT 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 (U to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 12 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 FT1 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 UI 1 D 
 
 
 ma JoqaBH 3199JO 
 
 <-( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SIB[SI p U 9 UI B OX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <L) 
 
 n 
 
 XaBiuUti 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S bfi 
 
 
 }09.Iia UO 9^0A 1S9X 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 S c? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >,' 
 
 . 
 
 'S 'ON 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 pJ?*'-^' 
 
 
 H T 'S puauiB ox 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 ^ 
 
 
 90 W UI 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 M./ (A 
 
 
 -uioo uioaj g 'O]& 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 C/3 S 
 
 
 H T 'S IIT309J OX 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 
 
 <i-Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 'iua sno-^s^fBAi 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 *"o S 
 
 U 
 
 J9PISUOO9J OX 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 
 
 vl/ ^"* 
 
 O 
 
 -J93TT'BM. U.O 9^OA 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 
 
 %-l V- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O Lin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (U 
 
 
 99^^IUI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 -tuoo <n ing st^o 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 samn 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 
 
 rr\ 
 
 *l 
 
 S ( 88^^IUIUIO3 }39f9H 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 U-4 
 
 
 O^ UO^OJ\[ S ( A\.9J(^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 (3 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 Assemblym 
 
 S 
 
 TH 
 
 ; >> -zi 
 
 EH^I^hC 
 
 r-t ~l r-l rH r- 
 
 5Swl 
 
 r-( ^ rH iH CSJ 
 
+SUIBSV 
 
 uiaojga io.i 
 
 tna 
 
 uo e + o A 
 
 ina 
 
 -p^9a puoogg tua 
 
 A'U9p OJ, 
 
 S1T3[SI p U 9 UI T3 OJ, 
 
 A~.reun.ici; 
 
 s -ON _ 
 
 a T 'S PU9UIB OJ, 
 
 uiojj g -ojsi 
 
 a T 'S 11^9-1 oi 
 
 japisuooaa oj, 
 
 01 ma 
 
 oj, 
 
 S ( AV9Ja 
 
 rHrHOOO 
 
 r-IOOiHO 
 
 *,*, rH.no 
 
 ONT-IOO 
 
 0> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 csoosoooo 
 
 
 t-oeoo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 000 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 O O 
 
 o 
 
 000 
 
 000 
 
 -=. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ro 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 0000 
 
 c- 
 
 
 * * * * 
 
 * * 
 
 * 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -i : 
 
 
 
 
 
 sc 
 
 2^c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r" r- 
 
 
 
 
 
 -r 
 
 3, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 2^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 -H 
 
 fl S 
 O 
 0) fl 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 CO 
 
 t^ 
 11 
 
 q? 
 
 : : : :% 
 +*''& 
 
 111 
 
 26 Gerdes 
 27 Holmquist . 
 28 Otis 
 29 Irwin 
 30 Rutherford 
 
 Jlljl 
 
 eo eo co coco 
 
 1 : :S ': 
 
 
 Character "*" in 
 
 nhQT.or.tOin "ft" \-n 
 
 ill 
 ill 
 
 rac 
 
 mes 
 

 
 . ;u9sqy 
 
 
 TH^rHO 
 
 oiocowca 
 
 NCQr-lrHO 
 
 oeo^^o 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --*** 
 
 C/3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Ilia uuiniOQ 
 
 o 
 fc 
 
 0000 
 
 
 
 
 
 000 
 
 *p 
 
 
 l-eplpnr uo 9 ^ o A 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 
 * * 
 
 
 Is 
 
 
 ma 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 * * * 
 
 * 
 
 * * 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 Suj 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 fc I 
 
 
 -PB9H puoo9g ma 
 
 9paio ^-i^d: ^ugp ox 
 
 1 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 ooo 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 oooo 
 
 Su 
 gg 
 
 
 'Ilia Joqa-BH ^^^D 
 
 o 
 
 * * 
 
 * * 
 
 * * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SI^ISI p U 9 UI -B OX 
 
 <J 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 o S 
 
 
 ^j-euiud: 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 g 
 
 
 ^ogaia uo 9}0 A ;s9x 
 
 OJ 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 00 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 |5 GO 
 
 
 's -ON 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 ^Q 12 
 
 
 'H T 'S PU9UIB ox 
 
 0) 
 
 ooo 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 S j 
 
 
 99 W UI 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 0000 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 i 
 
 
 -raoo uioaj g 'Oft 
 'H T 'S IIB09J ox 
 
 0) 
 
 * * 
 
 
 
 
 
 <S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 'ma SHO-JQ^II^AV 
 
 <( 
 
 
 
 
 
 *-g S 
 
 Q 
 
 J9PISU009J OX 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 T-^ ^^ 
 
 
 'lua suo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 0> 
 
 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i2 
 
 
 99 W UI 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 -raoo oj nig si^o 
 
 1 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S91UH 
 
 o 
 
 000 
 
 o 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 OOOOO 
 
 U 
 
 4 
 
 o^ uopopi s,AV9aci 
 
 1 
 
 * 
 
 * * 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '"o 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Assemblyni* 
 
 Liis 
 lii^i 
 
 WWmHW 
 
 III 
 
 0) > 3'o O> 
 ^H P-lUS (-5 
 
 56 Nelson . . 
 57 Fleisher . 
 58 Flavelle . 
 59 McClelland 
 60 Beardslee 
 
u 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 s 
 
 (0 
 
 S 
 
 $ 
 
 , 
 I 
 
 o 
 +j 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 V 
 
 00 i ^U9sqv 
 
 
 OO-W-WM 
 
 *,*^cow 
 
 N^OO 
 
 NfHrH1H 
 
 4>04 
 
 d 
 
 j -UUOJ9H ;suiBSv 
 
 
 00 00 U5 US CO 
 
 t^t-oo^t- 
 
 000000 
 
 oooo 
 
 THiHr-l 
 
 00 00 CO 
 U5 ^ O 
 
 eq co 
 
 3 
 
 V 
 
 EH 'UIJOI9H aoj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 sS^ 1 
 
 td 
 
 'Ilia uumioo 
 
 
 
 OO 
 
 O 
 
 oooo 
 
 ooo 
 
 *- 
 
 8 
 
 ^ fBpipnp uo 9 i o A 
 
 ! 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 *z% 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 'ina 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 00 00 
 
 O 
 
 %<*$ 
 
 8 
 
 4) 
 
 
 1 
 
 * * 
 
 aJ 
 
 
 
 
 O CO LO 
 CO-* 
 
 bo 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '8u\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IMCO 
 
 1 
 
 -PB9H puoo9s ina 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 oooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 sss 
 
 6 
 
 to 
 
 'Hia Joqj-BH ^^ J O 
 
 
 
 fc 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 ^clSS 
 
 I! 
 
