Contents:

Page No 1

Page No 2

Page No 3

Page No 4

Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909..............................................................................1

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 centered its efforts, has been selected for detailed consideration. On the score of the moral issues,

the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill has been taken as the most important; 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 AntiRacetrack 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

The efforts of justiceloving men to simplify the criminal 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 socalled 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 blocking 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

Assemblymen who sat in the Legislature of 1909, a knowledge of which the machine managers have had

heretofore 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.

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 Assembly.

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

industrial wellbeing 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 effective and accomplish the purpose for

which they had been drawn. Just as earnestly as they worked for the passage 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,

And yet, regardless of the purpose of this majority, the socalled "Change of Venue" [1] 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

Commonwealth Club bills, drawn to simplify the methods of criminal procedure, were held up and eventually

defeated. The ineffective Wright Railroad Regulation bill became a law, while the Stetson Railroad measure

effective as finally amended was rejected. The provision in the Direct Primary bill for the selection of

United States Senators by Statewide vote was stricken out, and the meaningless advisory, district vote plan

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, accomplished so little; how it was that a minority, at practically every turn, defeated a majority.

(1) The machine, as its name indicates, is a definite organization, with recognized leaders. The antimachine

(2) The reformadvocating majority, except in the antiracetrack gambling fight, was without definite plan of

action. The majority was, for example, for the passage 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 element knew little or nothing of the details of direct primary

They were equally unprepared on other reform issues. They recognized the necessity of passing an effective

railroad 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 proposed reforms were revolutionary, even the

most insistent of the reform element were content to let the simplifying amendments to the codes die in

On the other hand, the machine element, even before 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 antiracetrack gambling law, for a railroad regulation 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

(3) The third reason for the failure of the reform majority is found in the fact that the minority was permitted

to organize both Senate and Assembly. In the Assembly the machine element named the Speaker without

serious opposition. The Speaker named the Assembly committees. It developed at the test that the important

The LieutenantGovernor is, under the State Constitution, presiding officer of the Senate, under the title of

President of the Senate. But the Senators elect the President pro tem., who, in the absence of the President,

has the same power as the President. The reform element, although in the majority, permitted the election of

Senator Edward I. Wolfe as President pro tem. 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 tem. of the

Senate were friendly to machine interests gave the machine great advantage over its antimachine

The reform majority in the Senate made the further mistake of leaving the appointment of the Senate

committees in the hands of LieutenantGovernor 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 "performers" 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 pass, and Warren

Porter named the committees. Thus in both Senate and Assembly the strategic committee positions were

The importance of this on legislation can scarcely be overestimated. Under the system in vogue in

California, the real work of a legislative session is done in committee. When a bill is introduced in either

House, it is at once referred to a committee. Until the committee reports on the measure no further action can

be taken. Thus a committee can prevent the passage of a bill by deliberately neglecting to report it back to the

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 legislation, 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

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 Committee on January 15, were not acted upon by the

committee at all. These bills, in spite of the ten days' rule, remained in the committee sixtyseven days. The

Direct 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 favorable recommendation by a Senate

committee. Thus the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill, the Direct Primary bill, the Local Option bill, received

the stamp of Senate committee 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 Committees.[4]

If machinecontrolled committees could delay action on reform measures, they could at the same time

expedite the passage of bills which the machine element favored, 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 recommendation 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 recommendation. 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 timehonored custom, every attorney at law in the Senate was made a member of

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

President Porter had the naming of the chairman of the committee, and the order of the rank of its members.

The LieutenantGovernor's fine discrimination is shown by the fact that the Chairman of the Committee and

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

It will be seen that the reform majority unquestionably 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

[1] One of the best witnesses to the viciousness of this measure is Governor Gillett, surely an unprejudiced

"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

"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 worst feature about the bill is that it grants this right to the accused after the jury has been secured.

Why, if the defendant didn't like the adverse rulings of the Judge he could easily claim bias and the law

would upheld his demand for another Judge. Think of how that would operate in the Calhoun trial in San

Francisco. Such a law would cost the State thousands of dollars. It's vicious and I will not sign it."

[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, LieutenantGovernor Porter and in his absence the President pro tem., 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 proprimary

Senators to join the machine forces. Had the President pro tem. 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

[4] The action of the Assembly Committee on Public Morals on the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill was a

AntiMachine Republicans, Led Into a Caucus Trap, Surrendered the Appointment of President Pro Tem.,

Secretary and SergeantatArms to the Machine Machine Given the Selection of the Standing Committees.

In the light of the events of the session, the division between the machine or "organization" and antimachine

Antimachine Anthony[5], Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett[5], Cutten, Estudillo, Hurd[5],

Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker (labeled Republicans), Caminetti, Campbell,

Machine Hare, Kennedy (labeled Democrats), Bates, Bills, Finn, Hartman, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli,

Curtin is put down as doubtful because, justly or unjustly, he was at the opening of the session so regarded.

But Curtin's record shows that generally speaking from the beginning to the end of the session he voted with

the antimachine element. Had the antimachine forces made a determined effort to organize the Senate and

demonstrated a strength of twentyone votes, which would have been enough to organize,. Curtin would

certainly have been with them. The same is true of Welch, and it is probably true of Price. This would have

given the antimachine forces from twentytwo to twentyfour votes, a safe margin to have permitted them

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 antimachine fold. This objection

would have more weight had there ever been an antimachine fold. As a matter of fact, the antimachine

element in the Senate from the day the session opened until it closed was unorganized, and without leaders or

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 unconstitutional. All this will be brought out in the chapters on

railroad regulation measures, but in passing, it may be said that Burnett, in the closing hours of the session,

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 Senator Burnett. Machine votes defeated

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 antimachine forces.

The case of Senator Hurd is not at all creditable to the machine. But Hurd's instincts and sympathies are not

those of Gus Hartman, Hare, Wolfe and Leavitt. Had the antimachine forces had even semblance of

organization there would have been no straying, and the accomplishment of the legislative session of 1909

The fact that the antimachine forces, without leaders 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 antimachine forces numbered a majority 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, counting Welch and Price with the machine element,

Antimachine Anthony, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Cutten, Estudillo, Hurd, Roseberry, Rush,

Machine Bates, Pills, Finn, Hartman, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed,

By timehonored 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 majority 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

attends 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 decides. Thus, by going into caucus with the sixteen

machine Senators, the fourteen antimachine 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 machine on the floor of the Senate thirty votes out of forty on questions affecting organization, and

permitted it to name the President pro tem., the Secretary of the Senate, the SergeantatArms, and gave it

Had the line of division in the Senate been Republican and Democratic, the Republicans in the Senate might

very properly have caucused. But inasmuch as the machine Republicans stood during the entire session for

one set of policies, and the antimachine Republicans for another, the caucus was at best an incongruous

affair. Especially is this true when it is considered that the antimachine Republicans immediately after they

had left the caucus united with the antimachine Democrats in a threemonths contest with the united

machine Democrats and machine Republicans. But having surrendered the organization of the Senate to the

machine, the antimachine 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 majority, rather than the

artificial majority, of the Senate caucused on organization, that is to say, had the antimachine Republicans

and the antimachine Democrats caucused, and organized to carry out the policies for which they stood and

for which they fought together during the entire session, the RepublicanDemocraticmachine element

would have been defeated at every turn. But no such policy governed, and the antimachine Republicans

waddled after precedent into the caucus trap that had been set for them. Later on in the session the

antimachine Republicans and antimachine Democrats did go into caucus together, and by doing so won the

In the Republican Senate caucus on organization, the machine Senators, under the crafty leadership of Wolfe

and Leavitt, worked their unhappy antimachine associates 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 antimachine 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 antimachine element was to learn just the sort of "reformer" Wright is. Wright, however, in the

interest of "harmony," was nominated for caucus leadership 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 Thirtyeighth Session of the California Legislature.

The reformers were also permitted to name the Secretary of the caucus. This time a genuine antimachine

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 caucus. Somewhat to the discomfiture of the reformers, Bell

Senator Bell's case is a suggestive one. He is a Republican, having been elected from one of the strongest

Republican districts of the State, the Thirtysixth Senatorial District, which takes in Pasadena. But Senator

Bell was not named by the machine; in fact, he was elected as protest against machine methods. The

Pasadena 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. Arrived at Sacramento at the session of 1907, he applied for

There was ample precedent for his admittance, but curiously enough no antimachine 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

independent candidate against the regular Republican nominee. 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 defeated 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. The machine does not approve such men, nor want them to

Senator Bell, who had, although refused admittance to his party caucus, done very well in 1907, did not

propose to apply for admission to the caucus of 1909. But the reform element in the Senate insisted upon

presenting 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

opposition would be offered his admission to the caucus. Bell rejected the offer with characteristic

promptness. So the antimachine Senators, since they had "organized the caucus," proceeded to admit Bell in

But the inexperienced political mouse discovered that it was not out of the reach of the claws of the

experienced 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 Hurd.[8] The

To admit Bell to the caucus Anthony, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Cutten, Reily, Roseberry, Rush, Savage,

Against admitting Bell to the caucus Bates, Bills, Burnett, Estudillo, Finn, Hartman, Hurd, Leavitt, Lewis,

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 tem., of the

Secretary of the Senate and of the SergeantatArms was not opposed. Senator Price moved that Lewis A.

Hilborn be the caucus nominee for Secretary of the Senate, and J. Louis Martin for SergeantatArms. His

motion carried unanimously. Price also nominated Senator Wolfe for President pro tem. Not an antimachine

Senator protested. Wolfe was accordingly declared the caucus nominee, with the thirty Senators present,

The election of a Chaplain was then taken up and several candidates nominated for the office. Rev. Father H.

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 a

day should be set aside for the Secretary, SergeantatArms and Chaplain; that the LieutenantGovernor

should be allowed $22 a day, and each of the thirty caucus Senators $15 a day. This practically concluded

Republican caucusing for the session. At previous sessions the Republicans 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 antimachine members, had become so pronounced that caucuses of machine and

antimachine Republicans became impracticable. Senator Wright, toward the end of the session, made frantic

efforts to get the caucus together; but he failed. The caucus on organization was about all that the

As they had left the election of the officers of the Senate to the machine, the antimachine element left the

How well the machine, given the appointment of the committees, fortified itself is shown by consideration of

There were, for example, three great issues before the Legislature; namely, the AntiRacetrack Gambling

bill, a moral issue; the Direct Primary bill, a political issue; and the Railroad Regulation bills, a commercial

The AntiGambling bill was to come before the Public Morals Committee, and the machine took good care

that not an antimachine 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 AntiGambling 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 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 committee was made up of seven machine and two antimachine

Machine Senators Leavitt, Hartman, Wolfe, Savage, Wright (labeled Republicans), Kennedy and Hare

Every one of the seven opposed the Statewide plan for the selection of United States Senators.

It is an open secret that the machine expected to control Estudillo through Walter Parker, the Southern Pacific

political agent. Its failure brought some confusion 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 consisted of eleven members. Seven of the eleven, if Burnett

who voted with the machine on this issue be counted with them, were machine, one was "band wagon[10],

Machine Bates, Wright, McCartney, Burnett, Bills, Finn (labeled Republicans), Kennedy (labeled

Antimachine Walker, Roseberry (labeled Republicans), 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 Stetson 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

It is not necessary to continue consideration of the committees. Enough has been said to show how

thoroughly the machine minority, given the appointment of the committees, strengthened itself in the Senate

by seizing every strategic position. Indeed, the machine fortified itself with such farseeing intelligence, that

one marvels that the antimachine majority was able to offer even temporarily effective opposition.

[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 antimachine forces maintained

any sort of organization, or had they had definite plan of action, would have been found consistently on the

side of good government. Burnett was unquestionably 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, nevertheless took

active part in the antimachine caucus on the Direct Primary bill, and, had the organization of the Senate

been in the hands of the antimachine element, the writer firmly believes, would have continued with the

reform forces. At any rate, he was available for any antimachine movement that might have been started to

organize the Senate. Hurd, like Burnett, will have his opportunity in 1911. Both Senators hold over.

[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

antimachine Senators. Thus the real majority consisted of antimachine Senators, and the minority of the

[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 Hurd's was

inconsistent with those which he cast up to the time of his vote with the machine forces against the Stetson

[8a] Up to the session of 1909, the members of the Legislature fixed the amount of patronage. At the session

of 1907, the payroll 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 of

patronage, the money to be expended for legislative officers and attaches, to $500 a day for each House. This

cut the Patronage down something more than onehalf, which gave the Senators and Assemblymen who

The development of the patronage scandal during the last decade is interesting. At the session of 1901 the

Assembly patronage 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

The increase continued in 1905. in that year Assembly Patronage totaled $7956.50 a week, or $1135 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 to $6893.50 a week, or $985 a day. What it would have been in 1909 had there been no

[10] The term "band wagon" was applied during the session to those members who were in the habit of

Independent Movement to Resist the Machine's Program Failed Reform Element Rallied and Rejected

Rules Prepared by Committee Appointed by Stanton, Which Would Have Placed Majority at Mercy of the

The machinefree 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

The organization of the Assembly hinges on the election of the Speaker. The machine ordinarily picks the

Speaker before the November elections, so his election need not stir up any particular enthusiasm. But there

This year the machine had picked Phil Stanton, of Los Angeles, for the job, but Bob Beardslee, of Stockton,

The San Francisco newspapers along in November and December recorded the political ripple of the contest,

but the fight was a dead affair, and nobody enthused. The play came to a tame ending when Beardslee

nominated Stanton for the Speaker's job and got the Chairmanship of the important Committee on Ways and

But at one time a real fight for the Speakership threatened. Assemblyman Drew, of Fresno, and other stanch

antimachine men, conceived the radical notion that it was idiotic for them to sit around like lambs waiting to

have their throats cut, while the machine organized 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

Fortyone votes are required to elect the Speaker. The reformers figured on the nineteen Democratic

members as with them. The LincolnRoosevelt League had elected Assemblymen from several counties,

including Alameda. These were naturally counted on. Other reputable Republican members were expected to

The purpose of the leaders of this departure from the regular rules of the political game should have

commended itself to every good citizen. Their idea was to organize the Assembly, not for selfadvancement,

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 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 LincolnRoosevelt 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 LincolnRoosevelt Republicans like Mott, Pulcifer and Feeley, as a

general thing voted with the machine Republicans. There were, to be sure, Democrats like Gillis, Johnson of

Placer, Juilliard, Maher, Mendenhall, Polsley, Preston, Wilson, Odom and Stuckenbruck, 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 unaccountable 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

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 appropriated by legislative enactment for the maintenance

and enlargement, where necessary, of the various State institutions, 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

Assemblymen 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 Assemblyman 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 practically any

appropriation bill. The member of the Legislature who would oppose the machine thus finds himself 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

constituentdemanded 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 independent movement to organize the Assembly

Stanton was elected Speaker without opposition. The "defeated" Beardslee placed him in nomination.

Complete harmony prevailed. Stanton started proceedings by appointing the Committee on Rules. This

committee was charged with drafting rules for the government of the Assembly during the session. It was

made up of Assemblymen Johnston of Contra Costa, Transue, Johnson of Sacramento, Beardslee and

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 influencing 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

appointed 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 calculated to give "Cannonism" a stronger hold in California, which would have influenced not

only the session of 1909 but, as a precedent, many sessions to come.[11] 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 radical. 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

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 rules of 1907 a measure could be advanced 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 twothirds vote would have been necessary to suspend the rules to have a bill

recalled from committee, that is to say, the votes of fiftyfour Assemblymen. Twentyseven Assemblymen

Had the committeeprepared rules been adopted, the probabilities are that the battleground of the session

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 rejecting the rules submitted by the committee, and substituting

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 antimachine forces, and

brought gloom to the scheming machine leaders. But it developed later that not a few who had voted for the

Drew resolution were safely machine; while many who had voted against it were antimachine, but had

voted against the 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 appointment of the committees. By and large, the Assembly

committees were controlled as were the Senate committees by machine standbys. The Election Laws

Committee, 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

The Committee on Corporations and the Committee on Common Carriers, before which railroad regulation

One apparent exception to the rule was the Committee on Public Morals, which gave the AntiGambling bill

its start toward passage. But this committee, which did so much to secure the passage of the AntiGambling

bill, held up the Local Option bill at Speaker Stanton's request, until the last week of the session, thus making

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 antimachine, but possessed of a nonpolitical honesty which

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

Telfer saved the State several hundred dollars, but caused many a heartache. Telfer's appointment to a

committee which he made important, shows that the machine element as well as the antimachine sometimes

makes mistakes. But in spite of its minor mistakes, in spite of the antimachine majority, so admirably did

the machine 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 Assembly was made the graveyard of good

[11] If ever the People of California secure control of the State Legislature through machinefree

representatives with the courage to dare and the ability to do, one of the most important pieces of work will

be to sweep aside the mass of precedent which the machine 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

For the Drew resolution and against the committee rules: Assemblymen Black, Bohnett, Callan, Cattell,

Cogswell, Collum, Costar, Cronin, Drew, Flint, Gibbons, Hammon, Hanlon, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Hopkins,

Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Lightner, Maher, Melrose, Mendenhall, Odom, Otis, O'Neil, Polsley,

Preston, Rech, Rutherford, Sackett, Silver, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Wagner, Webber, Wheelan, Whitney,

Against the Drew resolution and for the committee rules: Assemblymen 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,

[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

organization 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 legislation 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 organization is always looking for. They want a certain number of old "standbys"

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."

[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

Deliberately Held Up Measures in Committees Until the Close of the Session, When Senate and Assembly

Were Forced to Take Snap Judgment on Hundreds of Measures In the Confusion Thus Created, Good Bills

The Legislature organized, the machine and antimachine forces settled down to the work of the session. The

situation was unique. The antimachine element had a comfortable majority in the Assembly and at least a

bare majority in the Senate. But the machine controlled 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 AntiRacetrack Gambling bill, it might be

found necessary to send the SergeantatArms after Senators who might attempt to dodge the vote, not a

single attache of the SergeantatArms' 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 Engrossing Committee had been an employee at Frank Daroux's notorious Sausalito poolrooms. These

Although the machine controlled the strategic positions of the organization of the Legislature, it was still in

the minority in each House. This meant that the machine could not, in open fight, pass a vicious or

undesirable measure, or put through any of its schemes. The machine'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 admirably 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

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 returned. If possible it would be further delayed by

amendment 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

indefinitely. 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 reprinted, and again acted upon by the

But it must not be thought that the Senate and Assembly 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

The reform element, working sixteen hours a day not unlike so many mice in a wheel, were apparently in

complete 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 act on Senate bills." The Senate made the same threats as to Assembly bills.

So, for about a week, Senate committees openly slighted Assembly bills, while Assembly committees in

retaliation slighted Senate bills. The situation was very amusing; it was, too, highly satisfactory to the

About the first week in March the Legislature adjourned March 24 the antimachine 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 committees. The reform members of each House

had good cause for alarm. Every Senator and Assemblyman has his "pet" measures. The reform Senators and

Assemblymen 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

machinecontrolled committee, 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

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 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 machine minority was merely

reaping the benefits of a situation which the cleverness of its leaders had created.

Although machineadvocated and unimportant measures could be passed in such a situation, bills which the

machine opposed could not be[17]. Machineopposed 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, intended to take the Judiciary out of

politics, which after a long contest passed the Senate, was held up in the Assembly 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 adjournment. Thus two months and eleven days were required to wear out its advocates.