 ^ SJBISI p u 9 ui B ox 
 
 0) 
 
 oooo 
 
 00 
 
 oooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 ss-s 
 
 S 
 
 Aroo&d 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 co co co 
 
 O 03 
 
 O jogaia u 9 ^OA }S9X 
 
 0) 
 
 00 00 
 
 000 
 
 ooooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 co^eo 
 
 S 2 
 
 s -ON 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~ooo 
 
 Si cd 
 
 'H T *S PU9UJB ox 
 
 0) 
 
 oooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 ooooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 CO ^r 
 
 1 S 
 
 99WUZ 
 
 o 
 
 ooooo 
 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 00 
 
 c^evj o 
 
 M CM 
 
 1 11 
 
 ui -uioo uioaj g - o>i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 co co co 
 coco 
 
 |||| 
 
 'lua 8UO~- ia3 ll' B A\. 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 t-ot- 
 
 rH ^f< US 
 
 o^ 
 
 Qa9pisuoo9a ox 
 
 < 
 
 00 
 
 ooooo 
 
 ooooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 O O 
 
 oo C ^ ^> 
 
 2 ill 
 
 *ina SHO 
 
 
 
 
 oooo 
 
 
 
 oooo 
 
 O 
 
 rH i-i 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 * * * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 KSS 
 
 BO 
 
 eaWlUI 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 ScSS 
 
 >O * flj qj 
 
 ID -uioo 0^ ma sno 
 
 0) 
 
 OO O 
 
 ooooo 
 
 000 
 
 oooo 
 
 g-g 
 
 olgB 
 
 S9inn 
 
 o 
 
 fc 
 
 OO 
 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 S^lo 
 
 || 2 
 
 < S,99muilUOO 109C9H 
 Ol UO^O^f S,AS.9Ja 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * * * 
 
 
 
 0(M^-t 
 
 lisl 
 
 ^ $ g *" 
 
 
 
 ^ : : : 
 
 . . . .p 
 
 : H : : 
 
 
 :| : 
 
 ^ .2 >> <D 
 Il|| 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 :6 : : ;| 
 
 : : : -^ 
 
 1 i* I i 
 
 ':':' m 
 
 ^s 
 
 L Li-g 
 
 
 Assembly 
 
 iJi 
 
 56 Black . 
 57 O'Neil 
 18 Coghlan 
 59 Hopkins 
 ro Johnstor 
 
 alii 
 
 re Cullen . 
 r7 Beban . 
 r8 Macaule 
 r9 McManu 
 
 % 
 
 SO 00 rrt 
 
 118 
 
 HHO 
 
 haracter " 
 haracter " 
 ames of As 
 a" Chang 
 
 
 
 CO CO CO CO J 
 
 
 
 L fc I 
 
 
 U W A < 
 
Table D Record of Assemblymen on Anti 
 
 
 A || B |i C || D || E || F || 
 
 Assembly Votes on 
 Walker-Otis Bill. 
 
 Mott's Motion to Re- 
 turn Bill to Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 To Reconsider De- 
 feat of Mott's Mo- 
 tion. 
 
 Butler's Motion to 
 Amend Bill. 
 
 Si 
 
 ^ 
 
 ** 
 
 o 
 
 K- 
 
 3 be 
 
 Ss 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 fl 
 o 
 
 <D 
 
 O 
 > 
 
 Vote on Motion to 
 Reconsider. 
 
 TOTALS. 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 <D 
 
 ,c; 
 -> 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 .M 
 fl 
 
 o> 
 
 w 
 
 ,Q 
 
 4 
 
 Assemblymen | Aye| No 1 1 Aye| No 1 1 Aye| No 1 1 Aye|No 1 1 Aye|No 1 1 Aye| No 1 1 
 
 Barndollar 
 Baxter 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 A 
 A 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 l 
 l 
 
 Beardslee 
 
 Beatty 
 
 Beban 
 
 Black 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 6 
 4 
 6 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 
 Bohnett 
 
 Butler 
 
 Callan 
 
 Cattell 
 
 Coghlan 
 Cogswell 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 5 
 
 ^1 
 1 
 
 Collier 
 
 Collum 
 
 Costar 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 6 
 1 
 
 5 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Cullen 
 
 Dean 
 Drew 
 
 Feeley 
 
 Flavelle . . .... 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 V 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Fleisher 
 
 Flint 
 
 Gerdes 
 Gibbons 
 
 Gillis 
 Greer 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 6 
 1 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 
 Griffiths 
 
 Hammon 
 Hanlon 
 
 Hans 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 6 
 5 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 Hawk 
 
 Hayes 
 
 Hewitt 
 
 Hinkle 
 
 Holmquist .... 
 Hopkins 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 6 
 3 
 5 
 5 
 
 
 Irwin 
 
 Johnson, G. L. 
 Johnson, P. A. 
 
 
 II 1 
 
 1 II 1 II 
 
 II II 
 
 
 
 Character "F" shows 
 Character "A" shows 
 A clear record on the 
 
 vote For the Bill, 
 vote Against the Bill, 
 measure shows six "F's." 
 
-Racetrack Gambling Bill Walker-Otis Bill 
 
 
 A || B || C 
 
 ID || E || F || 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 t i 
 
 &$ 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 TOTALS. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 om 
 
 c3 
 
 O 
 
 -< 
 
 O^H 
 
 li 
 la 
 
 1 
 
 Is 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 Is 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 S 
 
 
 S 
 
 |1 
 
 So5 
 o> 
 
 03 CJ -t-> 
 
 |=i 
 
 f 
 
 w il 
 r- 
 
 Butler's 
 Amend 
 
 K 
 
 381 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 Vote on 
 Reconsi 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Absent. 
 