About March 1, the machine began to crowd the antimachine 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 antimachine forces had the votes to prevent adjournment but

the machine's adjournment plans added considerably to antimachine 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

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 antimachine forces, Republican and Democratic, were during those last days, merely

reaping the harvest which they had sown when they permitted the DemocraticRepublican machine to take

[15] The Senate Committee on Election Laws, for example, held the Direct Primary bill for thirtyeight days,

and finally reported it back so amended that it had to be rewritten. See chapters VI and VII on efforts of the

[16] It was stated on the floor of the Assembly, that were the Ten Commandments to be adopted by the

[17] The most astonishing example of this was furnished by the passage of the Change of Venue bill in the

Opposition to Perkins Overcome by the Dead Weight of the Machine Movement Against His Reelection

No funeral was ever attended by greater somberness than was the reelection of George C. Perkins to the

United States Senate, January 1213, 1909. The nominating speeches were made without enthusiasm; 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 concluded his review of the Senator's life and political career, the incipient murmur of approval

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

California had no voice in it, nor, for that matter, the Legislature, 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 Senate and Assembly went through the forms

But it must not be thought that the reelection 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' reelection for months; but the opposition to Perkins made no

The first outward sign of opposition came from Assemblyman E. J. Callan of the Thirtyninth 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 misplaced "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 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

Thus, when Perkins craftily invited his opponents to attack him on his record, they dodged the trap gingerly,

all save Callan. Callan 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

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

stranglehold upon the State is locked with federal patronage; on his attitude toward the socalled "Roosevelt

policies"; on his attitude toward the Roosevelt administration, 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 wellmeaning reformers, and the intense satisfaction of the machine, whose

somewhat anxious leaders recognized full well that Callan's discomfiture would discourage attacks from

The next move against Perkins came the week before the Legislature convened. A number of antimachine

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 twentynine votes and the

Republicans ninetyone. Sixtyone votes are required for the election of a Senator. The Republicans at the

meeting considered these twentynine votes as with them in the selection of an antimachine Republican for

Perkins' place. The antimachine Republicans thus in revolt against the machine, themselves numbered

twenty Senators and Assemblymen, which made fortynine 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 antiPerkins element sixtyone votes, just enough

to elect. For one of their number to fail, meant a deadlock; for two, if Republicans, to fail meant Perkins'

election. It was a slender chance, but the possibility of success kept the movement alive until the hour of the

Those who were promoting the movement were not at the time aware that six of the Democratic

Assemblymen 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

The antiPerkins 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

Under the United States Revised Statutes, the Legislature 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 nonresistance of a wretch in the hands of a hangman.

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

The caucus was of course hopelessly programmed for Perkins. Nevertheless, the better element of the party

endeavored to secure some expression from Senator Perkins as to his attitude toward the Western

transportation problem. This led to a heated debate which kept the caucus in session until a late hour. The

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 additional 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

In August, 1907, Hon. J. L. Bristow, now United States Senator from Kansas, was appointed a Special

Panama Railroad Commissioner, to investigate the necessity and feasibility of putting on the Pacific line. Mr.

Bristow, in a report that fairly sizzled with criticism of Southern Pacific and Pacific Mail Steamship

Company methods, recommended that the government line be established. 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, asking that he concern himself with having

government steamers put on the San FranciscoPanama route. Bristow 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 Perkins 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

Immediately the proPerkins people assumed the dignified 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 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

Perkins was permitted to maintain a dignified silence on the Bristow charges. After the vote on the resolution,

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. Fiftysix

In the Senate, Perkins received thirtytwo votes. The thirty regular Republicans voted for him, as did Senator

Bell, the IndependentRepublican, and Senator Caminetti, Democrat. Senator Caminetti voted for Perkins

because Caminetti regarded Perkins, as nearly as could be determined, 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 reelected. So, regardless of partisan

considerations, Caminetti the Democrat voted for Perkins the Republican. Caminetti's explanation of his vote

The regular candidate of the minority for the Democratic 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,

Assemblymen Black, Collum, Hopkins, Lightner, O'Neil and Wheelan and Senator Hare voted for Harry P.

Flannery, a San Francisco saloonkeeper; the eighth, Senator Kennedy, 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, Juilliard, Maher, Mendenhall, Odom, Polsley, Preston, Stuckenbruck and Webber.

[19] It is interesting to note that when a good citizen gives effective 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

antimachine man to so aspire or the suspicion in machine breasts that he so aspires is heralded as

[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

[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 11,

[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 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 off

"The last session of the Legislature failed to enact the necessary legislation on the subject, but the people of

my district have nevertheless plainly indicated to me that Hon. George C. Perkins was at the last election, and

"Under these circumstances I feel in honor bound by my pledges to the people of the Tenth Senatorial

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 partisanship 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

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 Element 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 AntiRacetrack Gambling bill the last named was the only one to become

a law untrimmed of its effective features. The AntiRacetrack Gambling bill passed the Assembly, passed the

Senate and was signed by the Governor precisely as it had been introduced; there was not so much as the

change of a comma allowed. The result is an antigambling law on California statute books which if it work

as well as it has in other States will prevent bookmaking and poolselling, thus relieving horse racing of the

Since the reform element succeeded in passing the AntiRacetrack 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 progambling lobby was on the ground, and continued

its holdup process until the Assembly, by a vote of 67 to 10, passed the measure, and by a vote of 57 to 19

The writer remembers his first poll of the Senate on the antigambling issue, when only nineteen Senators

could be safely counted for it[24]; twentyone 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 antipool selling bill, but this did not necessarily mean the effective WalkerOtis 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 gambling, but do racetrack gambling little or

These uncertain ones were blocked in their plan of action because the proponents of the AntiGambling 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

antigambling law, the adoption of which Governor Hughes forced in New York, and which in New York

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 WalkerOtis

This determined stand for the passage of the measure just as it had been drawn thoroughly alarmed the

gambling lobby. "Reformers" who would not "compromise" proved a new experience. The machine never

compromises until it is whipped. Accordingly, when public opinion demanded action on the WalkerOtis

bill, the machine Senators began to talk of compromise. In fact, up to the hour of the vote on the bill in the

Senate, Senator 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

The moment before Wolfe had been warning the Senate that to pass the WalkerOtis bill would tend to

wreck the Republican party in California. Just what the WalkerOtis 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 AntiGambling bill two years before, and was

prepared to prevent the enactment of an effective antigambling 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 WalkerOtis

bill, and has given California an effective law. The lesson 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

machine 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 antimachine element did not compromise with

the machine on the WalkerOtis bill, with the result that an effective law was passed.

From the beginning, the antigambling element let it be known that no suggestion of compromise would be

entertained. They announced boldly that if the machine succeeded in amending the measure, they, the

antigambling 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 illustrated by an interview with Senator Walker, which appeared in the Sacramento Bee on January 19.

"If the Hughes bill can not pass the California Legislature 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 antigambling law, such as New York enjoys, be placed on the

So there was no compromise with the machine on the WalkerOtis 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

When the machine found there was to be no compromise, a curious series of mishaps became the lot of the

WalkerOtis bill, particularly in the Senate. The measure, when introduced, was, in the ordinary course of

legislation, 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

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" typographical 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 WalkerOtis bill until the end of

the session, as it did the Direct Primary bill, and then amend it to suit machine purposes or defeat it

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 transmitting 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 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 WalkerOtis measure.

Martinelli in the Senate and Butler in the Assembly had introduced an AntiPool Selling, AntiBook Making

bill. The measure had much to commend it but was by no means so effective as the WalkerOtis bill. As a

last straw, the gambling element grasped at the MartinelliButler bill, and threw their influence on the side of

its passage. But here they again met with the uncompromising 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 consternation upon the machine forces.

Section 1. A new section is hereby added to the Penal Code to be known as Section three hundred and

aye. Every person, who engages in pool selling 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 who 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 registering 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, 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

apparatus 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 Twentyninth and Thirtyfirst Senatorial Districts revolted against the

machine at the general election of 1908, the WalkerOtis bill would probably have been defeated in the

Senate. In the chapter dealing with the passage of the MillerDrew Reciprocal Demurrage bill, it will be

shown how the Democratic Senators Holohan and Campbell were elected in the Republican Twentyninth

and Thirtyfirst Senatorial Districts, not because they were Democrats, but because the Republicans of those

districts, recognizing the real issue before the State the machine against the antimachine 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 foremost in their support of the AntiRacetrack 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 upon to vote against

an effective antigambling bill. Had machine men sat in the seats occupied by Holohan and Campbell, the

gamblers would have had twentyone votes in the Senate, and the WalkerOtis bill would have been

[25] Much of the credit for this determined stand is due Earl H. Webb, president of the AntiRacetrack

Gambling League, who managed the fight for effective antiracetrack gambling legislation not only during

the session of the Legislature, but before the Legislature convened. Mr. Webb first convinced himself that the

WalkerOtis 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

AntiMachine Element Forced the Issue and Compelled Early Action on the Measure Evidence That

Machine Planned to Defeat or Amend the Bill by Delaying Its Passage Until Toward the End of the Session.

As one looks back over the exciting first five weeks of the session, when the WalkerOtis bill was under

consideration, it is plain that the machine would have preferred to have made its initial fight in the Senate. If

defeated 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

But the initial fight did not come in the Senate. The Assembly was the battleground. 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, poolselling features of the track as Senator Walker

himself. Griffiths 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 WalkerOtis bill. On

January 18, less than three weeks after the Legislature had assembled, Chairman Griffiths called his

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, Perine, Fleisher and Wilson. The seven

members went through the bill paragraph by paragraph and decided unanimously to recommend it for

Had a dynamite bomb been set off under the Emeryville gambling establishment, greater consternation could

scarcely have seized upon the progambling 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. Twentyfour 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

Assemblyman Mott was elected as a LincolnRoosevelt League member. Probably the LincolnRoosevelt

League does not like to be reminded of that unfortunate fact. But the lesson of Mr. Mott is so necessary for

the LincolnRoosevelt League and all other reform movements 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 LincolnRoosevelt Republican platform of his county pledged him to it. But there is a

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 Jerk Burke, Southern Pacific lobbyist, safely entrenched across the hall from Speaker

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.

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 rereferred to the Committee on

Public Morals, eight members of which had joined in recommending 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

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

The Gibbons motion having been disposed of, Assemblyman Butler moved to amend the measure, by

substituting for it the MartinelliButler bill. But again did the antigambling element force the issue. The

Other proposed amendments having been voted down, Mr. Otis moved that the bill be put on its passage the

next day, January 21. This was a final blow at the machine'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 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 circumstances. Sixtyseven Assemblymen voted for it; only

By consulting the table showing the six votes on this bill Table "D" of the appendix it will be seen that

eleven of the twentythree Assemblymen who voted for Mott's motion to refer the measure back to the

Committee on Public Morals voted for its final passage. Two, Baxter and Schmitt, who had voted for the

Mott resolution, 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, Johnson 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 WalkerOtis bill could be delayed in the

Assembly, to give notice of a motion to reconsider the vote by which the measure had been passed. Grove L.

Johnson came to the rescue with the notice. This tied the bill up for another twentyfour hours. On the 2nd

Johnson made his motion to reconsider but was defeated by a vote of nineteen to fiftyseven.

The table of the six votes on the WalkerOtis 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

Public opinion was running high for the passage of the WalkerOtis 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, president of the California jockey Club, made upon

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

Williams 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 uncalledfor attack on Dr. Baker would have killed his

argument, but not content with this, he made probably the most astounding attack on the Protestant clergy of

the country ever heard in California, certainly the most astonishing ever heard in the Senate chamber of the

The racetrack man's tirade did not give the reasons 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,

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

In the Senate and Assembly, out of a total vote of 120, the gambling element, which had year after year

succeeded in preventing the passage of an antiracetrack gambling bill, commanded on the measure's final

passage but seventeen votes. The incident illustrates what aroused public opinion, when it finds expression in

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 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 complete their season at the Emeryville track.

[26] Of the six votes taken in the Assembly on the WalkerOtis bill issue, Mott in effect voted four times

[27] It was Jerk 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

[28] This first test vote in the Assembly on the WalkerOtis 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, Johnston 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: Barndollar, Bratty, Bohnett, Butler, Callan, Cattell, Collier,

Costar, Cronin, Dean, Drew, Flavelle, Fleisher, Flint, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Griffiths, Hammon, Hanlon,

Hans. Hawk, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Holmquist, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kiwi, Leeds, Lightner,

Maher, McClellan, Melrose, Mendenhall, Otis, Perine, Polsley, Preston, Pulcifer, Rech, Rutherford, Sackett,

Silver, Stanton, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Transue, Whitney, Wilson, Wylie, Young 53.

[29] The several votes taken on the WalkerOtis bill will be found In the table "D" of the appendix.

[30] Johnson of Sacramento voted for the bill to give notice that he would the next day move for its

reconsideration. Reconsideration can be secured only by a member voting with the majority. Had Johnson

[31] Attention is called to the vote on reconsideration of Assemblyman Feeley, of Alameda, another

LincolnRoosevelt 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

Mr. Feeley, like Mr. Mott, was nominated by the LincolnRoosevelt 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 antimachine

element nominate him, thereby losing all the chance they, might have had of electing a man who would be in

[32] In 1907, a measure similar to the WalkerOtis 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 AntiRacetrack

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 WalkerOtis bill. The gambling element had no

complaint to make of the Committee on Public Morals which Lieutenant Governor Porter had appointed.

[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 speaking for the

WalkerOtis bill, to demand of him how it is that at the polls the gamblers of that city invariably defeat the

"You will remember, Mr. Daroux," came back Treat, "that at the last general election you and I discussed that

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.

For the bill: Anthony, Bates, Bell, Bills, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright,

Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Hurd, Kennedy, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Miller, Price, Roseberry,

Rush, Sanford, Savage, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker, Welch, Willis, Wright 33.

Parallel Between It and the WalkerOtis Bill Attempt to Placate the Machine Weakened Position of Its

Supporters Most Serious Criticism Came from Advocates of the Direct Primary Idea What the Original

The parallel between the WalkerOtis AntiRacetrack Gambling bill and the WrightStanton Direct Primary

bill furnishes the most suggestive feature of the Legislative 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

racecourse in the interest of the gambling element; the second to prevent the domination in public affairs of

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

Legislature. Each had the determined secret opposition, and so far as it dared, the open opposition of the

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 pass them as sop to The People. This would

have given The People a Direct Primary law without a direct primary; an AntiGambling law that would

The proponents of the AntiGambling bill introduced an AntiGambling 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

The proponents of the Direct Primary bill, on the other hand, seemed possessed of the notion that they must

The backers of the AntiGambling 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

The results of the two campaigns speak for the effectiveness of the two methods. The AntiGambling

element put through an effective AntiGambling bill, refusing 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

Long before the Legislature convened it was common talk at San Francisco that the backers of the Direct

Primary 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 Primary law at all, the jellyfish attitude of the leaders in the movement caused no little unfavorable

It did not seem to occur to the selfconstituted 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

AntiGambling bill and insist that the Legislature go on record for or against it.

Instead, they endeavored to satisfy everybody, apparently 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

However unwarranted this assumption from appearances 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

pickpockets 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 AntiGambling bill pursued the

same policy, and treated the machine leaders as possible friends instead of recognized enemies, Wolfe,

Leavitt and the other machine leaders would unquestionably have dictated the provisions of the

AntiGambling bill, and have forced that compromise which Wolfe in his speech on the WalkerOtis bill

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

bosscontrolled convention is done away with, and the candidate for office nominated by the direct vote of

The play of the machine was to make the direct nomination difficult and impracticable and, if possible,

entirely ineffective. The real supporters of the Direct Primary 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 confusing 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 candidate. Throughout, the measure made it smooth sailing for the mere partisan and extremely

hard for independent 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 general election, and intends to so vote at the

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

But this, and similar unfortunate provisions were practically lost sight of in the fight made over the provisions

for the nomination of United States Senators, and remained in the measure as it was finally enacted into law.

It may be, as the machine element contends, that provision 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

The Federal laws provide that United States Senators shall be elected by the Legislature. But in States where

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 Legislature to cast their votes for such candidate for the

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

recognized that where it is possible for the voter to express a choice for United States Senator, the legislative

candidate 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] represents 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 successful primary nominee going on the regular ballot the

The Senatorial candidate who receives the highest number of votes is not, of course, elected to the United

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

But it is noticeable that in Oregon and other States where such wholesome direct primary measures have

become 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 himself. 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 himself to abide, not by the selection of the electors of the State, but by the selection of

The name of a candidate for the United States Senate did not, under the original WrightStanton bill, go on

the final ticket. His choice was confined to the primaries and was at best to be regarded only by the legislators

of his own political faith. The People of California were not to be given a direct vote in the selection of

If the framers of the WrightStanton Primary bill thought that their compromise on the United States Senator

feature of the measure would placate the machine, they were much disappointed. The machine fought the

arrangement for popular selection of United States Senators within party lines as positively as it would have

Under either plan, the machine recognized there was always danger that the selection of a United States

Senator would actually be made by The People. This would mean loss to the machine of Federal patronage,

and Federal patronage is the sure rock upon which the machine in California is founded. Indeed, had either

plan been incorporated into law, the reelection of Senator Frank Flint would have been made practically

impossible. So the machine fought the WrightStanton plan as stubbornly as it would have opposed the

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. The extreme partisanship of its provisions and the failure to provide for popular selection of United

States Senators hurt the measure with its friends, and failed to placate its enemies. From the beginning the

This was demonstrated at the public hearing, held January 26th, to consider the various provisions of the

Mr. Johnson dealt with the Direct Primary in a general way. He spoke of it in its relation to practical politics,

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 concluded 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 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

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 Election Laws. The AntiGambling 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 Primary bill, but the Public Morals Committee had been stacked against the AntiGambling bill as

well. But the opponents of racetrack gambling were satisfied with the WalkerOtis bill, while the proponents

of the Direct Primary for California were by no means satisfied with the WrightStanton bill.

So the machine dared do with the Direct Primary bill what it did not dare do with the AntiGambling bill.

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 succeeded in getting his committee together for

That the machine proposed to make the bill inoperative 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

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 candidates 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 impossible to nominate a candidate

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 candidates for the Legislature would be required to regard the

choice of the electors of their several districts as advisory. The vote was in no way to be held binding, 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 Senatorial districts. The effect would be, of course, the

endorsement 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

[35] In addition to the WrightStanton bill, Senator Roseberry introduced a measure providing for a postal

primary. In the appendix will be found Senator Roseberry's views on the postal primary plan.

[35a] The writer has been reliably informed that this concession was made to the machine before a member

[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 PRIMARY BILL. The machine claquers is never at a loss for an excuse for

[36] The original WrightStanton 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

"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 preference, I will always vote for that

candidate for United States Senator in Congress who shall have received for that office the highest number of

votes cast by my party at the September primary election next preceding the election of a Senator in

If the legislative candidate did not care to sign this pledge, he was given the alternative of signing the

"I further declare to The People of California and to The People of the ... (Senatorial or Assembly) District

that during 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."

Reform Forces, Regardless of Party, Unite to Secure the Passage of an Effective Direct Primary LawAgree

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 17th, and

during the month that it slumbered in the Senate Committee on Election Laws there was no reason to believe

that Senator Wright was not in sympathy with the provisions of the measure. On February 1st, however,

Senator Wright made the astonishing confession before the Committee on Election Laws that he was not in

sympathy 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

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

The first amendment provided that a majority instead of a plurality vote should nominate, a provision as

unconstitutional as impracticable. The second amendment cut out of the measure all provision for popular

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 Senator

in Congress who shall have received for that office the highest number of votes cast by my party. I do

believe, 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

Wolfe, Leavitt and the rest of the machine Senators grinned exultantly as Wright stated that he did not

approve 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 proprimary 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, proprimary leader and Callheralded reformer, offered an amendment

as substitute for popular Statewide choice for United States Senator, by making the vote for United States

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 twentyfour hours to

think it over. Then they bluntly rejected Wright's compromise, the solid six, Wolfe, Leavitt, Savage,

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

"With this amendment," said Senator Stetson, in explaining his vote, "the bill is not onehalf 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 Estudillo stated that he voted for the amendment against his better judgment.

"I don't believe in your amendment, Senator Wright," said Estudillo, turning to that gentleman. "I don't think

it amounts to anything. I vote with you against my better 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 recognized leader in this Direct Primary fight, and vote for his 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 nomination of candidates for office, instead of the constitutional and practical plurality vote, as originally

The fact should not be lost sight of that the two Senators 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 AntiGambling 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 antimachine Republican and antimachine Democrats united for its passage, Wolfe and

Machine Senators denounced the antimachine Republicans as mongrels, enemies of the Republican party,

and insisted that if the antimachine Republicans persisted in continuing with the antimachine Democrats to

secure the passage of an effective Direct Primary law, the Republican 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 antimachine Republicans and the anti machine Democrats together as a matter of selfdefense.

The antimachine Republicans and Democrats saw the machine Democrats and Republicans united to defeat

the passage of an effective Direct Primary measure. So the antimachine 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 defeat of bad ones with the

The "bandwagon" Senators of the Welch variety, and the doubtful Senators, were left for the moment to

The antimachine 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,

Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Cutten, Estudillo, Hurd, Price, Roseberry, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson,

Walker and Wright; the Democrats, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Miller and Holohan. George Van

Smith, of the San Francisco Call, credited with being an expert on Direct Primary legislation, was admitted to

Senator Price, however, became alarmed at the irregularity of antimachine 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 proprimary

forces, opposed not only to the Oregon plan, but to any plan that would give electors a Statewide 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 antimachine caucus.

Curiously enough, after the machine had worn the antimachine forces out, Caminetti was the only Senator

who refused to accept the machine's amendments to the bill which the antimachine caucus had agreed upon.

With Price and Caminetti out, the antimachine 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

The eighteen organized by electing Senator Estudillo chairman, and Senator Boynton secretary. Senator

Wright made a short address in which he virtually threw up his hands. He told what the WolfeLeavitt

element had done with the bill in committee, and stated that unless the antimachine forces got together, the

machine would amend the measure into ineffectiveness. Following Wright's address the antimachine

(1) Shall a mere plurality, or a majority, or a high plurality be required to nominate at a primary election?

(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 motion that a twentyfive per cent plurality be required to

nominate. The machine aimed to fix the plurality at forty per cent, but even the twentyfive per cent

Then came discussion of the clause quoted in the previous 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, although personally they favored the elimination of all

The question of primary nomination of candidates for the United States Senate was then taken up. Senator

Wright moved that the vote for Senators be advisory only, and that it be by Assembly and Senatorial districts

Against Wright's motion Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Cartwright, Cutten, Holohan, Miller, Roseberry,

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. Twentyone

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 antimachine forces had only nineteen. They could not afford to lose even one of

"Gentlemen," he said, "I would like to have the Oregon plan incorporated into this bill, But that seems to be

impracticable at this time. Eventually, I am sure California 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

meeting 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

The uniting of the antimachine Senators to fight the combined machine Democrats and Republicans called

down upon the antimachine element the denunciation of the machine press. The Catkins newspapers, for

example, sputtered their condemnation of Republican Senators who would unite with Democratic Senators in

On the other hand the San Francisco Call, at that time warmly supporting the antimachine movement in the

Senate, was extreme in denouncing LieutenantGovernor 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

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 nonpartisan caucus of

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

The debate was over this resolution. The motion for its adoption was defeated by a vote of twentyseven

Incidentally, the debate settled one of the most important questions affecting the bill, namely, the percentage

of votes to be required for primary nominations. The machine, to render the measure inoperative, was

contending for a majority or at least a high plurality vote, while the antimachine element was contending for

a mere plurality. The debate developed the fact, that any provision for other than a mere plurality vote would

be unconstitutional. This service was performed by Senator Cutten of Humboldt[41]. Senator Cutten's clear

presentation of this much discussed point, settled the vote percentage question right there. When the measure

was under consideration by the Assembly Election Laws Committee, Grove L. Johnson did suggest that a 40

per cent plurality be required to nominate. But no serious attempt was made so to amend the bill, after

Naturally, the antimachine forces felt warmly encouraged by this complete defeat of the machine. The San

Francisco Call, the recognized advocate of the Direct Primary bill, the next day, February 19th, said of the

"Twentyseven Senators at Sacramento stood true to their party pledges, and voiced the will of the people in

their votes on the Direct Primary bill yesterday. Thirteen other Senators wrote into the record conclusive

proof of their unfitness for the offices they hold, when they voted against the WrightStanton 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."

The Call was as generous in its praise of the antimachine 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

twentyseven who had voted against the McCartney amendment, under the heading, "These Men Voted for

Said the Call in its admirable report of the defeat of the McCartney amendment, of the original nineteen

"Genuine manhood has been on tap at every conference of the independents. They have not squabbled for

partisan advantage. They have worked together 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 cooperation of the

Said the Call of the measure itself in its issue of February 18th the day of the defeat of the machine

"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 antimachine Senators to join with

the machine Senators whom they had once defeated, and accept 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 manhood" had on February 18 appealed to its

But such was to be. And, too, the combination of Calkins Syndicate, LieutenantGovernor 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 antimachine 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

[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 ascertaining

[38] On February 17th the Call said of Senator Eddie Wolfe's opposition to the bill:

"The fight (Direct Primary) 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."

"Leavitt, who bossed the fight against the OtisWalker bill, will furnish the brains for the fight against the

Direct Primary bill, and every one of the seven who voted against the OtisWalker bill, are more or less

frankly against the primary bill. Savage, who did not vote against the WalkerOtis bill because his vote

would have done no good, and Hartman and Hare, who did vote against the OtisWalker 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 opposed to any direct primary law."

"Resolved, That Senate Bill No. 3, and all pending amendments thereto, be and the same is hereby referred to

"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 before 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

"3. Amend the bill by providing that the convention aforesaid shall prepare the platform of the party and

Against the McCartney amendment and in effect for the bill agreed upon by the antimachine Senators:

Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo,

Holohan, Hurd, Lewis, Martinelli, Miller, Price, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson,

For the McCartney amendment and in effect against the bill agreed upon by the antimachine Senators:

Bates, Bills, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Kennedy, Leavitt, McCartney, Reily, Savage, Weed, Willis, Wolfe 13.

[41] Cutten showed that Section 13, Article XX of the State Constitution provides that "a plurality of the

votes given at any election 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

In The People vs. Cavanaugh, 112 California, the Supreme Court held that any primary election that should

become mandatory becomes an election and only those primaries that may be optional with a party as to

The WrightStanton 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 majority 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 provisions of the Constitution only a

Were a majority or even high percentage plurality vote required to nominate, the Direct Primary law would

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

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

The machine Senators, having failed to amend the Direct Primary bill on its second reading, apparently

accepted their whipping, and allowed the measure to go through third reading and final passage without

Twentyseven Senators at the final roll call voted for it; not one vote was cast against it. Even Leavitt and

But the victory was one tempered with grave misgivings 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 introduced contained most unfortunate clerical

At every stage of its passage in the Senate such errors were uncovered, and after it had passed second

reading, no less than eight serious errors were discovered to be still in the bill. The only way these errors

The errors were called to the attention of Senator Wright and of George Van Smith of the Call, who were

urged to have them corrected in the Senate that the bill might go to the Assembly letter perfect, and without

necessity of amendment[43]. But both Van Smith and Wright were of the opinion that time would be gained

The bill as it finally passed the Senate was a defective bill, the defects of which could be corrected in the

Assembly only by amendment. In the end the fate of the measure was made to hinge on these clerical and

The Assembly Committee on Election Laws had been stacked against the passage of a Direct Primary bill,

precisely as the Senate Committee had been. At the first meeting held by the Committee to consider the

measure, it became evident that the majority of the Committee would, if it could, put the McCartney

Leeds, Chairman of the Committee, moved that the primary vote for United States Senator be made advisory

and by districts only, while Grove L. Johnson, in spite of the fact that such a provision is impracticable and

unconstitutional, stated that he wished a provision in the bill requiring a 40 per cent plurality to nominate,

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 Committee, was present at the meeting, and although he had

introduced the bill in the Assembly, announced that he was for so 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 amendments 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

The only real opposition in the Committee to the machine's plan to make the primary vote for United States

Senators advisory only and by district, came from Assemblymen Hinkle of San Diego and Drew of Fresno.

Drew was ill most of the time and could not attend the meetings. The brunt of the fight for a Statewide vote

Every effort was made to pull him down. He was told that his bills would be "killed."

He was deliberately misrepresented in papers which were endeavoring to force into the bill the advisory

district vote amendment, which, as introduced in the Senate by McCartney, had been rejected by the

antimachine Senators. Leavitt and Wolfe and Warren Porter were for the amendment, but the antimachine

Senators continued against it as they had on February 18th, the day of their "glorious victory" over the

But, astonishing as it may seem, the San Francisco Call[44], which up to the passage of the bill in the Senate

had fought the machine Senators so valiantly, was giving indication of siding with Wolfe and Leavitt. In its

issue of March 6th, the Call stated that Hinkle was alone of the Assembly Committee battling for the bill as it

passed the Senate. In another sentence the Call said: "Leeds, Rech, Hinkle and Pugh voted for the advisory

That sentence was shown about the Capitol, and on it was based the story that Hinkle had "fallen down," and

But Hinkle had not "fallen down." He was in the fight just as hard as ever, and with Assemblyman Bohnett

Those who were endeavoring to force the advisory district plan for nomination of Senators into the bill took

the most astonishing methods to force it upon the antimachine Senators. For example, the San Francisco

"The amendments proposed by Leeds and supported by Stanton are not even remotely related to the

The Call's statement was easily disproved, but it unquestionably confused the antimachine legislators, who

were insisting upon retaining the provision for Statewide vote for Senators in the bill[45].

And then came the cry that those who were opposing the LeedsMcCartney 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

expression of this fear. But such men as Bohnett, Hinkle, Drew and other recognized antimachine 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 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

"overwhelming 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

At this critical moment in the bill's history, however, Assemblyman Pulcifer[46], the LincolnRoosevelt

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 which the antimachine Senators had

The amendments necessary to correct the typographical and clerical errors which had been permitted to

remain in the bill as it passed the Senate, together with a number of ridiculous amendments which were

finally rejected by both Houses were then adopted, and the bill sent to the Senate[48].

The fact developed almost immediately that if the Senate 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 March 9th, voted on March 22d to recede from it.

Had the antimachine forces in the Assembly been held together, as they could have been had the question of

receding been put up to them fairly, few other changes with Collum's would have been sufficient to assure

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 insisting that the Assembly would not recede, and that

unless the Senate concurred with the Assembly amendment, nothing could save the Direct Primary bill from

Nevertheless, the Senate by a vote of 19 against to 20 for concurrence, did refuse to concur, 21 votes being

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

Originally, on February 18th, twentyseven Senators had voted against the LeedsMcCartney amendment,

but when Senator Wright switched to the machine, Senators Hurd and Burnett wobbled along after him. The

four bandwagon 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, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Miller, Roseberry,

For concurrence in the amendment and against the bill as it originally passed the Senate Bates, Bills,

Burnett, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage,

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 Hurd 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

Had Senator Stetson been present, he would have voted with the antimachine Senators. This would have

made the vote 20 to 20. Warren Porter would then have had the deciding vote. He would have voted to

In the ordinary course of legislative business, the Senate having refused to concur in the Assembly

amendment, 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 quickwitted 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 antimachine

element nineteen. Wolfe required, however, twentyone to compel reconsideration. But when the question

came up, Wolfe still lacked the one vote necessary for reconsideration, the antimachine element was still

without the necessary twenty votes to tie the Senate, thus giving Warren Porter the deciding vote. Wolfe,

however, with his twenty votes, postponed consideration of his motion to reconsider 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 Tem. Wolfe to call the Senate to order. The folly of

permitting the machine to organize the Senate was forced home to every goodgovernment 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 business should be transacted until the antimachine Senators had

The machine's play was to bully, bluff or beg one of the antimachine Senators to desert to the machine,

which would have given the machine twentyone votes, enough for concurrence, or, failing in this, to force

the attendance 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. Performer 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 gallery was packed with interested spectators, who cheered the antimachine Senators to

the echo. There were no cheers for the machine, but on one occasion at least the machine was hissed, when

Never did the machine work harder to switch antimachine Senators to its side. Jere Burke had characteristic

corner conferences, Johnny Lynch labored with antimachine 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 antimachine element what a mistake he was making.

P. H. McCarthy "happened in" and worked with George Van Smith of the Call and Eddie Wolfe in the

fruitless attempt made to "pull down" Senator Anthony[49]. Antimachine Senators found their pet bills

But the nineteen antimachine members stood firm, in spite of the fact that Senator Wright, who had

originally 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 supporting, "Every man of these thirteen confessed corruptionists 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

And then the machine forces attacked Senator Black. Although Senator Black was lying ill at his home at

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 LieutenantGovernor, Warren Porter, in favor

On February 18 the Call had objected very strenuously to Porter's attitude toward the Direct Primary bill. The

"Today the wolves (a pet name for the machine Senators), urged by their masters, will make their last stand

in the Senate against a people determined to be free. Warren Porter, the LieutenantGovernor of the fatted

soul, who professes all the virtues and practices all political evil, will be the whipperin."

One month later, March 18, the Call was complaining bitterly that the antimachine Senators would not

permit the same "LieutenantGovernor 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 Nan Smith, was by this time working

openly with Porter, Wolfe, Leavitt, Hartman, Lynch and Burke to compel Senate concurrence in the

Assembly amendments, while Senators Boynton, Black, Miller, Campbell, Holohan, Stetson and the other

antimachine Senators whom the Call had formerly backed in their efforts against the machine, had become

"pinhead politicians," in the columns of the Call, intent upon defeat of the Direct Primary bill.

The Call's extraordinary change and outrageous condemnation of the antimachine Senators of course

brought its protest. The people of Palo Alto met in mass meeting on March 21st, and adopted resolutions

condemning the Call's course[50]. Senator Black from his sick bed wrote a letter showing the Call's

insincerity and breach of faith with the proprimary Senators[51]. The paper was bitterly denounced on the

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 antimachine 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 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 performers through Senator Weed who was, by the way,

Chairman of the Committee on Public Morals, which reported adversely on the WalkerOtis billintroduced

a resolution, authorizing the SergeantatArms to bring Senator Black to Sacramento, even though a special

engine and coach be chartered for the purpose[53]. The resolution brought forth indignant protest from the

antimachine Senators, and a telegram from Senator Black to Warren Porter, denouncing the unwarranted

proceedings[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 SergeantatArms 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 Senate $400 for his services.

The Montgomery incident demonstrated clearly that the machine was whipped[56]. Senator Wolfe

accordingly on Monday, March 22, after holding the Senate in deadlock more than a week, moved that the

vote whereby the Senate had refused to concur in the Assembly amendment 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 Assembly's objectionable amendment. For the second time, the Senate went on record against

the machine's advisory districtvote plan for the election of United States Senators. For the second time the

antimachine 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 machine. The machine

thereupon met the antimachine element with a trick that completely turned the tables, a trick by which the

antimachine forces were defeated, and the machine element placed in a position to amend the bill as it might

[42] Senator Wolfe, on the day of his defeat in the Senate, told the writer that he would offer no further

[43] Charles R. Detrick of Palo Alto, for example, called the attention of both Wright and Van Smith to the

errors, and offered his services for their correction, but his offer was declined.

[44] The Call's course is all the more reprehensible from the fact that it had for two years been declaring for

an effective Direct Primary law, and, indeed, assumed all the credit for the agitation for the reform.

[45] The Leeds amendment, which the Call stated was in no way related to the McCartney amendment, read

"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 ascertaining

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

[46] A similar example of Pulcifer's trickiness attended the defeat in the Assembly of Boynton's Senate bill

providing for a nonpartisan 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 showdown thirtyfive votes were

cast for the measure and twentynine 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 discontinued, by Pulcifer, who had voted for the bill, voting for discontinuance, 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 Pulcifer'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

For the amendment and against the bill as it had passed the Senate: Barndollar, Beatty, Beban, Black, Butler,

Coghlan, Collier, Collum, Cronin, Cullen, Feeley, Greer, Hammon, Hanlon, Hans, Hawk, Grove L. Johnson,

Johnson of San Diego, Johnston of Contra Costa, Leeds, Lightner, Macauley, McClellan, McManus,

Melrose, Mott, Nelson, O'Neil, Perine, Pugh, Pulcifer, Rech, Rutherford, Schmitt, Stanton, Transue, Wagner,

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, Mendenhall, Moore, Odom, Otis, Polsley, Preston, Sackett,

[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 appointed by the Speaker of the

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

Such was the maze of technicality into which LincolnRoosevelt Leaguer Pulcifer threw the Direct Primary

[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 postponement until the next morning. Twentyone votes

were necessary for concurrence in the Assembly Amendments, but a majority of those voting was sufficient

to secure postponement. The machine on this issue controlled twenty votes, one short of enough for

concurrence, but one more than the nineteen controlled by the antimachine element, and hence enough to

[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.

[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

[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 combination 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 Statewide vote on United States Senator, and the 'Call'

fought with us against Senators Wolfe and Leavitt on this proposition. Immediately 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

"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

"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 socalled 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

"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."

[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 Assembly 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

"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 necessary. 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

"It's hard to be very sorry just now over Senator Stetson's illness, but he deserves a vote of thanks for

[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 SergeantatArms to Proceed at once to

Palo Alto with a competent physician, to be named by the President of the Senate, for the purpose of

ascertaining whether it is safe for Senator Black to proceed at once to Sacramento, to attend as a member of

"Be it further resolved, That in the event that such examination results in disclosing a state of health wherein

it will be safe for Senator Black to be present, then the SergeantatArms shall bring him at once to

[54] Black's answering telegram was in full as follows: "I beg to inform you (LieutenantGovernor 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 reflection on my honor and integrity and as proposing an infringement on my

privileges and rights as a Senator and citizen. I have, therefore declined to see the persons sent here under that

resolution, and shall continue to decline to see them until my physicians inform me that I can with safety

"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 condition from time to time

[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:

Your bill to issue bonds for general improvement fund before me. I would like to have you here to explain its

By Trick Prevents Senate From Concurring in Amendments to Correct Clerical and Typographical Errors,

Thus Creating a Situation Which Threw the Measure Into a Committee on Free Conference With Power to

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 position where the "performers" struck at them

As was shown in a previous chapter, the Direct Primary 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

typographical errors. The Assembly corrected these errors 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 antimachine Senators took exception, were seven in number and dealt principally

with the changing of the method of electing United States Senators, from the plan of Statewide vote, to that

of district, advisory vote. The seven were known as the "vicious amendments"; the ten correcting the

typographical errors were called the "necessary amendments." There is no good reason why the ten necessary

amendments 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 machine 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

Committee 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 antimachine Senators to support the

Wolfe's first move was to ask as a matter of courtesy 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 reconsideration 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

Had the Senate concurred in the ten Assembly amendments made necessary to correct typographical errors,

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 objectionable amendments. But if Wolfe could so engineer matters

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 intended 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

Committee on Free Conference, also to be appointed by Stanton 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

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

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

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

amendments 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 antimachine Senators, of course, voted to concur in them.

Burnett, voting with the antimachine element, gave them twenty votes, leaving Wolfe and his following

only nineteen. But twentyone votes were necessary for concurrence. The machine, while it could not force

the Senate 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 accordingly sent back to the Assembly with the

Even before the bill had reached the Assembly, Senator 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 working for an effective Direct Primary bill were thrown

into the greatest confusion. Speaker Stanton's rulings which followed, were not calculated to relieve the

"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 Primary 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

Assemblymen Preston, Bohnett and others who were standing for an effective measure, were amazed at the

"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

Assemblyman Bohnett confessed himself unable to understand why the Assembly could not send part of the

By this time matters had got so warm in the Assembly that Senator Leavitt found it necessary to lend dignity

to the occasion by taking his seat at the side of Speaker Stanton, whom he engaged in conversation. The

Assemblymen Young, Bohnett and others, finding that it would be impossible under the assumption of the

Speaker 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

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 deplorable, did not materially affect the bill.

However, many of the better element of the Assembly did not dare to take the risk, and the motion to recede

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 recede from its amendments, the bill went

to a Committee on Conference, appointed by Speaker Stanton and President Porter. The machine had gained

The Conference Committee consisted of Senators Wolfe, Leavitt and Wright, and Assemblymen Leeds,

Johnson of Sacramento, and Hewitt. Of the Committee, Hewitt[59] was the only member who favored a

Statewide 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

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 they recommended the advisory district vote plan for

Senator Wolfe, having got the bill in shape to his liking, with a suave smirk upon his face, stated that he

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, Statewide vote for United States Senators.