 Assemblymen | Aye| No||Aye|No||Aye|No ||Aye|No ||Aye|No ||Aye|No|| 
 
 Johnson, P. H. 
 Johnston, T. D. 
 Juilliard 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 Jb' 
 F 
 
 3 
 1 
 3 
 
 5 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 Kehoe 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Leeds 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Lightner 
 Macauley 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 
 Maher 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 
 McClellan 
 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 
 McManus 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 Melrose 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 h' 
 
 h 1 
 
 
 h' 
 
 
 
 H' 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 Mendenhall . . . 
 Moore 
 Mott 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 Nelson 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 
 Odom 
 Otis 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 3 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 
 O'Neil 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 Ferine 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 
 Polsley 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Preston 
 Pugh 
 
 A 
 
 P 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 Pulcif er 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Rech 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Rutherford . . . 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Sackett 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 4 
 
 
 o 
 
 Schmitt 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 Silver 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Stan ton 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 Stuckenbruck . 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 1 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Telfer 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Transue 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 "Wagner 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 Webber 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 
 Wheelan 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Whitney 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Wilson . 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Wyatt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wyllie 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Young 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 23 
 
 53 | 
 
 1 30 
 
 48 | 
 
 | 23 
 
 52 | 
 
 | 44 
 
 32 | 
 
 67 
 
 10 | 
 
 19 
 
 57| 
 
 321 
 
 137 
 
 16 
 
 Character "F" shows vote For the Bill. 
 Character "A" shows vote Against the Bill. 
 A clear record on the measure shows six "F*s." 
 
Table E Records of the San Francisco 
 
 B 
 
 
 Si 
 
 tt 
 
 1.55 
 
 
 i 
 
 "> 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 S 
 
 
 rtU 
 
 Q 
 
 ^5 
 
 u 
 
 K" 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 02 
 
 
 M 
 
 "S 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 >> o3 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 -8 
 
 fe 
 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 -2 
 "o 
 
 00 
 
 <D 
 
 1 = 
 
 
 ii 
 
 S3 
 
 0) >> 
 
 +-> 
 O cd 
 
 
 
 feloJ 
 
 
 
 ^ . 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 g 3 
 
 I 
 
 o w 
 
 > a 
 
 
 <jj W 
 
 M 
 
 "3 
 
 !il 
 
 "1 
 
 ~ 
 
 p 
 
 sl 
 
 11 
 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 ^ 
 
 H 
 
 S 
 
 w 
 
 g 
 
 1 
 
 Senator |Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| Aye|No||Aye|No 
 
 Anthony . . . 
 Burnett . . . 
 Finn . . . 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 i * 
 
 o! 
 
 
 
 1 o 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 Hare 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 1 * 
 
 
 1 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hartman . . 
 Kennedy . . 
 Reily 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Welch 
 Wolfe 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 Totals ... 
 
 3 
 
 4 1 
 
 1 6 
 
 3 1 
 
 4 
 
 5 1 
 
 1 9 
 
 o J 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 1 
 
 1 4 
 
 5 1 
 
 1 5 
 
 | 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 Character "*' 
 Character "0* 
 
 indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform, 
 indicates vote against Progress and Reform. 
 
Senate Delegation on Sixteen Test Votes 
 
 M 
 
 *g 
 
 J c 
 
 B S 
 
 EC 
 
 
 S 
 
 so 
 
 3 s 
 
 S B S 
 
 _ 
 
 TOTALS. 
 
 Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No ||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| * | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 o I 
 
 o 1 
 o I 
 
 1 
 
 | ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j . 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 7 
 15 
 10 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 
 ooooo 
 
 ooooo 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 3 
 
 16 
 9 
 12 
 9 
 13 
 
 | 9 
 
 5 | 2 
 
 1 | 7 
 
 8 | 
 
 | 7 || 1 | 6 || 29 | 99 
 
 Character " 
 Character "0" 
 
 indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform, 
 indicates vote against Progress and Reform. 
 
TABLE "F" ON PAGE FOLLOWING TABLE "I." 
 
 Table G Records of Out-Going 
 
 Must Be Re-Elected 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 o,fi 
 
 ^3 
 
 h 
 
 i 
 d 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 b 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 '> 
 
 OB 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 j-^ 
 
 
 Z3 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 CO 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 s 
 
 "3 
 
 . . 
 
 C S 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 rM 
 
 e 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 af 
 
 11 
 
 l tt 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 "S . 
 
 <0 X 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 ^"o 
 
 ~ 
 
 OJ3 
 
 
 s 
 
 II 
 
 
 PQ o5 
 
 
 ^ fc< 
 
 ^s 
 
 K*PQ 
 
 
 *J 
 
 ^s 
 |E 
 
 i 
 
 *c3 
 
 2 3i 
 
 fi 
 
 gQ 
 
 ll 
 
 II 
 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 | 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 m 
 
 
 1 
 
 Senator |Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No[|Aye|No ||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No 
 
 Anthony . . . 
 Bates 
 
 * 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 Bell 
 Black 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 Boynton . . . 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Caminetti . 
 Cartwright . 
 Curtin 
 Hartman ... 
 Kennedy . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 Leavitt 
 McCartney . 
 Miller 
 Price 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 Reily 
 
 * 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sanford . . . 
 Savage 
 Weed 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 Willis 
 Wright .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 Totals ... 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 1 9 
 
 11 1 
 
 16 
 
 4 1 
 
 1 10 
 
 8 1 
 
 1 10 
 
 9 
 
 1 12 
 
 6 1 
 
 1 4 
 
 12 | 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 Character 
 Character 
 
 indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform, 
 indicates vote against Progress and Reform. 
 
Senators on Sixteen Test Votes 
 
 to Sit in Next Senate 
 
 M 
 
 Test Vote on Rail- 
 road Regulation. 
 
 Initiative Amend- 
 ment. 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 ft 
 
 1 
 
 if 
 
 SQ 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 la 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 fi 
 
 l 
 
 CO 
 
 Ss 
 
 "I 
 
 TOTALS. 
 
 
 
 <D 
 tf 
 
 Against Reform. 
 
 Aye|No 
 
 Aye|No | 
 
 Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No ||Aye|No||Aye|No|iAye|No|| *| 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 4 
 15 
 11 
 13 
 
 8 
 10 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 12 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 16 
 
 9 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 5 
 11 
 4 
 2 
 
 12 
 8 
 2 
 11 
 12 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 1 
 5 
 9 
 
 2 
 11 
 13 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 8 |12 || 9 |10 || 6 |12 || 9 
 
 9 || 11 | 9 || 12 
 
 7 || 7 |11 || 4 |10 
 
 147 |140 
 
 Character "*" indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform. 
 Character "0" indicates vote against Progress and Reform. 
 