What the antimachine Senators[61] thought of the outcome is best expressed in the little speech which

Senator Stetson made his fellowSenators in explaining his vote to accept the report of the Committee on

"Before voting on this matter," said Stetson, "lest any one in the future may think that I have been passed

something 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 nobody. 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 nothing and get nowhere. I shall vote

for this report, not because I want to, but because I have to if we are at this session to have any Direct

[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 Statewide 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 represents policies beneficial to his country and

his State; to the machine 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 Statewide vote would take their appointment

out of machine hands, which would mean loss to the machine of Federal patronage. For this reason the almost

unbelievable lengths to which the machine went to prevent the provision for Statewide vote for the election

Ayes: Messrs. Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, Collum, Costar, Flavelle, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Hinkle,

Holmquist, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, Maher, Mendenhall, Odom, Otis, Polsley, Preston,

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.

"By nominating petitions signed and filed as provided by existing 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

SENATORIAL 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."

[61] Stetson was not the only Senator to protest. Senators Campbell, Holohan 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 features of this bill, and believe that the people at the first opportunity 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

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 Conference 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 Legislature is about to adjourn."

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 Measures

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

Legislature of 1909 for its failure to give the State an effective railroad regulation law, is to condemn every

Legislature 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 Railroad Commissioners as to keep in that office men utterly dominated by railroad influences.

With weak and corrupt men as Railroad Commissioners, and machinedominated Legislatures which have

neglected to pass laws which would have made the Commission effective, or even provide funds for the

Commission to carry on its work, even had the Commissioners been so inclined, California has been left

helpless 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

The cost to the people has been enormous. It was pretty conclusively shown at the Legislative investigation

into the cause of recent advance of freight rates, that upwards of $10,000,000[62] a year has in this one

instance 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, 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 tributetaker

farreaching. The vast sums which, unrestricted, the Southern 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

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; ensure the enforcement of constitutional provisions for the

protection of the public against dominant transportation companies; in a word, provide effective railroad

Governor Gillett in his biennial message to the Legislature, and Attorney General Webb in his biennial report

General Webb, after reviewing railroad conditions in California, on page 13 of his report says: "It is thus

"I believe," continues the Attorney General, "that this review of the situation will show the imperative

necessity of prompt legislation on this subject, and under the Constitution of this State, the Legislature has

Governor Gillett, in his biennial message, takes practically 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 neglecting to act under its provisions, the Governor will call

There was no question of the aroused public sentiment in favor of the passage of a railroad regulation

measure. Even before the Legislature convened it became 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

(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 regulation would leave the railroads practically independent of

The minority had the best captains in the Senate and was backed by the machine lobby made up principally of

The majority was poor in generals. But it had the backing of the shippers of the State, who sent able

And in the end the machine minority wore out and defeated the majority. A comparatively effective railroad

Three railroad regulation measures were introduced in the Senate, their authors being Campbell, Stetson, and

The Campbell bill had much to commend it, but was rejected without much consideration by either side.

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 Constitutional 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 antimachine forces by

praising the Campbell bill, and setting the antimachine 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 be caught by any such trickery. They gave their loyal support to the Stetson bill, and the

Campbell bill was allowed to die in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This narrowed the fight down to the

The Stetson bill had been prepared in the office of Attorney General Webb, and at the instigation of Governor

Gillett. As originally introduced it contained certain defects, which were afterwards corrected, but such

Senators as Cutten, Caminetti, Black, Campbell, Miller, Cartwright, Bell and Thompson, admitted that the

measure could be made the basis of as effective a law as could be prepared under the present constitutional

The original measure was particularly weak in the section providing for demurrage charges. This was finally

corrected by the passage of a separate reciprocal demurrage bill, which had been introduced by Miller.

Another weakness in the Stetson bill as originally introduced was that the Railroad Commission was made a

sort of barrier between the Courts and those who had grievances against the transportation companies. This

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

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 Statesaving Direct Primary Bill. So a railroad regulation measure introduced by Senator

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 regulation 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

The Stetson bill had a definite antipass provision; the Wright bill as originally introduced had no such

The Stetson bill authorized not only the AttorneyGeneral, but the District Attorney of any county of the

State to proceed to enforce its provisions; the Wright bill granted the AttorneyGeneral alone such authority.

The Stetson bill required the Railroad Commissioners to meet at least once in every two weeks; the Wright

The Stetson bill gave the Railroad Commissioners authority to make physical valuation of railroad properties;

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 schedules, while the Wright bill provided that the

Commissioners should fix maximum rates only, thus permitting the famous "fluidity" of schedules advocated

The contest between the supporters of the Wright and the supporters of the Stetson bill, finally narrowed

The provision for the maximum rate in Senator Wright's bill, authorized the railroad regulating Commission

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

maximum as fixed by the Commission. This leaves the railroads 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

The maximum rate is provided in the Interstate Commerce 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 demand that authority be placed somewhere to make railroad

The absolute rate, or the fixed rate as it is better called, which was provided in the Stetson bill, can neither 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 railroads 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

In the second place, the shipper is guaranteed a stability of rate schedules which is deemed necessary for

settled business conditions. The merchant, for example, includes transportation charges in the cost price of

the goods in which he deals. But if the transportation 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

The supporters of the Stetson bill, then, backed the shipping and merchant classes; while the supporters of the

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

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

And then, before the advocates of the Stetson measure could tell exactly what was happening, the railroad

regulation measures were taken from the Judiciary Committee and placed in the hands of the Committee on

A glance at the personnel of the two Committees at least suggests why this was done.

The members of the Judiciary Committee were Willis, Wolfe, Wright, McCartney, Savage, Boynton,

Anthony, Burnett, Cutten, Estudillo, Martinelli, Roseberry, Stetson, Thompson, Curtin, Cartwright,

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

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 Committee

It was certainly not in the interest of the Stetson bill that the measure was taken from the Judiciary

A glance at the personnel of the Committee on Corporations reveals a significant state of affairs. The

Committee consisted of the following Senators: Bates, Welch, Wright, McCartney, Burnett, Bills, Walker,

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 Stetson bill. The two members whose names are printed in

The lineup of the Committee on Corporations, when the measures were taken from the Judiciary Committee

The incident stirred up Campbell and other antimachine 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 Committee

on Corporations got through with them that the Judiciary Committee might pass upon their constitutionality.

The arrangement had two effects it silenced the unquieting protest of the antimachine Senators, and it

delayed consideration of the bills. But, as the sequel showed, the arrangement did not help the Stetson bill in

[62] The testimony was that of George J. Bradley, traffic manager of the Merchants' and Manufacturers'

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 vegetables and canned salmon,

of which there are several million cases, go from the North Pacific coast through either San Francisco 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 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 Angeles 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 estimate, 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, because 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 eastbound 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

[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 reported adversely,

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

Having succeeded in transferring the railroad regulation measures from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the

majority of whose members were antimachine, to the Committee on Corporations, the majority of whose

members were machine, the machine proceeded to discredit the Stetson bill, by making it appear that the

State Constitution by implication prohibits the fixing of absolute railroad rates, and provides that the Railroad

Commissioners may fix maximum rates only. Peter F. Dunne was brought to Sacramento to make this

Dunne, in his address, showed greater ability than integrity. When he had finished, even the antimachine

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 against the Stetson bill and for the Wright bill, Walker

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

constitutionally established. Dunne certainly did a good job. To be sure, his address was a mass of

misrepresentations, but of misrepresentations cunningly put. He shattered the implicit faith of the

antimachine Senators in the absolute rate. And that was what he had been sent to Sacramento to do. The evil

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

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 and those who wanted absolute rates namely, the

antimachine Senators and the attorneys representing large shipping interests waxed hot over the words in

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

But not so, insisted the railroad lobby. That aggregation of patriots skimmed over the words "fail to conform

to such rates," and saw only, "or shall charge in excess thereof." Inasmuch, the prorailroad element held, as

the Constitution says that the railroads shall not charge in excess of the rates fixed by the Railroad

Commissioners, the railroads are at liberty to reduce the rates as fixed by the Commissioners at will. In other

words, according to the prorailroad element, the Constitution authorizes the fixing of maximum rates only.

The prorailroad claquers even went so far as to claim that the Supreme Court has decided that the maximum

rate is the only rate that can be fixed under the State Constitution. They referred the doubtful to the notorious

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 understanding had been that the State Constitution provides

for the maximum rate. But this had no place in the decision, was purely dictum, and is so regarded.

AttorneyGeneral Webb has an ingenious but very plausible explanation of Judge Beatty's muchdiscussed

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 prevailed in California. About that time, Judge Beatty

went to Nevada and was absent from the State for several years. Returning to California, after the State

Constitution had been adopted, Judge Beatty found no case in which the duties of the Railroad

"I am of the opinion," said General Webb in discussing 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

All this was a very pretty theory. To the commonsense 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

under a respectable hen, it was left to incubate undisturbed, 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 antimachine Senators and the attorneys of the shippers finally, after the Wright

"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

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 readiness 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 devoted to

public discussion of this measure, although the Stetson bill had been discussed paragraph by paragraph, line

The ceremony of giving the Wright bill prominence took place behind the closed doors of an executive

session of the Senate Committee on Corporations. These executive sessions, by the way, are seldom held

when the best interests of the public are to be conserved. The proceedings were evidently prearranged.

Senator Wright opened by moving that the policy of the Committee 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

Gradually it dawned upon Walker, Miller and Roseberry that this meant the favorable recommendation of the

Wright bill. The next moment that fact was hammered 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

Wright followed the same course in the Judiciary Committee as he had taken in the Committee on

Corporations, namely, moved that it be the sense of the Committee that the Railroad Regulation bill to be

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

Against the maximum rate, against the Wright bill and for the Stetson bill Campbell, Cutten, Miller,

For the maximum rate, for the Wright bill and against the Stetson bill Anthony, Martinelli, McCartney,

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

lawyers, 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

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

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

constitutional; I fear that it may not. But the maximum rate is little better than no rate at all. I wish the

absolute 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, insisted that he had not been able to make up his mind

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 absolute 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 metoo 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 lineup of Senate leaders was precisely the same as that in the fight which the machine

Miller's argument in favor of the Stetson bill showed the confusion under which the advocates of effective

"If we adopt the Wright bill," said Miller, "the railroads 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 Stetson 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'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,

To substitute the Stetson bill for the Wright bill Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Campbell,

Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Holohan, Lewis, Miller, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson 16.

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,

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, Statewide 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, Estudillo, 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 antimachine had an organization, such as the machine Democrats and Republicans maintained, Walker's

blunder could have been prevented. Probably, too, Estudillo and Anthony would have remained with the

antimachine forces[65]. This would have given the Stetson bill twentyone votes, and assured its passage.

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 Stetson 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 amendment was defeated by machine votes, as will be shown in the

In the closing days of the session, when Burnett was urging that steps be taken for investigation into the

increase of freight rates, he called attention to the fate of that railroadregulation amendment.

"I was led to vote as I did for the Railroad Regulation bill," he said, "on the understanding that that

constitutional 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 amendment 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 Stetson 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

Had the antimachine 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 opposition,

it is astonishing and at the same time most encouraging that eighteen of the forty Senators stood by the

[64] The question to which Senator Miller referred was: Has the Legislature power under the Constitution to

authorize the Railroad Commissioners to fix the absolute rate? a question upon which the machine does not

[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 session that they would have continued with the reform element in

the matter of railroad regulation, had the antimachine Senators been organized to give effective resistance to

the machine. Perhaps the sanest of this criticism, certainly the most reasonable, is from a gentleman who was

"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 soldierlike rhythm of

compact organization when private selfish interests are involved, than when the general interest and

But in spite of this very reasonable view, from a very reasonable gentleman, the fact remains that in the

Committee on Corporations, 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 antimachine

element been organized, the Stetson bill and not the Wright bill would in all probability have been passed.

Constitutional Amendment to Clear the Way for an Effective Railroad Regulation Bill Defeated Rate

Investigation Delayed Until Too Late for Effectiveness Resolution to Continue Investigation Defeated

The antimachine 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 makeshift measure is possible,

until certain alleged ambiguities of those sections of the State Constitution prescribing the powers and duties

of the State Board of Railroad Commissioners have been removed. Where, to the common sense mind, no

ambiguities 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 minimum rate is constitutional.

Advised by the attorneys representing the shipping interests, the antimachine members undertook to

simplify the language of the sections in dispute, so that a wayfaring man though a Judge on the bench or a

Early in the session, Senator Campbell had introduced a constitutional amendment to that end. The

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 reported back to the Senate.

The day following, February 23d, Senator Campbell had the measure rereferred 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 antimachine Senators on the committee had to fight for every inch of the

way toward securing a report upon an effective amendment. This, however, they finally succeeded in doing.

The second substitute amendment smoothed out the ambiguities 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 Commission (Railroad) and each of its members 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

question 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 railroads to prevent the passage of the Stetson bill, was repealed 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 consideration 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. Burnett, 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 remaining 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 twothirds vote of the Senate was required for the amendment's

adoption. This meant twentyseven votes. The amendment was defeated, the vote being nineteen for

This ended all hope of a model railroad regulation law for California until 1913, for the Constitution must be

amended before such a law can be realized. If a satisfactory amendment be adopted in 1911, it must before

going into effect be ratified by the people. This ratification would come in 1912. The Legislature of 1913

An attempt to investigate the causes and the necessity of the arbitrary increase in transcontinental freight rates

Early in the session, on January 18, to be exact, Senator 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 rereferred the resolutions 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 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 antimachine 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 recommended, 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,

making it a committee of five. Had the machine observed the unwritten rules of Senatorial courtesy[67],

which machine Senators insist upon so loudly, the antimachine element would have been safe enough in

doing this. Senatorial courtesy required that the author of the resolutions, Caminetti, be made one of the two

additional members. This would have given the antimachine 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

The machine's next move was to delay the investigation. 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 ordered 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

introduced, and only twelve days before adjournment, before the committee placed its first witness on the

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 committee in a condition to conduct the investigation which the

antimachine element had contemplated. But hurried hearings were held, and a mass of evidence of railroad

and express company extortion brought into the open. The interested reader will find the testimony printed in

Men of the standing of Edwin Bonnheim[68], treasurer and manager of Weinstock, Lubin Co.; Russell D.

Carpenter, 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. Furthermore, testimony was produced which at least indicated that the transportation

companies, if economically not to say honestly managed, would receive fair returns on their legitimate

investments, 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 Interstate Commerce Commission[69]. It was clear to all that thorough investigation under the

Caminetti resolutions 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 antimachine 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 antimachine Senators in addition to Burnett who were within reach of the capitol. But the

machine had a safe majority within call. Burnett's resolution was defeated, the investigation denied, by a vote

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 heldup 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 AntiGambling bill and the Direct Primary bill.

When the Legislature had adjourned this error was discovered, and Governor Gillett refused to sign the bill

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 MillerDrew 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 measure 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 unquestionably had its

bearing upon the fate of the Reciprocal Demurrage bill at the 1909 session. The story deals with a political

Mr. Lynch voted against reciprocal demurrage in 1907. He voted neither for nor against reciprocal demurrage

in 1909, for he was not at Sacramento to vote. Mr. Lynch was not at Sacramento to vote in 1909, for one

Mr. Lynch hailed from the Thirtyfirst 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

onetime Senator Lynch voted against the Reciprocal Demurrage bill, the farmers have seen tons upon tons

of their products 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 reciprocal demurrage law on her statute books; California had

Senator Lynch's vote against the Reciprocal Demurrage 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 RepublicanDemocratic machine, that dominates the

State, a machine 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

Republicans 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 Reciprocal Demurrage bill was not confined to San Luis Obispo

and San Benito Counties. It spread over into the adjoining Twentyninth District, which takes in Santa Cruz

and San Mateo Counties. These counties are also intensely Republican. They gave Taft a plurality 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 Senator. Holohan

was known to be free of machine influences. He could be counted upon to vote for a Reciprocal Demurrage

bill without first consulting the Southern Pacific's political agent, Jere Burke. And the Republican whose

place he took in the Senate had voted against the Reciprocal Demurrage bill of 1907.

The election of Holohan and Campbell unquestionably 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 Statewide popular vote in the

selection of United States Senators. Only seven Senators voted against the AntiRacetrack 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

For the amendment: Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten,

Holohan, McCartney, Miller, Roseberry, Rush, Strobridge, Sanford, Thompson, Walker, Wright 19.

Against the amendment: Anthony, Bills, Estudillo, Finn, Hartman, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Price,

[67] Machine Senators habitually exact the utmost consideration and courtesy from the antimachine

Senators, and habitually repay it with deceit and trickery. The curious feature of this is that the antimachine

Senators continue to extend the courtesy and continue to be tricked and imposed upon. A shutting off of

"Senatorial courtesy" would go far toward solving the problem of machine domination of the Legislature.

[68] Mr. Bonnheim testified that prior to the new schedule of express rates enforced between New York and

the city of San Francisco, 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, resulted 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 3/4 per cent by the withdrawal of the 10,000 pound rate, and that the withdrawal of the

[69] Senator Cartwright actually introduced a resolution calling upon the AttorneyGeneral to institute

To ascertain, fix and establish a reasonable schedule of freight rates, and to enforce the same.

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 Committee, 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

For the resolution: Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Roseberry, Rush,

Against the resolution: Anthony, Bates, Bills, Finn, Hartman, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli,

[71] E. F. Mitchell, Executive Secretary to Governor Gillett, makes the following statement regarding this

The electric companies which run interurban trains, also claimed that the bill, as prepared, applied to them,

"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 propelled 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 excluded 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."

Drawn By Committees of the Ablest San Francisco Attorneys Not Under Retainer of PrisonDodging

Captains of Industry Measures Not Allowed to Reach Senate or Assembly, but Killed in Committees

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

That the technical defense in criminal cases was subject to grave abuses had been generally recognized. But it

took the graft cases at San Francisco to fairly rub this unpleasant fact into the lawabiding element. Because

for the first time in the practice of criminal law in California, unlimited wealth was available to employ the

The defending lawyers took advantage of every technicality. 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

technicalities, 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 welltodo.

To be sure, any person accused could make his technical 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

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 socalled middle classes.

The machine was, of course, against any such "wicked innovations," as Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson

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

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 before finding more representative or more publicspirited

The labors of the several committees resulted in what may in a broad way be regarded as two sets of bills

The first, known as the Commonwealth Club bills, were sixtyfive 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 pinpricked an abuse; the Commonwealth Club bills drove the knife in deep.

The sixtyfive 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 attack. The basis of the proposed amendments and

additions to the laws governing Grand Juries was that Grand Juries are primarily required to investigate secret

offenses, 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

defendant to answer. Had the Commonwealth Club bills become 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 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

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

examination 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 substantial disadvantage he might suffer, the number

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

One of the most important of the provisions regarding trial jurors was that the reading of mere newspaper

reports of a case should not disqualify a trial juror, unless it were shown that the newspaper article purported

The fact that under the present law the term "reasonable 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 defendant may take

exception to the definition, thus paving 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 condition

that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction 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 instructions

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

In none of those proposed amendments could the substantial 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

To this end, the measures provided that upon conviction 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 Appellate 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

Under the proposed Commonwealth Club amendments, 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

defendant, 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 person of no substantial right. The amendments

proposed are merely designed to make the present law more effective, to relieve the Courts from the necessity

of considering trivial matters and to aid in determining more promptly whether a person accused of crime is

The bills as introduced in the Assembly were referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In the Senate,

The promoters of the Commonwealth Club bills made the mistake of treating the machine Senators and

Assemblymen 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 were 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 members. 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 appearance to

It is interesting to note that sixtythree of the sixtyfive bills as introduced in the Assembly never got beyond

Johnson's Committee. They died right there. The 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 recommendation

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

machine, 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 fiftytwo of the sixtyfive measures be withdrawn. And they were withdrawn.

Of the thirteen remaining, seven stuck in the Committee, 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 sixtyfive

bills, the Senate Committee gave only one favorable recommendation. This lone recipient of Committee

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 better

Of the nine socalled 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

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

Commonwealth Club bills, of providing the higher Court with complete record of the testimony and the

One of the two remaining measures requires sentence 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.

[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 nominating 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 disposed 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

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 finetooth 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 because of one technical reason or another

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.

[73] A prominent San Francisco attorney told the writer recently that "the criminal lawyer too often questions

a talesman needlessly, not so much to disqualify him, as to get technical error into the record."

[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 instruct the jury to disregard the refusal.

Slipped Through the Assembly Without Serious Opposition 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

Given the presiding officers of the Senate and Assembly and the appointment of the Committees of both

bodies, the machine minority in the Legislature had comparatively 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, although if fairly presented to Senate and Assembly they undoubtedly would have become

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

passage of a measure. To get through its bills, then, the machine had to create a situation in which vicious

measures could be rushed through without the unorganized reformers knowing what was being done. By

preventing action on a large majority of the measures pending 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 antimachine members in such a situation become worn out, get discouraged and vote for

machine policies to secure machine support for measures, the passage of which their constituents at home are

demanding. 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

This was very well illustrated at the Session of 1909 by the passage of the socalled 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 Legislature 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

Grove L. Johnson having introduced the bill, it was referred to Johnson's committee, the Judiciary Committee

of the Assembly. The Committee held it until February 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 machine policies from the beginning to the end of the

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 reform measure as late as March 13, would have meant its

defeat in the Senate. Though in the majority the antimachine Senators could not have forced a reform

measure through the machinecontrolled committees, machinecontrolled even when a majority of a

committee was antimachine[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,

twentyfour hours after, the Committee returned the bill with the recommendation that it do pass. On March

19, with twentytwo Senators opposed to its passage, and eighteen favoring it, with twentyone votes

necessary for its passage, the bill passed the Senate. This apparently impossible feat was, in the last two

To begin with, Senator Black, who opposed the bill, was ill at his home at Palo Alto. This left twentyone

For the Change of Venue bill Anthony, Bates, Bills, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Hurd, Leavitt, Martinelli,

Against the Change of Venue bill Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Burnett[76a], Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright,

Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Lewis, Kennedy, Miller, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge,

On the face of it, the outlook for the passage of the Change of Venue bill in the Senate was not good. The

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 Assembly Bill No. 6 on the Special Urgency File "at the

request 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 adjourned been given a position of trust in the

With the Change of Venue bill on the Special Urgency File, the next step was to get it considered at the

moment most favorable for machine purposes. Along about 11 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, Senator 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 coming 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

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 antimachine Senators are never guilty of discourteous treatment of a

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

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

When the vote was taken, every Senator who supported 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

affirmative 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 clerk at the desk not to send the bill to

the Assembly for he would as soon as the Senate reconvened, give notice of his motion to reconsider.

Nevertheless, when the Senate reconvened, Boynton found that the bill had been rushed over to the

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

provoked a smile. Boynton refused to be "courteous," the bill was returned from the Assembly and regularly

With 21 votes against the measure, there seemed little doubt that it would be reconsidered and defeated.

Twentyone votes were necessary for reconsideration. Lewis and Miller had thought better of their vote of

Friday and were prepared to vote against the bill. Estudillo, understanding the measure thoroughly, was

anxious to set himself right in the record by voting against it. These, with Burnett and Rush, gave twentyone

But there was a weak link in the combination,Kennedy. Senator Kennedy voted throughout the session

consistently with the WolfeLeavitt element, but he voted against the Change of Venue bill. When Saturday

morning came, however, Kennedy could not be found. 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. Twentyone votes were necessary for reconsideration. With Kennedy, Burnett and Rush,

reconsideration 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

This was the real test vote on the Change of Venue bill. It will be seen that Miller and Lewis and Estudillo,

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 reconsideration 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

Half an hour later, when Kennedy's vote was necessary 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 passage 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.

[74] Black's Senate bill, 1,144, came very near being defeated in the Assembly by similar "good generalship."

The measure in effect prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquors within a mile and a half of Stanford

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

Charles R. Detrick, of Palo Alto, happened to go to the Assembly chamber at this critical moment and took in

the situation 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.

[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

[75] Governor Gillett's reasons for vetoing the bill are set forth in footnote 1, Chapter 1.

For the Change of Venue bill Barndollar, Beatty, Black, Cattell, Coghlan, Collier, Collum, Cronin, Drew,

Feeley, Flint, Gibbons, Griffiths, Hammon, Hans, Hawk, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Holmquist, Johnson of

Sacramento, Johnson of San Diego, Juilliard, Lightner, Macauley, Maher, McClellan, McManus, Melrose,

Mendenhall, Moore, Mott, Pugh, Rech, Schmitt, Silver, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Transue, Wagner, Wheelan,

Against the Change of Venue bill Baxter, Bohnett, Butler, Callan, Cogswell, Dean, Gerdes, Gillis, Kehoe,

[76a] The Senators whose names are printed in italics became involved in the confusion which led to the

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, Hurd, Leavitt, Martinelli,

Measures Extended Abuses Which the Commonwealth Club Bills Had Been Drawn to Prevent Went

Through Both Houses Without the Members Thoroughly Understanding Their Significance.

The socalled 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

Among the Commonwealth bills was one which denied a defendant under indictment a copy of the testimony

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

On the other hand two bills requiring that transcript of such testimony be given the defendant passed both

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 investigated 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

typewriting." It was thus left with the District Attorney to say whether the stenographic reporter should be

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

Further on in the section and in Assembly bill 222[79], it was provided that a true copy of the testimony thus

Assembly bill 223[79], also introduced by Wheelan, provided another cause for the setting aside of an

indictment by the Court in which the defendant is arraigned, 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

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

defendants 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

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 11th, and referred to the Assembly Judiciary

Committee. The Committee, which pigeonholed sixtythree of the Commonwealth Club bills, and reported

back the two remaining too late for passage, had better treatment in store for the Wheelan measures. They

were 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, Polsley, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Whitney,

Wilson and Wyllie, who ordinarily voted for good measures and against bad ones, voted for the Wheelan

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 something

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

A reform measure passing the Assembly on March 17th would have had no chance whatever in the Senate.

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,

reported them back to the Senate with the recommendation 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,

Such is the difference in action on machinefavored bills and bills which the machine does not favor.

Incidentally, it may be said that at the time the Wheelan bills were before the Senate, the machine had that

The reform element at the mercy of the Senate organization 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

But by the time the Wheelan bills had been hastened to the floor of the Senate, the reform Senators

apparently awoke to the fact that some sort of a job was on the way. When the bills came up for final passage,

however, the antimachine Senators were apparently as much at a loss concerning them as the antimachine

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 received but twentythree votes, any three of these by voting

Price, who had voted for the bill, gave notice, at the request of a fellow Senator, that on the next legislative

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,

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 twentythree votes, Cutten voting "aye" for the purpose of giving notice to reconsider.

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 Assembly. 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.

[79] Governor Gillett signed Assembly bills Nos. 221 and 222. They are now the law of the State. Assembly

[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 measures, 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

Peculiar Arrangement by Which the Bill Was Sidetracked 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.

Because there is no particular reason why California should not have a Local Option law, in the face of

popular demand for it, a large number of very worthy citizens 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 socalled liquor interests organized as the "Royal Arch," takes a shortsighted view of

Local Option provisions. The machine was thus interested. Its representatives in Senate and Assembly did not

propose that any Local Option bill should pass. So the Local Option bill was smothered. The smothering

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 in the open. So the machine proceeded to

The same bill having been introduced both in Senate and Assembly, the first step was to tie up either the

Assembly 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 simplicity itself. The Wyllie bill, as introduced

in the Assembly 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 antigambling bill, on women's suffrage[80a] and other "moral" issues, it

was unfair to compel the lower House to go on record before the Senate on the Local Option bill. Speaker

Stanton assured 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

proponents of the measure consented to the plan to make the Senate act first. The fight for the passage of the

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

until March 13th, two months and five days, when the proponents of the measure, realizing that they were

being tricked, made their protest so loud that the measure was reported by the Committee, but without

recommendation. 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. Introduced

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. Estudillo 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 together

to consider the wellbacked Direct Primary bill, let alone the worthy but not politically supported local

Along about the middle of February, however, Estudillo succeeded in getting the committee to act. By a vote

of four to four the committee refused to recommend the Local Option bill for passage. Senator Stetson, who

favored the passage of the measure, to compel committee action and get the bill before the Senate, thereupon

moved that the bill be referred back to the Senate with recommendation that it do not pass. Senator Stetson's

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 measure on second reading and sent it to engrossment 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,

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 reengrossed before it can be passed. The delays thus caused very often

But the reprinted and reengrossed Local Option bill got back to the Senate on February 26th, and its

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 AntiGambling bill and against the effective

Stetson Railroad Regulation bill on Senator Wolfe's motion the Local Option bill, instead of being put on

At that time, the closing days of February, the Judiciary Committee was fairly swamped with important

measures. The Railroad Regulation bills, the Initiative Amendment, the measures providing for the

simplification 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 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 committee acted. The action was, of

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 incorporated cities and towns, the basis of

prohibition was made the township, although the vote was to be taken throughout the county.

After the measure had been returned from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, Estudillo fought manfully

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 11th.

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

Estudillo attempted to do. The thing was done with other bills every day. Had Wolfe made the request, for

example, 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

Nevertheless, the backers of the measure although pleaded with by weakkneed 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 WalkerOtis AntiGambling bill, against a Statewide vote for United States

Senators, against the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill, in a word, those whom for the want of a better term we

The final showing for the Local Option bill was not a good one, but in spite of it, many in touch with

conditions 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 passage. 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.

[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 Supervisors

to take the action that might be thus decided upon by popular vote. The Supervisors could act upon the vote

The Legislature of 1907 transferred the County Government Act to the Codes. For some reason, either by

intention or oversight, 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

implication. 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, fiftyfour votes are required in the Assembly and twentyseven 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 fiftyeight Assemblymen down to vote for

it. Grove L. Johnson had introduced the measure in the Assembly, and its adoption by that body seemed

But the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill got in the way of Woman's Suffrage in a most curious manner. When

the passage of this antigambling bill became a certainty, that branch of the group of tenderloin Senators

whose interests were wrapped up in racetrack gambling, became "very sore." In their disgruntlement they

decided to give reform full swing, and put the Woman's Suffrage 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 fiftyeight votes, only

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,

For the amendment: Barndollar, Bohnett, Butler, Callan, Cattell, 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,

For the bill Bell, Black, Boynton, Campbell, Cartwright, Cutten, Estudillo, Miller, Roseberry, Thompson,

Against the bill Anthony, Bills, Birdsall, Burnett, Caminetti, Curtin, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Holohan, Hurd,

Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Rush, Sanford, Strobridge, Weed, Welch,

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 Machine 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 machine, through such agents as Gus Hartman, Eddie Wolfe

and Frank Leavitt, to stem the reform movement which is sweeping the country, he is strongly reminded of

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

inadequate and disappointing it may prove to be, and a railroad 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 racetrack gamblers, could and did put off the day of

the people's reckoning with machineprotected interests, but on desperately small margins at times, and

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

The aim of the reform movement is to place the government 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 Assemblyman 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 municipal charters. These charters must be ratified by the

Legislature, but up to the session just closed their ratification "wicked innovations and all" has met with

Thus we find most of the modern charters of California municipalities containing provisions for really

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

But the machine is now fully alive to what such provisions 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

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

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 presence

was required at Los Angeles to back the machine's efforts to hold the Mayor in his job.

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

initiative, recall and similar "innovations," have a business end; that they put altogether too much power into

Up to the session of 1909 there had been practically 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

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

So they let the charters and charter amendments go by them and braced themselves against granting

That issue came up in the form of a proposed amendment to the State Constitution introduced by Senator

Black, which gave the people of the State the power enjoyed by the people of Oregon and of the more

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

Naturally, the machine, always on thin ice at best, thoroughly aroused to what the initiative means, opposed

In its opposition, the machine was backed by that extreme conservatism, which, while sincere enough,

forever 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 accomplished. Thus the machine had some very

respectable assistance in its efforts against the Initiative Amendment, the measure which more than any other

before the Legislature was calculated to take the government of California out of machine hands[84].

On the other hand, the amendment had strong backing. 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

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

But there were plenty of reasons given why the amendment should not be submitted to the people. Perhaps

the most amusing came from Senator Wright, of Direct Primary and Railroad Regulation notoriety. Senator

Wright held that inasmuch as the Direct Primary will result in the election of highclass legislators, the

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

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 twentyone constitutional

amendments and statutes which had been submitted by the Legislature of 1907, it will be seen that Oregon

In Canton Berne, Switzerland, where for half a century all the laws have been adopted by the initiative

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

Their arguments answered, the opponents of the amendment schemed to prevent its consideration until the

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

January 11, the committee took no action upon it. Coghlan of San Francisco was chairman of the committee;

associated 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.

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 WolfeLeavitt faction. On a straight vote the majority of the committee was against the

machine, 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

On February 16, the reform element of the committee insisted that action be taken on the amendment.

Chairman Willis was reluctant to put the question. Few machine members of the committee were in

attendance. The antimachine 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 Senate at the "snap judgment" of his committee, with the

result that it was rereferred to that body. The committee, however, for the second time sent it back to the

Then followed a series of delays in the Senate, so that the measure was not brought to vote until March 11th.

For the adoption of a Constitutional amendment, a twothirds vote twentyseven is required in the

Senate. 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, Boynton, Caminetti, Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Hare, Kennedy, McCartney, Reily, Roseberry,

Rush, Sanford, Stetson, 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, Curtin and Miller, who were counted on the side of the amendment until it came to a

Kennedy, Reily, Welch, Finn and Hare, usually against reform legislation, were counted for the Initiative

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 ordinarily for

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,

Curtin and Miller, in spite of their party's endorsement of the policy, expressed themselves as "scandalized"

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

Reform waves, like the Atlantic Ocean, are not kept back with brooms or Gus Hartmans.

[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

twentyfive 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 participated 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

[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 paternalism 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 proposed 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 country could not without the initiation of laws by The People enjoy the fruits of its institutions.

Stir Storm in the Assembly, But All the Bills Were Finally Defeated Grove L. Johnson Denounces Action

of Governor Gillett and President Roosevelt Speaker Stanton Places Himself in a Very Embarrassing

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

alienregulation bills which were introduced in both Houses. The Assembly, however, was the scene of the

final defeat of the antiJapanese element. There the legislative campaign against the Japanese was fought out,

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 "AntiJapanese School Bill," and

Assembly Bill 32, known as the "Municipal Segregation Bill," both introduced by Johnson of Sacramento.

The final defeat of these bills settled the Japanese question so far as the legislative session of 1909 was

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 generally 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 required 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

provided for alien minors who might possess or might become possessed of California real property.

Furthermore, under the provisions of the law, the leasing of land to aliens for a longer period than one year

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, Governor

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 existing

between America and Japan, and recommended that an appropriation be made to enable the Labor

Commissioner to take a census showing the number of Japanese now in the State, with such other

information regarding 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 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

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

The substitute measure was introduced on February 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 influence 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

The day following the defeat of the Alien Land bill, February 4th, the "AntiJapanese School Bill" and the

"Municipal Segregation Bill" came up for final action. There was also Assembly Bill 15, classed as an

antiJapanese 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. Roosevelt's ingenuous opinions on "nature fakers." But while Mr. Johnson entertained

with his wit and his invective, 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 defeated by a vote of 15 for to 53 against. Assembly Bill 32, the "Municipal

Segregation Bill,"[91] was defeated by the close vote of 39 for to 35 against, 41 votes being required for its

And then the Assembly took another tack, and by a vote of 45 to 29, passed Assembly Bill 14, the

AntiJapanese 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 passage of Assembly Bill 14, after the defeat of the other socalled antiJapanese 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 message 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 illconsidered action be taken by this State which may involve

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 important 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 observing the treaties entered into by it with a friendly

"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

criticism by the people of this Nation, and that no law will be enacted which will be in contravention of the

The Governor's message was not at all well received[92]; in fact, Governor and message were denounced by

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 reconsideration

would be denied was evident. Leeds, to save the situation, moved that reconsideration be postponed until

February 10th. An amendment was made that it be rereferred to the Judiciary Committee. It was on this

"I know what you want," declared Johnson of Sacramento 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

Had the question been put when Johnson had concluded, 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

"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 believe it, but I know it. But my lips are sealed."

"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

"In my judgment this matter should be postponed. I believe that further information will, within a few days,

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

unquestionably 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 over until Wednesday, but out of respect to our Speaker,

When Johnson sat down, one could have heard a pin drop. Not a dissenting voice was heard. Further

The day preceding final action on the bill was given over to conferences and caucuses. The Democrats

caucused 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

"Show me why I should not support it. Give me the reasons, the facts and figures, why Roosevelt has any

right to interfere with this measure. I want something definite. I have heard these suppositions 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 Roosevelt."

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 opponents of the measure, setting forth why it should be

defeated[94]. In it the right of the State to pass such schoolregulating 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 executive 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 undoubtedly

have been denied. But so much time was taken in making Stanton feel foolish, that the hour of recess arrived,

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 delegation to win reconsideration, and the measure's defeat.

When the Assembly reconvened after the noon recess, the members by a vote of 43 to 34 granted the bill

Although the Senate escaped the sensational scenes that attended the suppression of the Japanese problem in

the Assembly, nevertheless Japanese bills and resolutions, with attending debates, made their appearance

there. Caminetti, for example, introduced a duplicate of the Johnson antiJapanese School bill, which was

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 measure for passage, and it was finally forced to a vote, being

A series of Senate antiJapanese 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 Assembly, Speaker Stanton, as "a select committee of

one," took the resolution under his protection. The indications being that the "select committee of one" would

fail to report, a storm was started by an attack on Stanton's authority to be a "select committee of one" at all.

The assailants were repulsed. Nevertheless, "the select 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

[86] The Assembly vote on the four principal Japanese issues will be found in Table I of the Appendix.

[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, commerce 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; otherwise you might

create a situation which may prove to be embarrassing to the Federal Government. Mr. Drew's bill might be

so amended, but in its present form it clearly, as no doubt was intended, 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

"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

"I would strike out of the first line the words 'who is not a citizen of the United States,' because that is

"Then I notice the second line of Section 3, instead of having 'devise,' the word is 'device.' I suppose this must

"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

"I am also of the opinion that President Roosevelt and Secretary 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 Legislature 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

[89] Assemblyman Drew's reply to the Governor's letter suggesting that the Oklahoma law be substituted for

"Your esteemed favor of the 26th inst., is before me, and I can assure you that I appreciate the spirit in which

you have considered 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 I 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 wisdom 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."

[90] Johnson addressed himself directly to President Roosevelt and Governor Gillett. The following

"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

"Some of you think legislation is like patent medicine. It must bear on the bill, the label: 'None genuine

"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

"Of course we must surrender our individual opinion, and bow 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

"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

"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

"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

[91] The purpose of the Municipal Segregation bill, as 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."

"Section 1. Whenever in the opinion of the governing body of any municipality the presence of undesirable,

improper and unhealthy 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 inhabitants, 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

"See. 2. A violation of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed a misdemeanor and shall be punished as

[92] "Never before have I heard of a time," said Assemblyman Cronin, "when a Governor has sent such a

message to a Legislature. 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

"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

"Since yesterday," said Assemblyman Gibbons, "I have changed my views. I thought there were three

departments in this Government, but I find I was mistaken. I recognize the error of my youthful belief. I

know now that the Legislative and the Executive are one, or, rather, that the Executive is the Legislative."

[93] The question has been asked was Johnson sincere in his advocacy of the AntiJapanese 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 antiracetrack gambling bills for

years, spoke for them and fought for them as keenly as he did for the AntiJapanese bills, always on the

losing side. But when an antiracetrack 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.