Table H Records of Holdover 
 
 Senators Who Will Sit 
 
 
 A || B || C || D || E || F || G 
 
 H 
 
 
 o 
 
 4-> 
 
 
 i 
 
 ^3 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 Bfi 
 
 +j 
 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 -H 
 
 Q 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 02 
 
 02 
 
 
 i 
 
 C 
 O 
 
 m 
 
 02 
 
 3 
 
 o o 
 o- 1 - 1 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 C 
 O 
 
 &j 
 
 
 Ig 
 
 is 
 
 oj 
 
 <K >> 
 
 *-> U 
 
 || 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 ft 
 
 o>> 
 
 dU 
 
 
 
 P 3 
 
 O"Z3 
 
 >W 
 
 T3 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 g 
 
 I* 
 
 E 
 
 gj 
 
 H^ 
 
 !* 
 
 1" 
 
 l5 
 
 W 
 
 Senator | Aye|No 1 1 Aye|No 1 1 Aye|No 1 1 Aye|No 1 1 Aye|No| | Aye|No| | Aye|No| | Aye|No 
 
 Bills 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 Birdsall . . . 
 Burnett . . . 
 Campbell . . 
 Cutten 
 
 Estudillo . . 
 Finn . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 Hare 
 
 Holohan ... 
 Kurd 
 
 Lewis 
 Martinelli . 
 Roseberry . 
 Rush 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 Stetson . . . 
 
 Strobridge . 
 Thompson . 
 Walker .... 
 Welch .... 
 Wolfe .... 
 
 
 1 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 Totals . . | 9 
 
 8 |! 4 |16 || 17 
 
 3 || 10 | 7 || 6 |13 || 11 
 
 9 || 4 |10 || 15 | 2 
 
 Character "* ' indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform. 
 Character "0 ' indicates vote against Progress and Reform. 
 
Senators on Sixteen Test Votes 
 
 in Senate of 1911 
 
 1 || J II K || L || M || N || 
 
 p 
 
 
 fc 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 T3 
 
 C 
 0> 
 
 -O w 
 SS 
 
 SQ 
 
 0) 
 
 3 
 
 i- 
 
 f-> 0) 
 
 'O o 
 
 
 TOTALS. 
 
 
 S 
 
 C oi 
 3 
 bfl 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 <J 
 3 . 
 
 *, 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 
 Oo 
 
 li 
 
 g 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 0> 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 t ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 S-u 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fi 
 
 IS 
 
 1 
 
 o c 
 i 
 
 ffl 
 
 111 
 Ifift 
 
 1 
 
 Jffl 
 
 ih 
 
 "a! 
 
 1 
 
 | 
 
 H 
 
 t-t 
 
 i_3 
 
 K 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 Aye|No||Aye|No ||Aye|No ||Aye|No 
 
 |Aye|No ||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| * 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * ' 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 11 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 14 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 8 |10 
 
 11 
 
 5 || 6 |13 || 10 
 
 7 || 9 |10 || 9 | 9 || 11 | 7 || 8 | 6 |J164 |119 
 
 Character 
 Character 
 
 0" 
 
 indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform, 
 indicates vote against Progress and Reform. 
 
Table I Records of Assemblymen on 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 1 
 
 M > 
 
 3 
 
 ll 
 
 
 ^ oo 
 
 j^eq 
 
 > >>"* 
 
 K* v^"* 
 
 
 .Q . 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 dlS 
 
 
 
 p i 
 
 ill 
 
 IP 
 
 
 I 
 
 ^ ? 
 
 fl 
 
 " 
 
 Assemblymen | Aye | No || Aye | No || Aye | No || Aye | No 
 
 Barndollar 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Baxter 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Beardslee 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Beatty 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Beban 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Black 
 Bohnett 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 Butler 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Callan 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Cattell 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Coghlan 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Cogswell 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Collier 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Collum 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Costar 
 
 
 A | 
 
 I 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 Cronin 
 Cullen 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 Dean o 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Drew 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Feeley 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Flavelle 
 Fleisher 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 Flint 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Gerdes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Gibbons 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Gillis 
 Greer 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 Griffiths 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Hammon . . 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Hanlon 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Hans 
 Hawk 
 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 Hayes 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Hewitt . 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Hinkle 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Holmquist 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Hopkins 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Irwin 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Johnson, Grove L. 
 Johnson, P. A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 Character "F' 
 Character "A' 
 
 indicates vote For the Bills, 
 indicates vote Against the Bills. 
 
Four Test Votes on Anti- Japanese Bills 
 
 
 Assembly Bill 
 
 06 
 t- 
 
 1 
 
 Assembly Bill 
 
 e<5 
 
 eo 
 
 g 
 
 > f ! 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 % 
 
 bS 
 
 Q 
 
 P 
 
 X 
 
 Second Vote 
 
 A .tort.nUlf -Dill 
 
 * 
 
 f 
 
 5 6 
 
 1" 
 
 i 
 
 Assemblymen 
 
 Aye 
 
 No \ 
 
 Aye 
 
 No \ 
 
 \ Aye 
 
 No 
 
 Aye 
 
 No 
 
 Johnson, P. H 
 Johnston, T. D. . . . 
 Juilliard 
 
 F 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 Kehoe 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Leeds 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 F* 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Lightner 
 Macauley 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 F 
 
 
 Maher 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 McClellan 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 McManus 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Melrose 
 Mendenhall 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 Moore 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Mott 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Nelson 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Odom 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Otis 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 O'Neil 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Ferine 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Polsley 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Preston 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Pugh 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Pulcif er 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Rech 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Rutherford 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Sackett 
 Schmitt 
 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 Silver 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Stan ton .... 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Stuckenbruck 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Telfer 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Transue 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 "Wagner 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Webber . . . 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Wheelan 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Whitney 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 "Wilson 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 Wyatt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wyllie 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Young 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 Totals 
 
 28 
 
 48 \ 
 
 39 
 
 35 
 
 \ 46 
 
 28 \ 
 
 37 
 
 41 
 
 Character "F" indicates vote For the Bills. 
 Character "A" indicates vote Against the Bills. 
 * Leeds changed his vote from "no" to "aye" to give notice of 
 reconsideration. 
 

 
 o 
 
 DO 
 
 Q 
 "S 
 
 
 fi 
 
 0) 
 
 3 
 
 
 aj -*u8sqv 
 
 
 NrHWOrH 
 
 ,M*,<rt 
 
 rHrHONN 
 
 <NCO^ 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 
 
 5< 'U1JOJ8H ^SUIBSy 
 
 
 eoot^ooo 
 
 i-H 
 
 UiOSrH "* CO 
 
 OO^t-00 
 
 uxo*, 
 
 OO 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 EH -UIJOJ8H JOji 
 
 
 ^O^^HC, 
 
 *.*** 
 
 OO^IMtH 
 
 ^ MN 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 "Ilia uumioo 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 [Btoipnf uo 8 3. o A 
 
 g 
 
 * * 
 
 * * * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'ma 
 
 o 
 
 ^i 
 
 OOO 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 
 paojuBjg uo ejoA 
 
 s 
 
 <1 
 
 * 
 
 * * 
 
 
 * * 
 
 ed 
 
 ITS 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 'Su\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -PB8H puooag nia 
 
 <D 
 
 >. 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 Irt 
 
 S 
 
 
 "II T a JoqaBji >198JO 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 * * * 
 
 * * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 oo 
 
 0) 
 
 
 SIBISI p U 9 UI B OJQ 
 
 ^ 
 
 < 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 O5 
 
 M 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 VKUKI uo ao A , S9X 
 
 0) 
 
 >> 
 
 000 O 
 
 00 
 
 00000 
 
 000 
 
 in 
 
 1 
 
 
 g 'O^J 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 -H 
 
 Si 
 
 
 H T 'S PU8UIB OJ, 
 
 $ 
 
 00 
 
 00 00 
 
 00000 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 s 1 
 
 fl 
 
 
 88 W UI 
 
 
 
 
 
 00000 
 
 00 
 
 t- 
 
 <2o 
 
 11 
 
 !JJ 
 
 -uioo tuoaj g -ON 
 
 H T "S IIB08J OJ, 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 SSI 
 
 ^s 
 
 rtiri rti 
 
 
 "H T a SHO'-ra^H'B.M. 
 
 ^p 
 
 * * 
 
 * * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 sSS 
 
 03 o 
 
 U 
 
 18PJSU008J OJ, 
 
 5 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 00 00 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 3) W S 
 P 
 
 
 ma spo 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 OO 
 
 
 
 
 ^o'S, 
 
 M^ ^ 
 
 Op4 ft 
 
 U 
 
 
 < 
 
 * * 
 
 * * 
 
 * 
 
 * * 
 
 > 
 
 *+>" 
 
 1 s " 
 
 
 ee W ra 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 * * 
 
 
 * 
 
 LO 
 
 w rtos 
 ^o 
 
 111 
 
 
 CD 
 
 < 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00000 
 
 
 
 IM 
 
 iH 
 
 2o 
 
 5l fi 
 
 
 wmH 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 000 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 III 
 
 
 Ol UOpOJ\[ S,A\.8JQ 
 
 03 
 
 * * 
 
 * * * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 t- 
 
 cd oJ*" 
 
 03 
 
 ?lo 
 
 
 
 
 s >> g 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ^? 
 
 
 o S 5 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 fi "^ p 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 >> 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 O! 
 
 ^ 
 
 tJ C M -* 
 
 Illls 
 
 lilll 
 Hill 
 
 III 
 
 ill 
 
 72 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 H 
 
 Character ' 
 Character ' 
 "a" Chang 
 
XXVI 
 
 OUTLINE OF AND ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF 
 THE POSTAL DIRECT PRIMARY. 
 
 By SENATOR L. H. ROSEBERRY, Who Introduced the 
 Postal Direct Primary Bill at the Ses- 
 sion of 1909. 
 
 In order to understand the full purpose and effect of the pro- 
 posed Postal Direct Primary law, it is necessary to ascertain the 
 purpose of any system of nominations by a Direct Primary. 
 
 The sole complaint against the present system of nominations 
 by conventions is based upon the objection that party nominations 
 are made by a few interested parties, and that the popular choice 
 is absolutely ignored. To remedy this evil the system of direct 
 nominations by the voters has been suggested at primary elec- 
 tions. It therefore follows that that system, or primary, which 
 will get out the largest number of votes or the greatest expres- 
 sion of the people on the choice of candidates is, of necessity, 
 the best primary law. If it is true that all present direct pri- 
 maries, which provide for voting at a certain time and place in 
 person, in the form that general elections are now conducted, 
 only draw out a little over one-half of the registered vote 
 of all parties, it then follows beyond question, that all present 
 direct primary laws are only half successful. Upon an examina- 
 tion of statistics gathered from the various States in which direct 
 primary laws are now in operation, it is seen that only 55% to 60% 
 of the registered vote within those States has ever been cast at 
 any single primary election. For instance, at the primary election 
 held in the State of Oregon in the fall of 1908, 55% of the. regis- 
 tered Republican vote was cast, and less than 25% of the Demo- 
 cratic vote. In the State of Washington about 57% of the regis- 
 tered vote was cast in 1908, the only vote yet taken under the new 
 Direct Primary law. In the State of Wisconsin, while 60% of the 
 total registered vote was cast in 1906, only a little over 40% was 
 cast at the primary election held in the year 1908. Other statis- 
 tics could be offered from all the other States, having the direct 
 primary system of nominations, from which it would appear that 
 practically a little over 55% or even less of the registered vote 
 has been secured at any direct primary election. Therefore, based 
 upon these figures, it becomes patent that the present form of 
 direct nominations, to wit: voting at a certain time and place in 
 person only, under the same rules and regulations as at general 
 elections, is only half successful. 
 
 It was for the -purpose of bringing out at least a part of this 
 great unvoted 45% of qualified electors, to take a part in naming 
 the candidates who should go before the people at the general 
 elections, that the Postal Direct Primary law was conceived. 
 
 While there is no present example of the working of a system 
 of direct nominations through a ballot cast through the mails for 
 
XXV11 
 
 public officials, there are a number of instances in which ballots 
 are being taken by mail with wonderful success and completeness. 
 Formerly, labor unions, fraternal societies, chambers of com- 
 merce, Granger organizations, alumni associations, and other civic, 
 religious and benevolent associations, balloted on propositions sub- 
 mitted to their membership in the form that primary and general 
 elections are now held in public elections. The vote secured from 
 their memberships was so meager and unsatisfactory that the 
 system of voting by mail was inaugurated, and with such splendid 
 results, that now it is being used exclusively by a majority of 
 the above organizations, as a method of voting upon propositions 
 and officers coming before them for election. Where only 10% 
 to 15% of the votes were cast under the old plan of voting in per- 
 son at a particular time and place, 75%, and even 90% of the 
 votes are now cast through the mails, and it is significant to 
 note that the plan of voting by mail has been found by the or- 
 ganizations using it to be free from any objections. This fact, 
 together with the unanimous vote cast, led to the idea of cast- 
 ing votes by mail at direct primaries for the nomination of pub- 
 lic officers by political parties. The system that has been pro- 
 posed is extremely simple, and it appears highly reasonable and 
 practicable. A short outline of the provisions of the bill will as- 
 sist in an understanding of the arguments offered in its favor, 
 and those advanced to refute the objections urged against this 
 Postal Direct Primary Act. 
 