[95] Speaker Stanton very modestly took much credit for the defeat of the bill. The following telegram was

"Sacramento, February 10.Theodore Roosevelt, White House Washington, D. C. The Assembly just

reconsidered and refused passage of the Japanese School bill. My congratulations.

"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 California and their representatives in the Legislature.

"Washington, February 10. To Governor J. N. Gillett, Sacramento Cal. Accept my heartiest

congratulations. All good Americans appreciate what you have done. Pray extend my congratulations

individually 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.

For the bill Anthony, Black, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Finn, Hartman, Holohan, Reily,

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.

[97] Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, which, as finally adopted, was a committee substitute for Senate Joint

Whereas, The progress, happiness, and prosperity of the people of a nation depend upon a homogeneous

Whereas, The influx from overpopulated nations of Asia of people who are unsuited for American citizenship

or for assimilation with the Caucasian race, has resulted and will result in lowering the American standard of

Whereas, The exclusion of Chinese laborers under the existing exclusion laws of the United States has tended

Whereas, We view with alarm any proposed repeal of such exclusion laws and the substituting therefor of

Whereas, The interest of California can best be safeguarded by the retention of said exclusion laws, and by

Whereas, The people of the Eastern states, and the United 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

Resolved, by the Senate and Assembly jointly, That we respectfully 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

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 Representatives of the

Ayes Senators Anthony, Bates, Bills, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright,

Curtin, Cutten, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Holohan, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, McCartney, Miller, Reily, Rush,

The resolution was adopted in the Assembly on March 23. There was no call for the ayes and noes, and no

Scandals of the Session of 1907 and the Dread of Pinkerton Detectives Led to a Rule Under Which Machine

Lobbyists Could Work with Perfect Safety, While Advocates of Reform Measures Could Be Barred From

One of the principal scandals of the Legislative session of 1907 was the openness with which machine

lobbyists invaded Senate and Assembly chamber. They went so far as to move from member to member

during rollcalls, giving Senator or Assemblyman, as the case might be, a proprietary tap on the shoulder, to

Word of the scandal got as far away from Sacramento 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

When Campbell reached Sacramento he let it be known that such would be his policy. Campbell is thickset

and shaggy of eyebrow; his beard shows black on his face two hours after shaving. He has all the earmarks of

a born fighter. He didn't look good to the machine, and his words didn't sound good. Incidentally, Jere Burke

Another thing which gave machine members of both Houses, as well as machine hangerson, much concern,

was the rumor started along in December that certain publicspirited 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 wellbeing of machineprotected 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 boodleitching 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

Campbell's threats and the antimachine lobby rumors 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

presenting 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 committed, and kept out during the

The rule was employed in one instance only. George Baker Anderson, of The People's Legislative Bureau,

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 lobbyists 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 machinebacked

measures and policies, persons advocating reform measures were threatened with the antilobbying rules.

The curious feature of Anderson's case was that nobody seems to have been able to discover that he ever did

any lobbying, or asked a member of either body to support 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

measures, and other items of importance or interest. Somebody early in the session called the bureau a

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

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 machineadvocated 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 Pinkerton watchfulness might be a pretty good proposition, all things considered.

On the other hand, many of the Senators and Assemblymen 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

Legislature. This intense feeling found perhaps its best expression in Assemblyman McManus' denunciation

of Anderson, when the question of having Anderson "investigated" 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 streetcar 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 whatsoever, 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 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 WalkerOtis

AntiGambling bill, asking them if they would be willing to give the reasons for their absence.

The difference in the effect of the letters was astonishing. 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

Assemblyman Beardslee hastened to assure Mr. Wheelan that he had been. Furthermore, Beardslee thumped

"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" notoriety. 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

"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 Anderson's business. He declined to answer.

Anderson's refusal to answer was solemnly reported by the committee back to the Assembly. Some members

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

The Judiciary Committee was solemnly authorized to send for persons and papers, and administer oaths.

While the investigation was pending, Anderson was denied admittance to the Assembly chamber. As the

press badge, admitting Anderson to both Assembly and Senate chambers had been taken from him, he was

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 investigation, however, Anderson was for nearly two months

barred from both the Assembly and Senate chambers. The session closed without the investigation being

It may be said in this connection that neither in the State Statutes, nor in the rules of either Senate or

Assembly, is there a word which prohibits the employing of detectives at a Legislative session. Even though

Johnson's committee had investigated Anderson's case, and discovered that he was really employing

detectives, it is difficult to see how his punishment could have been justified. The incident is certainly one of

the most extraordinary 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

Curiously enough, however, lobbying, in spite of the rule, continued on the floors of both Houses even during

When the Islais Creek Harbor bill was under consideration 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 confusion. But Speaker Stanton seemed absolutely unable to

cope with the situation. The lobbying and the confusion continued in spite of Stanton's efforts to enforce

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 machinebacked Assembly amendments. This was done in the

Senate chamber, when the Senate was in session, and Johnnie Lynch and Van Smith in particular were

But it was noticeable, that those who advocated reform 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

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

Nevertheless, Assemblyman Schmitt[99a], who overheard 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)

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 opponents of the measure threatened him with expulsion from the

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

[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 "keenlooking young man with reddish brown hair and

The People's Legislative Bureau, organized chiefly for the collection and dissemination of accurate

information regarding legislation, 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 AntiRacetrack Gambling

As our record is intended to be permanent, and will be placed in the hands of all the newspapers and civic

organizations throughout the State, we wish to ask if you have any objection to furnishing us the reason for

[99a] This is the same Schmitt who objected so strenuously to professors of the State University being

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

The problem of drawing the line between legitimate and reprehensible lobbying has perplexed wiser men

On the side of the lobbyist it may be said there seems no good reason why a citizen or representative of a

corporation which is interested in pending legislation should not appear at the Capitol and in a legitimate way

present 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 principle 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 committee 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 and aboveboard, and although he sought deliberately

to misrepresent the situation to the Committee, nevertheless to object to his visiting Sacramento, or even to

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

But if Mr. Dunne for the railroads or Mr. Mann for the shippers had departed from openlypresented

argument 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

Legislator 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 corporation 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

legitimate 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 carrier to force the passage of the Change of

Venue bill for 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

So far as the writer knows, Mr. Dunne did not concern 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

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 discover property, owned principally by public service

corporations, which at present escapes taxation. It is estimated that the total taxable value of this untaxed

property 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 assumption that the officials of the Southern Pacific Company 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.

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 property, when a false or incompetent list has been rendered."

Under this section, as it at present reads, the Supervisors 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 Supervisors sitting as a Board of Equalization) may employ

legal or other assistance in discovering any taxable property that has escaped assessment in the performance

Senate Bill 1230, the companion bill, provided that the Supervisors may subpena witnesses in all matters

pending before them when sitting as a Board of Equalization. Under the present law, they can compel

The necessity of the amendments was generally admitted. 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

The property of the large corporation is not so readily discovered and $100,000,000 worth of it, according to

conservative estimate, escapes assessment. The Assessors, with comparatively small force of deputies, have

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 Sanford

of Mendocino. Before their significance was appreciated by Southern Pacific lobbyists, the Senate Judiciary

When Burke did grasp the significance of the measures, he demanded of Sanford that they be withdrawn. The

"These bills are the most unAmerican 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 prefer

arbitrary assessments. They do not care to make returns to the Assessor. The passage of these bills would

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 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

Burke's argument, however, failed to move Sanford. The Senator from Mendocino refused to withdraw the

bills. And then a curious thing happened. The members 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 answer 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

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 bills than to bluff their authors into

withdrawing them, or by stirring up Statewide antagonism to them. The incident shows, however, the

Statewide 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 powerful backing behind the machine agents kept at Sacramento during a

It is bad enough when the farreaching influence of the machine is employed to defeat measures which

provide 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 personal interests in a matter in which the

particular corporation which he represents can have no interest whatever, particular emphasis is given the

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 sodaash 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 company 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

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 company's holdings near the lake. and the water. The water

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

Not long since the new company began to complain of the old company's pipe, which crosses the new

company's land. The old company saw that it had trouble ahead unless it could condemn a strip of the

recently reclaimed 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 lake which are not fit for

irrigation or domestic purposes, 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 Bill 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

providing for the soda water pipe line was added. This bill received a favorable recommendation from the

Assembly 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 concerned, came to a sudden ending.

At the time Senate Bill 797 was undergoing suppression in the Assembly, the companion bill, Assembly Bill

815, was pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The measure was amended to make possible the

condemnation of land for a soda water pipe line. Chairman Willis of the Committee expressed himself as

satisfied 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, Senator 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 suggested that the amendment be dropped. He stated that the Assembly

would refuse to concur in the amendment even though the bill were passed with it. Mr. Willis' wishes were

respected and the bill reamended. 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 Development Company would build a pipe line, a pipe

line upon which the future prosperity of the Inyo Development 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 Southern 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 Development Company failed in its perfectly legitimate purpose because

arrayed against it was in effect the political influence 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

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 Assembly 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

Had these measures become laws they might have proved very embarrassing to certain gentlemen who were

The Assembly bill went to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which held it two months, finally, on March

16th, reporting it to the Assembly without recommendation. On March 19th, the measure was refused

The Senate bill went to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Committee referred it back to the Senate with

Casts Nearly Twentyfive Per Cent of the Vote in Each House Majority Invariably Found on the Side of

the Machine Opposed Passage of the WalkerOtis Bill Instrumental in Amending the Direct Primary

The popular idea that the State outside San Francisco is not concerned about political conditions at the

metropolis is not borne out by the record of the legislative session of 1909. The San Francisco delegations in

Senate and Assembly had, as they always have had and will have for many a year to come, the deciding voice

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

invariably bears the stamp of the character of the San Francisco delegation. The character of the delegation

depends upon political conditions at San Francisco. The 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

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

questions of the eighteen members of the Assembly and of the nine members of the Senate, will be found set

The table showing the votes of the nine San Francisco Senators covers sixteen roll calls, on which the San

Francisco Senators cast 128 votes, ninetynine of which were in support of machine policies and only

twentynine 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

sixtyfour of the 128 votes been cast for the machine, and sixtyfour against the machine, and the sixtyfour

antimachine votes been evenly distributed among the several issues, the machine would have been defeated

The Assembly showing is not quite so overwhelmingly 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 fiftyseven against. Thus, even in the Assembly, the vote was

approximately 2 to 1 in favor of the machine. Of the fiftyseven antimachine votes, eleven were cast by

Callan, who made an absolutely clean record, nine by Gerdes and seven by Lightner, a total of twentyseven

for the three. Deducted from the total of antimachine votes, this leaves only thirty antimachine votes for

the remaining 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

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 WalkerOtis 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 delegation Finn, Hare, Hartman, Reily and Wolfe. The two remaining came from Alameda and

ShastaSiskiyou Counties. Leavitt, representing Alameda, and Weed, representing Shasta and Siskiyou,

voted with the five San Francisco Senators against suppressing bookmaking and poolselling.

The record of the San Francisco Assembly delegation on the antigambling measure is scarcely less

suggestive. Before the WalkerOtis bill could pass the Assembly 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 WalkerOtis bill.

In the first fight twentythree Assemblymen voted to refer the bill back to the Committee. Of these twelve

The day of the second fight, only ten Assemblymen voted on the side of the gamblers. Every one of the ten

In the third fight, on the motion to reconsider, nineteen Assemblymen voted for reconsideration. Of these,

Or, to put it in a lump, in the three most important fights over the WalkerOtis bill in the Assembly, in the

aggregate fiftytwo votes were cast against the measure. Of these, thirtytwo were from San Francisco

The universal demand throughout the State for the passage of an antipool selling measure offset the

influence and the vote of the San Francisco delegation in both Senate and Assembly. But in the issues more

involved, 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

When the first fight over the Direct Primary bill came up in the Senate, it will be remembered, the

antimachine forces defeated the machine by a vote of twentyseven 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

When the machine element had succeeded in amending the Direct Primary measure to its liking in the

Assembly 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 Statewide vote on

candidates for the United States Senate. One San Francisco Senator only, Anthony, voted with the better

Had only two of the nine Senators from San Francisco voted for the bill in its original form, the measure

would have been passed by a vote of twentyone to nineteen without the machine amendments.

The influence of the San Francisco members in shaping the Direct Primary law was even more forcibly

illustrated in the Assembly. Of the eighteen San Francisco Assemblymen, fifteen voted for the Assembly

amendments, 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 thirtysix to thirtyeight. Had

the San Francisco delegation divided even on this vote, had nine voted for the amendments and nine against,

the vote would have been fortythree against putting them in the bill, and thirtytwo for, the bill would not

have 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 twentythree 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 amendments were from San

Francisco, only twelve were from outside that city. Thus, out of 120 members in the Legislature, ninetythree

of whom were from outside San Francisco, only thirtyfive from districts outside the metropolis voted for the

Assembly, or machine amendments to the Direct Primary bill. But twentythree of the twentyseven San

Francisco Senators and Assemblymen did vote for them, and only three of the San Francisco members voted

It will be seen that the people of California who live outside San Francisco are decidedly interested in the

The people of San Francisco are, of course, as much concerned over reasonable regulation of the

transportation companies as Californians living outside that city. But the San Francisco Senators were a unit

The fight over the railroad regulation came in the Senate. The final lineup showed eighteen Senators for the

effective Stetson bill and against the ineffective Wright bill; while twentytwo Senators were against the

Stetson bill and for the Wright bill. The Wright 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

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 transportation issue was fought out in the Assembly 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

Of the eighteen San Francisco Assemblymen only one, Callan, voted against the amendments; fourteen

Beatty, Beban, Coghlan, Collum, Cullen, Hopkins, Lightner, Macauley, McManus, Nelson, O'Neil, Pugh,

Perine and Wheelan voted for the amendments, while three Black, Gerdes and Schmitt did not vote at

The Local Option bill was also killed by San Francisco 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

country districts rather than the large cities. But the votes of the San Francisco Senators defeated the Local

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 Francisco voted with them.

The nine members from San Francisco continued consistent in their opposition to the measure. When the

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 unmistakably

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,

Macauleys and McManuses. But for the intervention of the country members the Islais Creek bond project

The improvement calls for the purchase of sixtythree water blocks at Islais Creek to be converted into an

inland harbor. The future development of San Francisco depends largely upon this improvement. But private

interests demanded that nineteen of the sixtythree blocks be excluded from the plan, which would have

rendered the whole project impracticable. When the fight came on, San Francisco Senators and Assemblymen

To begin with, Senator Wolfe, as member of the State Harbors Committee, had signed a report which

recommended that fortyfour blocks only be purchased. But Wolfe afterwards insisted that he had signed the

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

voting against them. But both Hartman and Reily did the best they knew how to defeat the purchase of the

The San Francisco delegation in its opposition to the Islais Creek project had better success in the Assembly.

Nine San Francisco Assemblymen, Beban, Black, Cullen, Lightner, Macauley, McManus, O'Neil, Perine and

Wheelan, united against the measure as it had passed the Senate. They succeeded in throwing doubt upon the

necessity of the purchase of sixtythree blocks, and finally won twentytwo outside members over to their

way of thinking. Had it not been for the efforts of Assemblymen Callan, Beatty and Nelson of San Francisco,

backed by the Los Angeles delegation, the Islais Creek Harbor project would unquestionably have been

defeated in the Assembly, solely because of the opposition of nine San Francisco Assemblymen.

But there is plenty of evidence of improved political conditions at San Francisco. An antimachine Board of

Supervisors is standing out manfully against the demands of machineprotected interests. The District

Attorney'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

Assembly and Senate delegation. Upon such improvement, the wellbeing of the whole State largely

Fast Becoming a Powerful Political Factor Enormous Fund Which It Expends Practically Without Check.

Without the general public realizing just what is going on, the machine is, in the State Fish and Game

Commission, 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 stranglehold 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, onetime chairman of the Republican State Central Committee. At its tail is Jake Steppacher, another

onetime potent politician who has passed the days of his usefulness. Between Stone at the lead and

Steppacher at the tail, is an astonishing array of formerly prominent politicians, as well as politicians who are

decidedly in the present. In fact, the Fish and Game Commission is fast becoming one of the most potent

adjuncts to the State political machine, that strictly nonpartisan organization which guards the interests of

the tenderloin, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the racetrack 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 antimachine members of the

Legislature to restore the Fish and Game Commission to its onetime simplicity, legitimacy and usefulness,

Up to two years ago, under the name of Fish Commission, 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. Citizens

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 Commission received $116,579 on account of it. This, with

moneys received from State appropriations, fines collected 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

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, the cost of conducting the Governor's office, including the

Governor's salary, the salaries of his secretaries and clerks, stationery, postage stamps, secret service,

In the same way the expense of conducting the State Controller's office was $23,417; of the State Treasurer's

office, $16,751 ; of the Attorney General's office, $33,082; of the Surveyor General's office, $20,679; of the

But the General Stone captained or perhaps generaled 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

various counties paid for game wardens and for local protection of game, the best protection, by the way, and

The $184,467, did not go to the counties. It went exclusively to General Stone's Commission. It will be seen

Another surprising feature of the StoneGeneraled Commission is that there is little check upon its

expenditures. If the Governor wishes to raise the salary of his secretary or one of his stenographers he must

appeal to 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 legislative sanction.

But not so General Stone's Commission. The Commission is left to do pretty much as it pleases with its

income. So, recently, without saying a word to anybody, it increased the salary of one of its deputies

(Vogelsang) from $200 to $300 a month. Three hundred dollars 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

Superintendent 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

But in ways other than generous increase in the salaries of its deputies has the Fish Commission shown its

kingly independence. The law provides that each State official and Commission shall, biennially, in the

September before the Legislature convenes, file with the Governor a report of its activities and expenditures.

This enables the Governor to make such recommendations as he may deem necessary in his message to the

Legislature. The Controller, Attorney General, in fact all the State officials and departments, observed the law

last September with but one exception. The Fish Commission, costing the State from six to eleven times more

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 Committee 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

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 gigantically 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 therefor, as provided in this Act, is guilty of a

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

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 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.

Naturally, the backers of the Fish and Game Commission 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 measure

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, Governor

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

The three Fish and Game Commissioners serve without 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 Commissioner 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

But if the Fish and Game Commission was unsuccessful in increasing its revenue and putting through other

measures from the standpoint of its members advantageous, its opponents were quite as unsuccessful in their

attacks upon the Commission. Like the panther cat that guards her young, the agents of the Commission

fought to retain the advantages which they had secured 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 fortythree 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 Governor's

office, the Controller's office, the State Treasurer's office and the office of State Superintendent of 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 recommendation 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 the Senate by Sanford. This bill provided that $50,000 should be paid out of the

Fish and Game Commission fund each year 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.

The companion Senate measure, introduced by Sanford, got further, but not much. The Senate Committee

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 encourage boys to kill blue jays for the hunter's

"If this bill becomes a law," said General Stone, "we shall have to retrench somewhere."

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 Assembly actually adopted a resolution calling for a

Commission 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 resolution 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

But the Assembly could switch money out of the fund by legislative enactment, and a bill covering the same

The measure passed the Assembly but did not reach the Senate until March 22d, two days before

adjournment. 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 suspend 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

Senator Walker and Assemblyman Rutherford introduced 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

The bills provided that onehalf of the moneys collected 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

Walker's bill was introduced on January 8th. It went to the Senate Committee on Fish and Game and was

Rutherford's bill was introduced on January 15th. It went to the Assembly Committee on Fish and Game.

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 Sundayschool to

go fishing, for example, might have in addition to the other frightful penalties imposed on them been

[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

"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."

[100a] The Fish and Game Commission was very bitter against Polsley and all who approved his course.

Because of the incident, Game Warden Welch of Santa Cruz County lost his position. 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 Commissioners 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

nationalwide reputation as a game warden, and such papers as the "Forest 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

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

[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

[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.