 In the first place, each elector, at the time of registering, de- 
 clares his party allegiance, and this is entered upon his original 
 affidavit of registration. At the same time, he is given a party 
 voting number, which is written or printed upon his affidavit of 
 registration. The Secretary of State, every four years, declares 
 the color of ballots to be used by each party separately. For in- 
 stance, all Republican ballots throughout the State, at every elec- 
 tion must be printed upon pink colored paper and none other; 
 the Democratic ballot upon white colored paper and none other, 
 and so on among the other political parties. 
 
 In order for a candidate's name to be proposed to go on to the 
 primary ballot, it must be proposed by a prescribed number of 
 qualified electors, within the district in which that candidate is 
 to be elected, which names must be subscribed to a verified peti- 
 tion. This entitles the candidate's name to be printed upon the 
 primary ballot. Within ten days before the primary, or return 
 day, the clerk of the board or body which is delegated by law to 
 prepare for election matters must print, prepare and send out, 
 primary election ballots for each separate political party through 
 the United States mails in the following manner: To each elector 
 within the jurisdiction is mailed a plain unmarked envelope, ad- 
 dressed to the business or home address of each separate elector, 
 containing a self-addressed and stamped return envelope, return- 
 able to the Board of Election of that precinct, together with one 
 party primary election ballot, for the use of that elector. If the 
 elector happens to be a Republican the color of his ballot will be 
 pink, and only the names of the Republican candidates will be 
 printed thereon. On the outside end of the ballot is printed the 
 elector's party voting number, which voting number is separate 
 and distinct from every other voting number in that precinct. 
 On the outside end of the return envelope is a line left for the 
 original signature of the elector to whom the ballot is mailed, 
 whereon he must either subscribe his signature in ink, or if he 
 be an incapable voter, and is assisted, must have his own name 
 subscribed thereon, together with the names of two freeholders 
 
XXV111 
 
 in that precinct, who assisted him in voting. Upon receipt of 
 the envelope containing his ballot, the voter marks a cross (X) 
 at the names of the candidates for whom he votes, and then folds 
 his ballot so that all the names thereon are turned inside and 
 out of sight, and his party voting number appears on the out- 
 side end of the envelope. (In the same manner that he now 
 folds his ballot at a general election.) He then encloses this 
 ballot in the stamped return envelope, seals the same, signs his 
 name on the end of the envelope, and deposits it in a post- 
 office box. It then goes to the postoffice directed by law, ad- 
 dressed to the Primary or Return Board, who alone are authorized 
 by law to receive these envelopes from the postmaster, and then 
 only on the day and hour designated by law and in public. 
 Upon return day, the Board receives all of these primary election 
 envelopes from the postoffice, takes them to a public place, and 
 after counting the number received, and comparing with the 
 number originally sent put, compares each signature on each en- 
 velope with the same signature subscribed on the original affi- 
 davit of registration, and if it be genuine, opening the envelope, 
 removing the ballot therefrom, without opening the same, ob- 
 serving that the color of the ballot corresponds to the party 
 color to which that elector belongs, then tearing off the voting 
 number, which appears on the end of the ballot, after comparing 
 it with the voting number written on that elector's affidavit of 
 registration, and then finally depositing the ballot into a general 
 ballot box, into which all the ballots of each political party are 
 deposited. It will thus appear that every ballot has been checked 
 in three ways to identify it as being the original ballot sent to that 
 elector, and as the one cast personally by him: First, it was 
 contained in an envelope bearing his original signature; it bore 
 his own party voting number, which was separate and distinct 
 from every other party voting number in that precinct, and was 
 printed under the authority of law only upon one ballot, namely, 
 the ballot he receives; and finally it was upon the color of 
 paper which only the political party with which that elector was 
 affiliated was allowed by law to use. Every other political party's 
 ballots were printed upon different colored paper. 
 
 This makes it practically impossible for any ballot to be cast 
 or counted other than the one lawfully mailed and regularly re- 
 ceived and voted and mailed in person by the elector to whom 
 it was sent. 
 
 Even the most prejudiced opponents of the Postal Direct Pri- 
 mary bill admit that there are no practical reasons why it would 
 not operate very successfully in the rural districts and the smaller 
 cities and towns. Such an admission is a very far-reaching argu- 
 ment for the bill as a general working measure for direct nomi- 
 nations. It is an open confession that the plan is workable and 
 meritorious. The only objection that has been urged with any 
 semblance of force is the argument that the ballot could be easily 
 corrupted in large cities, where the opportunities for fraud are 
 great, and where the intelligence and honesty of certain classes 
 of voters is low. It is suggested with considerable merit that 
 among the foreign and ignorant classes in the great centers of 
 population, corruption of suffrage is a matter easily accomplished; 
 that there would be many of such voters willing to lend them- 
 selves to any scheme to deliver their primary ballots to certain 
 persons to be voted as they desired under the names of the in- 
 dividual electors. 
 
 At first blush, this argument appears to have some force, but 
 upon close reading of the provisions of the bill, and its necessasy 
 
XXIX 
 
 effect upon the practical operation of a primary campaign, it must 
 be admitted that this sole objection is largely augumentative. 
 In the first place, as pointed out above, each ballot must be cast 
 by the person to whom it was sent, for it is contained in an en- 
 velope bearing the elector's own known signature. Therefore 
 none other can vote the ballot. In the second place, the bill 
 provides for extreme penal penalties for any one tampering with 
 ballots, assisting a voter in the marking of a ballot (other than 
 incapable voters), standing about and watching an elector mark his 
 ballot, or in any wise influencing, or observing a voter in the 
 marking of his ballot at the time it is voted, sealed in the en- 
 velope and dropped in the postofflce. All the penalties are for 
 imprisonment and not for fines. This, then, will force any plan 
 to secure ballots or corrupt the same to be done secretly and 
 illegally. It must appear that there can be no extensive system 
 of vote corruption carried on without discovery. It must further 
 appear that there would be extremely few who would care to 
 general or direct any extensive plan of corrupting or influencing 
 primary ballots. It would be too risky a proceeding. If then 
 votes were corrupted, it would have to be done very secretly and 
 amongst only a trusted few. Therefore the percentage influenced 
 in this manner could not be large. 
 
 Another bar to any tampering with ballots would be the check 
 which each political party and each candidate would have upon 
 the other. It would be a matter of political capital for one party 
 to detect leaders or organizations within another party tamper- 
 ing with or corrupting the vote at its primary election. The 
 various candidates for the different offices within the same party 
 would watch one another with extreme vigilance to detect any at- 
 tempt to influence or corrupt the ballots against them. 
 
 Lastly, it is suggested that because of the fact that these 
 primary election ballots would be sent at the same time to 
 thousands of different places throughout the precinct and city, 
 and would be opened in offices and in homes on the same day. 
 and in all probability fully 75% of them would be voted and re- 
 mailed on the same day received; that it would be practically Im- 
 possible to devise any system that would reach out and get these 
 countless ballots in a thousand different places within a space of a 
 few hours or a day. They would be too scattered to be gotten 
 hold of or traced with any degree of success. 
 
 It must appear from a broad-minded consideration of the 
 practical workings of this Postal Direct Primary law that there 
 is no valid reason why it would not work with splendid success 
 even in the congested and illiterate districts of our larger cities. 
 But even admitting for the sake of argument that a certain per- 
 centage of the ignorant and vicious vote could be corrupted by the 
 bosses, it certainly could not be large. It could not possibly ex- 
 ceed ten per cent of the registered vote. In light of the fact that 
 this sytem would bring out at least twenty-five per cent more 
 votes than any other primary law has ever succeeded in bringing 
 out, it is seen at a glance that the corrupted vote would be far 
 outweighed and overbalanced by the much larger percentage of 
 decent vote that would be secured for the first time by means of 
 this postal system of voting. The argument, then, is unanswer- 
 able in favor of this Postal Direct Primary law. 
 
 And it would for the first time give the intelligent and hon- 
 est elements in all political parties the direct control of the 
 power of nomination for public offices. Moreover, the mere fact 
 that it would cause a larger number of people to vote would be 
 of inestimable value, for it wo'uld tend to rouse and awaken 
 
XXX 
 
 public interest in civic affairs and by thus doing would educate 
 and train the minds of the better classes in election affairs, and 
 could not help but raise the honesty and power of popular suf- 
 frage. In other words, it would accomplish in the fullest degree, 
 the results sought to be obtained by every direct primary law, 
 namely, a popular choice of candidates for public office, with the 
 power of selection for once actually in the hands of the hon- 
 est electors. 
 
 In conclusion, it might be well to mention that this system of 
 voting by mail would protect the suffrage of many of our best 
 citizens, who, under present laws, are practically disfranchised. 
 Such men are travelers, the sick, sailors, trainmen, and other men 
 who, by reason of their occupation or misfortune, are forced to 
 be absent from the place of their voting precincts on election day, 
 but who could and would vote if an opportunity was extended 
 to them to vote by mail. This would constitute no small class 
 of voters. 
 
 DR. MONTGOMERY'S REPORT. 
 
 55 Dr. Montgomery's report to the Senate was as follows: 
 
 Palo Alto, Cal., March 22, 1909. 
 Lieutenant-Governor Warren R. Porter, 
 
 President State Senate, Sacramento, Cal. 
 
 On the afternoon of March 21, 1909, about 4:30 p. m., J. L. 
 Martin, Sergeant-at-Arms of. the Senate of the State of California, 
 called on me and informed me that I had been designated by the 
 President of the Senate to proceed with him to Palo Alto, and to 
 consult with the physicians of Senator Marshall Black, to ascertain 
 if Senator Black's health was such as to permit him to go to Sac- 
 ramento. I arrived at the office of Dr. Howard Black, Senator 
 Black's physician, at about 9:30 p. m., March 21, 1909, and there met 
 Dr. Howard Black, Dr. H. B. Reynolds, Dr. J. C. Spencer and Dr. 
 R. L. Wilbur. These physicians said they had held a consultation 
 and had made an examination of Senator Marshall Black that after- 
 noon; according to their statement, Senator Marshall Black had 
 arrived in Palo Alto about five days previously suffering from in- 
 flammation of the eyes, commonly called "pink eye," and that this 
 inflammation of the eyes had almost entirely cleared up, but that 
 the inflammation traveled down the throat and bronchial tubes. 
 According to their statement to me on the evening of March 21, 
 1909, Senator Marshall Black was suffering from broncho-pneu- 
 monia, and symptoms of inflammation in the lower lobe of the left 
 lung, the temperature that afternon was ninety-nine and the pulse 
 ninety. The heart was in good condition. The cough was severe 
 and the expectoration abundant. I stated to these physicians that 
 I was delegated by the Senate of the State of California to make 
 a thorough and complete examination of Senator Black for the 
 purpose of ascertaining at what time it would be safe for Senator 
 Black to proceed to Sacramento. I was informed by Dr. Howard 
 Black that Senator Marshall Black would not permit me to see 
 him. I then asked Senator Black's physicians, individually and 
 collectively, if in their opinion, in Senator Black's present physical 
 condition any serious inconvenience or injury would accrue to 
 Senator Black from a personal examination by me. They all stated 
 that, on their part, they were perfectly willing that such examina- 
 tion should be held by the Senate physician, and that such an 
 examination in their opinion could dp no injury. I asked if the 
 patient was in sound and disposing mind. I was answered he was. 
 At about 10 a. m., March 22, 1909, I again called on Dr. Howard 
 Black, renewing my request of the previous evening to see Senator 
 Marshall Black. Senator Black, through the physician, still de- 
 
XXXI 
 
 dined to receive me. I then asked Dr. Howard Black when, in his 
 opinion, Senator Marshall Black would be in condition to proceed to 
 Sacramento. He said that at the consultation of the previous day it 
 was concluded that it would be a week before Senator Black would 
 be in such a condition as to enable him with safety to undertake the 
 journey. As this consultation was held on March 21st, it would, 
 in their opinion, be March 28th before Senator Black would be 
 in a condition to proceed to Sacramento. I asked if, in his 
 opinion, Senator Black was convalescing. He said that in his 
 opinion he was. He said that Senator Black's temperature this 
 morning was 100, his pulse 90, his cough still severe, and there 
 still was evidence of inflammation in the lower lobe of the left 
 lung. Personally, from what I know of Senator Black's physicians, 
 I believe these facts to be true. Taking it for granted that these 
 facts are true, I do not find that, from them alone, I can conclude 
 that Senator Black is unable to proceed to Sacramento. In order 
 to concur in this opinion of Senator Black's physicians I would have 
 to see the patient. 
 