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 Expense of

The machine has many ways of rewarding the faithful who persist until the end. The faithful member of

Senate or Assembly may be rewarded by a Federal appointment (Senator Bates has just been graciously

recognized 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 holdover committee to investigate something, or to represent

the State at something, or to prepare some kind of a bill to be introduced at the next session of the

This last is perhaps the most genteel method of reward. It entails little work, gives the beneficiary a certain

Nine Senators were rewarded in this way in the closing 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

committeeships. They are Wolfe, Welch, Wright, Willis, Leavitt, Bills (labeled Republicans), Kennedy, Hare

and 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

The machine will continue to reward such men until the people take the Legislature out of machine hands.

The Legislative Holdover Committee is about as useless a thing as can be imagined. This is very well

illustrated by the State's experience with the socalled Harbors Committee, appointed by the Legislature of

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

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 introduced at the session of 1909. This gave the

committeemen $1,000 each for their services. It made the investigation cost the State $10,376[102b].

The Harbors Committee or somebody or something else, the writer is not sure which prepared an

elaborate 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

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 exceptional disadvantage. Wolfe was a member of the

Harbors Committee, as was Senator Wright. Among the recommendations set forth in the report as originally

prepared, was one that fortyfour blocks only of land be purchased by the State for the improvement of the

San Francisco Harbor at Islais Creek, instead of the sixtythree blocks necessary for practical harbor

Senator Wolfe was a warm advocate of the sixtythree 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

discouraging 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 fortyfour blocks was urged.

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 illustrates the value to the State of such legislative

But in spite of the curious history of Wolfe's Harbors Committee, he was given another holdover committee

in 1909. The Senate on Wolfe's motion adopted a resolution setting aside $5,000 to meet the expenses of

a holdover committee to consist of three members to investigate the cause of recent advances in the cost of

foodstuffs. Senators Wolfe, Welch and Hare are honored with the appointments. LieutenantGovernor Porter

Senator Wolfe, from the machine standpoint, certainly 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 indisposition

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 measures which were aimed at the prestige of the State

machine, and the domination of the tenderloin, the Southern Pacific Railroad, the racetrack gamblers and

Wolfe led the fight against the WalkerOtis AntiGambling 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

of Stanford University, against the initiative amendment to the Constitution, against the amendment to the

Constitution to correct ambiguities as to the powers and duties of the State Railroad Commission, and against

Burnett's resolution for the investigation of the cause of the increase in freight rates and express charges.

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 Republican party in California would be undermined.

Senator Wolfe's argument had great weight with Republicans like Leavitt and Weed and Democrats like Hare

and Kennedy. For the "good of the Republican party," these gentlemen generally voted as Senator Wolfe

Senator Welch, the second member of the Pure Food Committee, is at least entitled to gracious consideration

at the hands of the WolfeLeavitt element. Senator Welch was one of the twentyseven Callheralded heroes

who defeated the WolfeLeavitt element in the first fight on the Direct Primary bill in the Senate. And

Senator Welch was one of the seven heroes who "flopped" to the WolfeLeavitt side when the psychological

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

Welch voted for the WalkerOtis bill, but he was 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

ineffective Wright bill and against the effective Stetson bill. He voted against the Constitutional Amendment

simplyfying the wording of the Constitution in those sections which prescribe the powers and duties of the

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 AlaskaYukon Exposition, of which more

later. Thus Senator Welch rounded out the session very satisfactorily to Senator Welch and to the machine, if

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

amended to the machine's liking. Hare was one of the seven Senators who voted against the WalkerOtis

AntiGambling 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 amendment to the Constitution to clear up the alleged ambiguity

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 Committee which, under the leadership of Senator Eddie Wolfe, will

But a far more desirable appointment was to the committee which is to represent the State at the

AlaskaYukon Pacific Exposition. By concurrent resolution the Senate and Assembly decided that seven

Senators, seven Assemblymen, one Lieutenant Governor (Warren Porter) and one Governor (Gillett) should

attend the exposition 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 Stanton are Transue, Beardslee, Leeds, Hewitt, McManus,

The records of the Senators thus honored show them worthy the machine's consideration. Their votes on the

Against the WalkerOtis bill, to prohibit poolselling and bookmaking (AntiGambling bill) Leavitt 1.

Only seven Senators voted against the WalkerOtis bill. Of the seven Leavitt is given the Alaska trip; Wolfe

and Hare are put on the Food Investigation Committee. Thus of nine Senators who got on holdover

committees three were among the seven who voted in the interest of the gambling element.

The records made by the State Senators who will attend 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

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 at the

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

The records of the seven favored, triptaking Senators 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,

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

Against the Burnett resolution calling for an investigation of the cause for an increase in freight rates Bills,

The records of the seven on the Local Option bill and the Change of Venue bill are:

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

Nine Senators are included in the two holdover committees 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

increase 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

As Republican Senators Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, 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 receivers of plums, they can scarcely be blamed for

And as the Democratic Senators, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Holohan, Miller and Sanford, who

worked with the antimachine Republicans for the passage 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 AlaskaYukon Exposition, one, Hewitt, voted against the

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. Indeed, Beardslee and Transue were on the Committee on

In the fight for the passage of the WalkerOtis AntiGambling bill, two of the six, Leeds and Transue,

managed to keep their records straight. On the six rollcalls taken on the measure before it passed the

Assembly, 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 rollcall he did not vote; while McClellan voted four times for it

Five of the six, Beardslee, Leeds, McManus, McClellan and Schmitt voted against forcing out of the

Committee on Federal Relations the Sanford resolution, which called for a government line of steamers from

Panama to San Francisco. The five voted for the Johnson amendments to the resolutions, which cut out all

criticizing reference to the rateboosting 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

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

Five of the six Beardslee, Leeds, McManus, McClellan and Transue voted against the Holohan bill to

remove the party circle from the election ballot. Schmitt did not vote on this measure.

Assemblyman Hewitt will, at the AlaskaYukon, find himself in distinguished company. From the

WolfeLeavittJohnson standpoint, he is the only one of his associates who cannot be said to have earned the

[102a] As these forms are going through the press, word comes that Senator Willis has been made Assistant

United States District Attorney at Los Angeles. See Willis' record, Table "A" of the appendix.

[102b] The State Constitution provides no method of compensation for such services. The providing of this

compensation, therefore, 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 holdover 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 theclaimof" bills never fail to pull down the money.

[102c] The report as originally drawn, and as it was signed by Senator Wolfe and his associates.

Eleven of Them May Be Counted Upon to Vote Against the Machine at the Session of 1911, Two Are

Doubtful, One Will Probably Vote with the Majority, While Six May Be Counted Upon to Support Machine

Twenty of the 120 members who sat in the Legislature 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

antimachine 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

unquestionably 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

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

California could offhand name the twenty holdover members of the Upper House of the Legislature.

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 machine knows to a nicety just what to expect from men in

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 citizen

will hold that certain of the sixteen measures are desirable and others undesirable. Thus all would probably

agree that the Change of Venue bill is undesirable legislation, and declare the WalkerOtis AntiRacetrack

Gambling measure to be desirable, although they might honestly differ on the Local Option bill.

On the sixteen roll calls the twenty holdover Senators 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 holdover Senators cast 164 votes against the machine and

The showing is strengthened by the fact that ninetytwo of the 119 machine votes were cast by eight

Senators, 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 ninetytwo 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

This leaves twentyseven machine votes to be divided among twelve of the holdover Senators, about two

Burnett is credited with seven of the twentyseven, which reduces the number to twenty for eleven Senators.

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 eleven are Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge,

These eleven Senators, as judged by their performances at the session just closed, may be depended upon to

To this list should be added the name of Burnett. Burnett got off wrong on the Stetson Railroad Regulation

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, Strobridge, Thompson and Cutten than with Hare,

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

Senator Welch will be found voting with the majority. 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 lineup of the twenty

Antimachine Birdsall, Cutten, Estudillo, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker

Machine Bills, Finn, Lewis[103], Martinelli, Wolfe (Republicans), Hare (Democrat) 6.

On this basis the antimachine 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 antimachine Senators, it will be necessary to elect

only eight antimachine Senators that the reform element may control the Senate. This will mean twentytwo

votes for the reform element, for Welch, if he is to be judged by past performances, will be found with the

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

(2) To amend the Direct Primary law passed at the session just closed to meet with the popular demand for an

(4) To adopt an amendment to the State Constitution granting the initiative to the electors of the State.

Significantly enough, the lineup of the holdover Senators in the Direct Primary deadlock of the last session

was nine to eleven, the eleven Senators who divide but five machine votes between them standing out against

Wolfe and Leavitt for an effective provision for the selection of United States Senators by Statewide vote,

while the six machine Senators, the "bandwagon" Senator and the two doubtfuls, voted with Wolfe and

But the probabilities are that in the event of the antimachine element controlling the Senate of 1911,

Burnett, Hurd, 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 Primary bill when the measure was first

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

For the Stetson bill Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, Holohan, Lewis, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge,

For the Wright bill Bills, Burnett, Estudillo, Finn, Hare, Hurd, 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 antimachine 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

The holdovers made a good showing on the Initiative amendment, eleven voting for it and five against it, four

For the Initiative Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Hare, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Thompson,

Of the four who did not vote, three, Burnett, Holohan and Strobridge, would have voted for the amendment.

Finn would probably have voted against it. This would have made the vote fourteen to six in the amendment's

favor. It will be seen that those who would have the initiative granted the people, have a good start for the

The outlook for local option is not so reassuring. Of the holdover Senators who ordinarily were for measures

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

Six of the holdovers voted for the Local Option bill Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Roseberry, Thompson and

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

On the other hand, seventeen of the holdover Senators voted for the WalkerOtis AntiRacetrack Gambling

bill, while only three, Finn, Hare and Wolfe, voted against it. Thus on the moral issue, as well as the political

and the industrial, the antimachine 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

[103] Lewis voted with the antimachine element in the Railroad Regulation fight, one of the most severe

tests of the session. Persons who know Lewis well stated that he will, if the antimachine forces be

effectively organized at the session of 1911, be found against the machine. It is "up to Senator Lewis."

Of the Twenty Whose Terms of Office Will Have Expired, the Machine Loses Eleven, the AntiMachine

Element Seven Two Who Voted With the Machine on Occasion Were Usually on the Side of Good

Twenty of the forty Senators who sat in the Legislature of 1909, must, if they sit in the Legislature of 1911,

be reelected at the general elections in November 1910. They are: Senators Anthony of San Francisco, 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 antimachine votes, 164 were cast by holdover Senators, and were

considered in the last chapter, while 147 were cast by Senators whose successors will be elected in 1910.

Thus it will be seen, that on this basis, more desirable Senators will hold over than those whose terms of

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 Senators, 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

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 antimachine forces

will lose only seven who can be counted constantly for reform policies: Bell, Black, Boynton, Caminetti,

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 particular 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, Anthony voted with the machine. But he voted for the

WalkerOtis bill, and, generally speaking, for all measures 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

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 Option 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 Amendment. On the other hand, Curtin's record on

the Direct Primary bill, on the Railroad Regulation bills, and on the AntiGambling bill is all that could be

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 Caminetti, Black, Boynton and Sanford close

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 responsibilities 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 absence from the session of 1911 would be a loss to

Senators Black and Boynton at the session of 1909 made records quite as good as that made by Senator Bell.

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. Boynton 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 comparatively unimportant issues.

Senator Caminetti probably gave the machine more worry during the session than any other one Senator.

Caminetti has, a way of saying out loud what his antimachine associates are thinking, which is not at all

popular with the machine. True to principle, he, a Democrat, voted for United States Senator Perkins because,

from Caminetti's viewpoint, no other candidate came so near to being the popular choice of the people as

Perkins, 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

Democrat voting for a Republican. Caminetti's course continued in by all the members of the Legislature, and

Caminetti's record is admirable. To be sure, he opposed Local Option, but he fought as few others fought for

an effective Direct Primary law, for effective railroad regulation, in fact for practically all the reform policies

which the antimachine 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 Senators 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

sixteen 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

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 possible. Senator Bates' vote and influence such as it was were

thrown in the balance against giving the people of California a Statewide vote the only practical 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 WalkerOtis bill, Bates was on the machine side of practically every

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 Hartman 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 WalkerOtis AntiGambling bill, one against the Islais Creek

Harbor bill, the passage of which meant so much for San Francisco, the city, by the way, responsible for

On the sixteen roll calls under consideration, Hartman voted sixteen times for machine policies. As a vote,

Those who have read the previous chapters have already formed their opinion of the advisability of returning

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

measures as the Change of Venue bill, and opposed such measures as the Commonwealth Club bills; Savage,

who in committee and out of it, opposed the Statewide vote plan for nominating United States Senators, and

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.

However, a story of the closing days of the session is quite characteristic of Senator Price.

An important roll call was on if the writer remembers 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 answer

to the call of his name. The advocates of the resolution 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 assistant SergeantatArms at the door was just swinging it closed as Price shot through. The

determined Caminetti 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

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

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 WalkerOtis law. With the loss

of this portion of his constituency, Senator Leavitt's chance of reelection from Emeryville appears slim

But, according to rather persistent rumor, Senator Leavitt may be returned to the Senate, not from Alameda,

but from the SiskiyouShasta District, the district represented 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,

Senator Wright, the last of the Senators whose terms will have expired before the next session of the

Legislature 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 reelection to

the Senate. Senator Wright's record as a State Senator has already been treated at length.

[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 returned to the committee that amendments, which he deemed necessary, could be

[104] Since the Legislature adjourned Senator Bates has been given a lucrative position in the United States

Events of the Session of 1909 Show That Before Any Effective Reform Can Be Brought About in California,

Good Government Republicans and Democrats Must Unite to Organize Senate and Assembly Appointment

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:

(2) The reform members had, except in the antiracetrack gambling fight, no definite plan of action.

(3) The reform members of both Houses permitted the machine to name presiding officers and appoint

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 cooperation of committees, or of both. But, unfortunately, a

stupid partisanship a partisanship which the machine finds far more 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 reform 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 AntiRacetrack 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 government hesitate at the

suggestion of nonpartisan organization 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 antimachine Republicans and the

antimachine Democrats unite for purposes of organization, 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

satisfactorily answered. It leads us, however, to the question of the real line of division in Senate and

That the real division is no longer between political parties, or even between party factions, is apparent to the

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 another been endorsed by both parties. Both Democrats and

Republicans in either State or county platforms had declared for the passage of an AntiRacetrack 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 amendments to the codes that should simplify proceedings in criminal cases, for

effective railroad regulation. Estimating the purposes of the two parties by their county and State platforms,

none of these reforms can be regarded as any more Democratic than Republican, and these were the issues

A glance at the tables of votes in the appendix will show that the Assemblymen and the Senators who voted

against the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill, generally speaking, voted against the effective Stetson Railroad

Regulation bill and for the ineffective Wright bill, opposed 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 electors 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 several elements, the political agents, if you like, of the

tenderloin, Southern Pacific, racetrack, and publicservice monopolies generally; in a word, all who seek to

evade the law or to secure undue special privileges or to continue secure in the possession of such privileges

already secured, recognize that they must hang together or submit to a reckoning with the public, which must

necessarily result in the breaking of the particular monopoly which each enjoys, be it in transportation,

nickelintheslot graft, or traffic in the bodies of young women. Should the political bureau of the Southern

Pacific Railroad Company, 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 stranglehold

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 Roosevelt, has organized the Legislature

of California for sixteen years. Previous to 1895, there were California Legislatures organized in the name of

Thomas Jefferson. But the machine has not taken the name of Thomas Jefferson in vain in California for

Nevertheless, although acting under the name Republican, the machine is quite as dependent upon

"Democrats" as upon "Republicans," and as dependent upon either as upon the tenderloin, 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, rendered both unwholesome, until a condition

exists in the dominating parties that requires that the uncorrupted element of both unite to cut the diseased

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 Senators, for machine policies. Nor was the

opposition restricted 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, Republican, made common cause, while Black, Republican, and Campbell,

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

antimachine Republicans of the character of Bohnett and Callan, and antimachine Democrats like Polsley

Thus, for practical purposes, the Legislature can not be divided on party lines. The only practical line of

division is between the machine element, and the antimachine 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

As a matter of fact, the machine disregards party lines even in organizing. In making up its committees it

considers fealty to machine interests above party name. For example, Hare and Kennedy were the Democratic

Senators 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 Election 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 found

as a general thing casting their influence and their votes on the side of machine policies.

Had the antimachine Democrats and the antimachine Republicans in Senate and Assembly, who worked

together for the same ends and voted together on practically every important issue, taken the same course,

and united for the organization of the two Houses, reform measures which were defeated by narrow margins

Such being the case, is it not the duty of the antimachine Republicans and the antimachine Democrats who

may sit in the Legislature of 1911, to organize both Senate and Assembly to resist machine purposes and

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 occupy the post of LieutenantGovernor, at the

session of 1911 the reform element can elect its President pro tem., and appoint the Senate committees. In

other words, a majority of the Senate, may if it see fit, take the appointing of the committees out of the hands

There are two important precedents for this course, one established by a Democratic Senate; the other by a

The Democratic precedent was established in 1887. In that year Robert W. Waterman, a Republican, was

LieutenantGovernor and presiding officer of the Senate. The Senate was made up of twentysix Democrats

and fourteen Republicans. The Democratic majority organized the Senate under the following rule, which

"All Committees of the Senate, special and standing, and all joint Committees on the part thereof, shall be

The Republican precedent was made in 1897. In that year, William T. Jeter, a Democrat, was

LieutenantGovernor, while a majority of the Senators were Republicans. Instead of leaving the appointing

of the committees to the Democratic LieutenantGovernor, the Republican Senators adopted a rule that "all

standing committees 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

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 LieutenantGovernor as the Democrats had done ten years

before. There is no good reason why the members of the antimachine majority in the Senate should not have

taken the same course in 1909, and named the committees. Had they done so, and named the President pro

tem., they would have organized the Senate in the interest of those policies in advancing which they were

soon in open revolt against LieutenantGovernor Porter, the 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

session 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 session of 1909, where a clear majority of both

Houses opposed machine policies, demonstrated that the wellbeing of the State requires that the opponents

of 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 purposes are

[105] See, for example, Speaker Stanton's ruling on the Direct Primary bill when the Assembly was

[106] The machine recognizes the real division, if the reform element 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, partisan, but the writer is reliably informed that as many "Democrats" 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

[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 nor more the Southern Pacific machine

than it is the Tenderloin machine or the Racetrack gamblers' machine, or the United Railroads machine, or

[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 arty 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 and 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 officeholders or officeseekers; 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., there are no politics

[109] One has a wider view of this condition if he look out beyond the Sacramento Capitol, into the Senate

Hall at Washington. The following is from an editorial article which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post,

"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 issued, 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,

"Similar acts by Democratic Senators were denounced by President 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 Insurgents. 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 eightyodd million users of iron and steel products for the benefit of an opulent trust, we

find fortythree Republican Senators and eighteen Democratic Senators staunchly voting aye, against

"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."

The test votes given in the several tables record in every instance the result of a contest between the machine

and the antimachine forces in Senate or Assembly. It is quite evident that a unanimous vote cannot be

counted a test vote. Thus the unanimous vote by which the Reciprocal Demurrage 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

realizing 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 farreaching effects. To be sure, a member of the

Legislature should know what he is voting on, but when one considers the incidents of the whirlwind close

of the session of 1909, the injustice of holding a member accountable for inadvertently voting for a measure

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 members 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, for the Wright bill was put through practically without

opposition. 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

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 appearing at the top of the list,

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 arrangement is not, strictly speaking, fair, although it is

Senator Walker, for example, has only one antireform 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 exception 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 below

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

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 antimachine 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

machinebacked policy against them. Caminetti'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 antimachine records. Of the eleven caucus

Republicans among them, only one voted against admitting Bell to the Republican caucus.