 DOUGLASS W. MONTGOMERY, M. D. 
 
 Delegated by Lieutenant-Governor Warren R. Porter to examine 
 into the state of health of Senator Marshall Black. 
 
 THE ANTI-JAPANESE BILL'S RESOLUTION. 
 
 94 The resolution was in full as follows: 
 
 Whereas, Assembly Bill, No. 14, introduced by Mr. Johnson of 
 Sacramento, and reading as follows: 
 
 AN ACT 
 To Amend Section 1662 of the Political Code 
 
 The people of the State of California, represented in Senate 
 and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
 
 Section 1. Section 1662 of the Political Code is hereby amended 
 so as to read as follows: 
 
 1662. Every school, unless otherwise provided by law, must be 
 open for the admission of all children between six and twenty- 
 one years of age residing in the district and the board of school 
 trustees, or city board of education, have power to admit adults 
 and children not residing in the district, whenever good reasons 
 exist therefor. Trustees shall have the power to exclude children 
 of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from contagious 
 or infectious diseases, and also to establish separate schools for 
 Indian children and for the children of Mongolian, or Japanese, 
 or Chinese descent. When such separate schools are established, 
 Indian, Chinese, Japanese or Mongolian children must not be 
 admitted into any other school; provided, that in cities and towns 
 in which the kindergarten has been adopted or may hereafter be 
 adopted as part of the public primary schools, children may be 
 admitted to such kindergarten classes at the age of four years; 
 and provided further, that in cities or school districts in which 
 separate classes have been or may hereafter be established, for the 
 instruction of the deaf, children may be admitted to such classes 
 at the age of three years. 
 Is now pending before this Assembly; and 
 
 Whereas, It has been represented by the President of the 
 United States that the passage of this bill will, in some manner 
 undisclosed, disturb the relations now existing between the govern- 
 ment of the United States and the government of Japan; and 
 
 Whereas, The President of the United States has made known 
 to this Assembly, through the Governor of this State and through 
 the Speaker of this Assembly, his wish that said bill be not 
 passed; and 
 
XXX11 
 
 Whereas, The President of the United States has caused it to 
 be represented to this body that it is his judgment that said bill 
 would conflict with the treaty now existing between the govern- 
 ment of the United States and the government of Japan, and 
 because of such conflict the passage of such bill would be beyond 
 the power of the Legislature of this State, and 
 
 Whereas, The Governor of this State and the Speaker of this 
 Assembly have conveyed to this body their desire that this bill 
 be_not passed; and 
 
 Whereas, It is the desire of this body to accede to the wishes 
 of the Chief Executive of this State, and the Speaker of this 
 Assembly; therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, That it is fitting and proper that a statement of the 
 position of this Assembly upon this question be made, to the end 
 that a mistaken impression do not result from the failure of 
 the Assembly to pass this bill; be it further 
 
 Resolved, That such position is as follows: 
 
 1. The school system of the State of California is an institu- 
 tion of the State alone, maintained, supported, conducted and con- 
 trolled wholly under and in accordance with the powers reserved 
 to the State. 
 
 2. That the power to maintain, conduct and control the State 
 school system has not been granted to the Federal Government. 
 
 3. That the Legislature of California may properly pass any law 
 relative to the school system of this State that in its judgment 
 may seem best. 
 
 4. That by said Assembly Bill No. 14 it is not designed to 
 deprive children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or Japanese des- 
 cent of equal school privileges and opportunities, but, on the 
 contrary, to these there shall be given, and for these there shall 
 be provided the same privileges and opportunities as are given to 
 and provided for all other children. 
 
 5. That Assembly Bill No. 14 contemplates the establishment 
 and maintenance of separate schools for different races, but all 
 schools so established and maintained shall afford equal and the 
 same facilities for instruction. 
 
 6. That this Assembly recognize it to be a duty resting upon 
 the State to furnish to children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or 
 Japanese descent the same facilities and opportunities as are 
 furnished to children of other races and affirm that no more can be 
 required and that nothing different is contemplated by said Act. 
 That said Act gives to children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or 
 Japanese descent who are subjects of other countries the same 
 rights and privileges as are given to native born citizens of 
 California, and no power has the right to demand more. That this 
 Assembly is disposed to accede to the wishes of the Federal 
 Government as conveyed to us by the Governor of this State and 
 the Speaker of this Assembly, but while doing so we reaffirm 
 and reassert that the subject matter of Assembly Bill No. 14 
 is purely and exclusively a matter of State concern, falling within 
 the reserve powers of the State, and violates no provision of the 
 Federal Constitution. 
 
 7. That it is the judgment of this Assembly that said bill does 
 not conflict with the treaty existing between the government of 
 the United States and the government of Japan, and that we 
 recognize the authority to make treaties is by the Federal Consti- 
 tution, vested in the President and Senate of the United States, 
 we affirm that the right to administer our State school system can 
 not be controlled by treaty made by the President and the Senate 
 of the United States, nor by action of the President alone. 
 
 8. And finally, while we recognize that Assembly Bill No. 14 
 
XXX111 
 
 is drawn and could be passed by the Legislature of this State in 
 full conformity with the powers reserved to the State and 
 vouchsafed to it by the Federal Constitution, we are unwilling to 
 do aught which may disturb the relations existing between this 
 government and a friendly power, and for this reason alone, we 
 recommend that Assembly Bill No. 14 be reconsidered and with- 
 drawn. 
 
DAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS AAAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 1 -month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405 
 month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 5EP20 1970 
 
 SEP13B88 
 
 FEB 2 e tw 
 
 ,1 MwwsaMW a 
 
 RECEIVED 
 
 REG, C1R. tiQf I"7"7o^ W 
 
 MAY 2 3 1996 
 
 * o / y\} 
 
 RECEIVED 
 
 CIRCULATION DEPT. 
 
 JUL ^ o 
 
 
 U CIRCULATION DEPT. 
 ttPTP UH 1 Q ife 
 r; AC3A2. 
 
 JUN Oti 199B 
 
 jvi ^ 
 
 MAR 2 n^ anc J " 25 * 
 
 
 
 
 wo IGC MAR 1619^7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 DRM'NO. DD ^^M^o 77 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
90810 
 
 GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LI 
 
 , ~ -A,