The nineteen voted for the AntiRacetrack 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 indefinitely, and always to the advantage

Senator Wright is twentieth on the list; Senator Anthony is twentyfirst. 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 Senators 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 AntiRacetrack

Gambling bill, but before him thirtytwo Senators had voted for the bill, and only seven against it. Wright's

thirtythird 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 nineteen for the bill and sixteen against, and

twentyone votes necessary for its passage, Senator Wright cast the twentieth 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

The query is: Had the vote on the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill stood nineteen against the bill, and twenty

for, when Wright's name was reached, with twentyone 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 Wright's position above that

of Senators Anthony and Burnett, emphasizes the necessity of considering 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 antimachine 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 Bell did not vote in the Senate Republican caucus, 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

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

Senate D Vote on Wolfe's motion to send the Local Option bill back to the Judiciary Committee. See

Senate E First vote on Senate Bill 220, abolishing the party circle on the election ballot. Measure was

Senate F Vote by which the above Senate Bill 220 was passed on reconsideration. Note the Senators who

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 tenderloin element that had opposed the

AntiRacetrack Gambling bill. Senator Wolfe moved to amend the measure to exclude fraternal club houses

and hotels of fifty bedrooms or more, from its provisions. The amendment would have delayed and perhaps

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 twentytwo for the

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

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 investigation into the causes for the increase of freight and

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

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 twentyfive 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

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 B The test vote on the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill. The Committee on Public Morals had

recommended that the bill "do pass." Mott moved that the bill be rereferred to the committee. Motion lost

Assembly D Vote on motion to reconsider the vote by which the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill was passed.

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 governmentowned 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 Committee on Federal Relations. To hasten action on the resolution, Drew

moved that it be recalled from the committee. A twothirds vote was necessary for Drew's motion to prevail.

Assembly F Vote on motion to strike out of Senate joint Resolution No. 3considered under E those

sections which referred to Commissioner Bristow's report recommending that the Government steamship line

be established, and criticizing the combinations made between the several transportation companies. The

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

Assembly H Vote on proposed amendments to the Islais Creek Harbor bill. Motion was made to amend by

substituting 44 blocks for the 63 necessary for the improvement. Had this been done, the work would have

been made impracticable. Motion lost by a vote of 30 to 45. See Chapter XXIII, "Influence of the San

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 thirtysix for, to thirtyfive against.

Assembly J Vote on Senate Bill 1144 (the Stanford bill), to prohibit the sale of intoxicants within a mile

Assembly K Vote on the Judicial Column bill. This measure provided that the names of candidates for the

Judiciary be placed in a separate nonpartisan column on the election ballot. The bill passed the Senate, but

Table D shows the six votes on the AntiRacetrack Gambling bill. See Chapter VII.

Tables E and F Show the records of the San Francisco delegation in the Senate and Assembly. See Chapter

Table G Shows the records on sixteen test votes of the twenty Senators whose terms of office will have

Table H Shows the records on sixteen test votes of the twenty Senators who were elected in 1908, and who

Table I Shows records of the members of the Assembly on the four principal votes arising out of the fight

A B C D E F G __________________________________________________________________________

To Test To refer To do Second admit vote Walker Local away Vote First Bell on Otis Option Bill with party

Vote to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill.

__________________________________________________________________________ Senator Aye No

__________________________________________________________________________ 1 Bell * * * * *

* 2 Thompson * * * * 0 * * 3 Roseberry * * * * 0 * * 4 Walker * * * * * * * 5 Cutten * * * * 0 0 * 6

Campbell * * * * * 7 Boynton * * * 0 * * 8 Sanford * * 0 * * * 9 Cartwright * * * * * 10 Caminetti * * 0 * *

0 11 Estudillo 0 * * * * * * 12 Black * * * * 0 * * 13 Holohan * * 0 * * 14 Miller * * * * * 15 Birdsall * * *

0 0 * 16 Stetson * * * * * 17 Rush * * * 0 * * 18 Curtin * * * 0 * 19 Strobridge * * * 0 0 0 * 20 Wright 0 * *

* * * * 21 Anthony * * * 0 0 * 22 Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0 23 McCartney 0 0 * 0 * 24 Kennedy 0 * 0 * * 0 25

Lewis 0 * * 0 0 0 26 Willis 0 0 * * * * 0 27 Welch * * * 0 0 0 28 Bates 0 0 * * 0 0 * 29 Price 0 * * 0 0 0 * 30

Savage * 0 * 0 0 0 * 31 Bills 0 0 * * 0 0 * 32 Leavitt 0 0 0 * * * * 33 Hare 0 0 0 * * 0 34 Hurd 0 * * 0 0 * 35

Martinelli 0 * * 0 0 0 0 36 Wolfe 0 0 0 0 * * 0 37 Reily * 0 0 0 0 0 38 Weed 0 0 0 * 0 0 39 Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

__________________________________________________________________________ Totals 14 16 13

______________________________________________________________________________ Second

Test Vote Local Assembly Vote Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment Stanford Regulation.

______________________________________________________________________________ Senator

______________________________________________________________________________ 1 Bell * * *

* * * 2 Thompson * * * * * * 3 Roseberry * * * * * 4 Walker * 0 * * * * 5 Cutten * * * * * * 6 Campbell * *

* * * * 7 Boynton * * * * * 8 Sanford * * * 0 * * 9 Cartwright * * * * * 10 Caminetti * * * 0 * * 11 Estudillo

* 0 * * 0 * 12 Black * * * * * 13 Holohan * * 0 * * 14 Miller * * 0 * * * 15 Birdsall * * 0 * * 16 Stetson * *

* 17 Rush * * 0 * * 18 Curtin * * 0 0 * * 19 Strobridge * * 0 * * 20 Wright * 0 0 * * 0 21 Anthony * 0 * 0 0

* 22 Burnett * 0 0 * 0 23 McCartney * 0 * 0 * 0 24 Kennedy 0 0 * 0 0 0 25 Lewis * * 0 0 0 0 26 Willis * 0 0

0 0 0 27 Welch 0 * 0 0 0 28 Bates * 0 0 0 29 Price * 0 0 0 0 0 30 Savage * 0 0 0 0 31 Bills * 0 0 0 0 0 32

Leavitt 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Hare 0 0 * 0 0 34 Hurd 0 0 0 0 0 35 Martinelli * 0 0 0 0 36 Wolfe * 0 0 0 0 0 37 Reily 0

___________________________________________________________________________ Totals 29 5 16

N O P __________________________________________________________________ To Test Totals

Change To To of reconsider investigate For Against Absent Venue Change of Freight Reform Reform Bill.

Venue Bill. Rates. __________________________________________________________________ Senator

Aye No Aye No Aye No __________________________________________________________________ 1

Bell * * * 15 0 0 2 Thompson * * * 15 1 0 3 Roseberry * * * 14 1 1 4 Walker * * 14 1 1 5 Cutten * * * 14 2 0

6 Campbell * * 13 0 2 7 Boynton * * * 13 1 2 8 Sanford * * * 13 2 0 9 Cartwright * * 12 0 3 10 Caminetti *

* * 12 3 0 11 Estudillo 0 * * 12 4 0 12 Black * * * 11 1 4 14 Miller 0 * 11 2 2 15 Birdsall * * * 11 3 2 16

Stetson * * 10 0 6 17 Rush * 10 2 4 18 Curtin * * 10 3 2 19 Strobridge * * 10 4 2 20 Wright 0 0 0 9 7 0 21

Anthony 0 0 7 8 1 22 Burnett * 5 7 4 23 McCartney 0 0 5 8 3 24 Kennedy * 0 5 9 1 25 Lewis 0 * 0 5 10 1 26

Willis 0 0 0 5 11 0 27 Welch 0 0 4 9 3 28 Bates 0 0 0 4 10 2 29 Price 0 0 4 11 1 30 Savage 0 0 0 4 11 1 31

Bills 0 0 0 4 12 0 32 Leavitt 0 0 0 4 12 0 33 Hare 0 0 3 10 2 34 Hurd 0 0 0 3 11 2 35 Martinelli 0 0 0 3 12 1

36 Wolfe 0 0 0 3 13 0 37 Reily 0 0 0 2 12 2 38 Weed 0 0 0 1 13 2 39 Finn 0 0 0 0 15 1 40 Hartman 0 0 0 0 16

0 _________________________________________________________________ Totals 21 16 18 18 12 16

_________________________________________________________________________________ Drew's

To Motion to To Return Vote on To To recall amend Reject WalkerOtis Walker reconsider S. J. R. S. J.

Committee's Bill to Otis WalkerOtis No. 3 from R. No. Rules. Committee Bill. Bill. Committee. 3.

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 1

Bohnett * * * * * * 2 Callan * * * * * * 3 Cattell * * * * * * 4 Costar * * * * * * 5 Gibbons * * * * * * 6

Hewitt * * * * * * 7 Johnson, P. H. * * * * * * 8 Mendenhall * * * * * * 9 Polsley * * * * * * 10 Preston * * *

* * * 11 Telfer * * * * * * 12 Whitney * * * * * * 13 Wilson * * * * * * 14 Young * * * * * * 15 Cogswell *

* * * * 16 Drew * * * * * * 17 Gillis * * * * * 18 Juilliard * * * * * 19 Kehoe * * * * * 20 Maher * * * * * 21

Sackett * * * * * * 22 Wyllie * * * * * 23 Flint * * * * * * 24 Hinkle * * * * * * 25 Stuckenbruck * * * * * *

26 Gerdes 0 * * * * 27 Holmquist 0 * * * * * 28 Otis * * * * * 0 29 Irwin * * * * * 30 Rutherford * * * * * 0

31 Griffiths 0 * * * * 32 Odom * 0 * * * 33 Hayes * * * * 0 * 34 Lightner * * * * 0 35 Melrose * * * * * 0 36

Silver * * * * * 0 37 Beatty * * * 0 38 Cronin * * * * * 0 39 Barndollar 0 * * * * 0 40 Rech * * * * 0 0

________________________________________________________________________________ Totals 32

__________________________________________________________________________________ To To

deny Test Vote amend Party Vote on Vote on on Direct Islais Circle Stanford Judicial For Against Absent

Primary. Creek Bill Bill. Column Reform Reform Harbor Second Bill. Bill. Reading.

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________ 1

Bohnett * * * * * 11 0 0 2 Callan * * * * * 11 0 0 3 Cattell * * * * * 11 0 0 4 Costar * * * * * 11 0 0 5

Gibbons * * * * * 11 0 0 6 Hewitt * * * * * 11 0 0 7 Johnson, P. H. * * * * * 11 0 0 8 Mendenhall * * * * *

11 0 0 9 Polsley * * * * * 11 0 0 10 Preston * * * * * 11 0 0 11 Telfer * * * * * 11 0 0 12 Whitney * * * * *

11 0 0 13 Wilson * * * * * 11 0 0 14 Young * * * * * 11 0 0 15 Cogswell * * * * * 10 0 1 16 Drew * * * * 10

0 1 17 Gillis * * * * * 10 0 1 18 Juilliard * * * * * 10 0 1 19 Kehoe * * * * * 10 0 1 20 Maher * * * * * 10 0 1

21 Sackett * * * * 10 0 1 22 Wyllie * * * * * 10 0 1 23 Flint * * 0 * * 10 1 0 24 Hinkle * * 0 * * 10 1 0 25

Stuckenbruck * 0 * * * 10 1 0 26 Gerdes * * * * * 9 1 1 27 Holmquist * * * * 0 9 2 0 28 Otis * * 0 * * 9 2 0

29 Irwin * 0 * 0 * 8 2 1 30 Rutherford 0 * * * 0 8 3 0 31 Griffiths * * 0 * 7 2 2 32 Odom * 0 * * 7 2 2 33

Hayes * 0 0 * 7 3 1 34 Lightner 0 0 * * * 7 3 1 35 Melrose 0 * 0 * 0 7 4 0 36 Silver * 0 0 * 0 7 4 0 37 Beatty

0 * * 0 * 6 3 2 38 Cronin 0 * 0 0 6 4 1 39 Barndollar 0 * 0 * 0 6 5 0 40 Rech 0 * 0 * 0 6 5 0

__________________________________________________________________________________ Totals

(a) Changed Vote from no to aye to give notice to reconsider. Was against the bill.

A B C D E ____________________________________________________________________________

Drew's Motion to To Return Vote on To To recall Reject WalkerOtis Walker reconsider S. J. R.

Committee's Bill to Otis WalkerOtis No. 3 from Rules. Committee Bill. Bill. Committee.

____________________________________________________________________________ Assemblymen

____________________________________________________________________________ 41 Hammon *

* * * 42 Hawk 0 * * * * 43 Stanton 0 * * * * 44 Transue 0 * * * 45 Hanlon * * * * 0 46 Wagner * 0 * 0 * 47

Webber * 0 * * 0 48 Butler * * * 0 49 Collum * 0 0 50 Dean 0 * * * 0 51 Perine 0 * * * 52 Pulcifer 0 * * * 0

53 Collier 0 * * * 0 54 Moore 0 0 * 0 55 Leeds 0 * * * 0 56 Nelson 0 0 * * 0 57 Fleisher 0 * * * 0 58 Flavelle

0 * * * 0 59 McClelland 0 * * * 0 60 Beardslee 0 0 * 0 0 61 Hans 0 * * * 0 62 Johnson, G. L. 0 0 * 0 0 63

Baxter 0 0 0 64 Wheelan * * 0 65 Schmidt 0 0 0 0 66 Black * 0 0 0 67 O'Neil * 0 0 0 0 68 Coghlan 0 0 0 0 69

Hopkins * 0 0 0 70 Johnson, T. D. 0 0 * 0 0 71 Pugh 0 0 0 0 0 72 Feeley 0 * 0 0 73 Johnson, P. A. 0 0 * 0 0

74 Greer 0 0 * 0 0 75 Mott 0 0 * 0 0 76 Cullen 0 0 0 0 77 Beban 0 0 0 0 78 Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 79 McManus

0 0 0 0 0 ____________________________________________________________________________

Totals 9 28 22 15 27 10 19 17 3 27 Totals from Table B 32 4 1 38 40 0 0 40 33 2 Grand Total 41 32 23 53 67

F G H I J K _______________________________________________________________________ To To

To deny amend Test Vote amend Party Vote on Vote on S. J. on Direct Islais Circle Stanford Judicial R. No.

_________________________________________________________________________ Assemblymen

_________________________________________________________________________ 41 Hammon 0 0 0

* 42 Hawk * 0 0 0 0 43 Stanton 0 0 * 0 0 44 Transue 0 0 * 0 * 0 45 Hanlon 0 0 0 0 * 0 46 Wagner 0 0 * 0 * 0

47 Webber * 48 Butler 0 0 * 0 49 Collum 0 0 * * 0 * 50 Dean 0 * 0 0 51 Perine 0 0 0 0 * 52 Pulcifer 0 0 0 *

53 Collier 0 0 0 0 * 54 Moore 0 * * 0 0 * 55 Leeds 0 0 * 0 0 0 56 Nelson 0 0 * * 0 0 57 Fleisher 0 0 0 58

Flavelle 0 0 0 0 59 McClelland 0 0 0 0 0 60 Beardslee 0 * 0 0 * 0 61 Hans 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Johnson, G. L. 0 0 0

* * 0 63 Baxter 0 0 * * 64 Wheelan 0 0 0 0 65 Schmidt 0 * * (a) 0 66 Black 0 0 * 0 0 67 O'Neil 0 0 0 * 68

Coghlan 0 0 * * 0 0 69 Hopkins 0 70 Johnson, T. D. 0 0 0 71 Pugh 0 0 * 0 72 Feeley 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 Johnson,

P. A. 0 0 0 0 0 74 Greer 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Mott 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 Cullen 0 0 0 0 0 77 Beban 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Macauley

_________________________________________________________________________ Totals 34 2 31 3

Totals ___________________________________________ For Against Absent Reform Reform

___________________________________________ 42 Hawk 5 5 1 43 Stanton 5 5 1 44 Transue 5 5 1 45

Hanlon 5 6 0 46 Wagner 5 6 0 47 Webber 4 2 5 48 Butler 4 4 3 49 Collum 4 5 2 50 Dean 4 5 2 51 Perine 4 5

2 52 Pulcifer 4 5 2 53 Collier 4 6 1 54 Moore 4 6 1 55 Leeds 4 7 0 56 Nelson 4 7 0 57 Fleisher 3 5 3 58

Flavelle 3 6 2 59 McClelland 3 7 1 60 Beardslee 3 8 0 61 Hans 3 8 0 62 Johnson, G. L. 3 8 0 63 Baxter 2 5 4

64 Wheelan 2 5 4 65 Schmidt 2 6 3 66 Black 2 7 2 67 O'Neil 2 7 2 68 Coghlan 2 8 1 69 Hopkins 1 4 6 70

Johnson, T. D. 1 7 3 71 Pugh 1 8 2 72 Feeley 1 9 1 73 Johnson, P. A. 1 9 1 74 Greer 1 10 0 75 Mott 1 10 0 76

________________________________________ Totals 107 258 64 Totals from Table B 373 48 19 Grand

A B C D __________________________________________________________ Assembly Vote Motion to

Reconsider Butler's Motion to on WalkerOtis Return Bill Defeat of Motion Put Bill Bill. to Mott's to Amend

__________________________________________________________ Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye

No Aye No __________________________________________________________ Barndollar F F F A

Baxter A A A A Beardslee A A A A Beatty F F F Beban A A A A Black A A A A Bohnett F F F F Butler F

F A A Callan F F F F Cattell F F F F Coghlan A A A A Cogswell F F F Collier F F F F Collum A A A A

Costar F F F F Cronin F F F F Cullen A A A Dean F F F F Drew F F F F Feeley A A A Flavelle F F F F

Fleisher F F F F Flint F F F F Gerdes F F F F Gibbons F A F Gillis F F F F Greer A A A A Griffiths F F F F

Hammon F F F F Hanlon F F F F Hans F F F F Hawk F A F F Hayes F F F F Hewitt F F F F Hinkle F F F F

Holmquist F F F F Hopkins A A A A Irwin F A A A Johnson, G. L. A A A A Johnson, P. A. A A A A

Johnson, P. H. F Johnston, T. D. A A A A Juilliard F A A A Kehoe F F F F Leeds F F F F Lightner F F F A

Macauley A A A A Maher F F F A McClellan F A F A McManus A A A A Melrose F F F F Mendenhall F F

F F Moore A A F A Mott A A F A Nelson A A A A Odom A A F A Otis F F F F O'Neil A A A A Perine F F

F A Polsley F F F F Preston F F F F Pugh A A A A Pulcifer F F F F Rech F F F F Rutherford F F F F Sackett

F F Schmitt A A A A Silver F F F F Stanton F F F F Stuckenbruck F F F F Telfer F F F F Transue F F F F

Wagner A A F F Webber A A A A Wheelan A A A Whitney F F F F Wilson F F F F Wyatt Wyllie F F F F

Young F F F F __________________________________________________________ Totals 23 53 30 48

E F Totals __________________________________________________________ Assembly Vote Vote

Vote on For Against on WalkerOtis on Motion to the the Absent. Bill. Bill. Reconsider. Bill. Bill.

__________________________________________________________ Assemblymen Aye No Aye No

__________________________________________________________ Barndollar F F 5 1 Baxter A 5 1

Beardslee F A 1 5 Beatty F F 5 1 Beban A A 6 Black A A 6 Bohnett F F 6 Butler F F 4 2 Callan F F 6 Cattell

F F 6 Coghlan A A 6 Cogswell F F 5 1 Collier F F 6 Collum A 5 1 Costar F F 6 Cronin F F 6 Cullen A A 5 1

Dean F F 6 Drew F F 6 Feeley F A 1 4 1 Flavelle F F 6 Fleisher F F 6 Flint F F 6 Gerdes F F 6 Gibbons F F 4

1 1 Gillis F F 6 Greer F A 1 5 Griffiths F F 6 Hammon F F 6 Hanlon F F 6 Hans F F 6 Hawk F F 5 1 Hayes F

F 6 Hewitt F F 6 Hinkle F F 6 Holmquist F F 6 Hopkins A A 6 Irwin F F 3 3 Johnson, G. L. F A 1 5 Johnson,

P. A. F A 1 5 Johnson, P. H. F F 3 3 Johnston, T. D. F A 1 5 Juilliard F F 3 3 Kehoe F F 6 Leeds F F 6

Lightner F F 5 1 Macauley A A 6 Maher F F 5 1 McClellan F F 4 2 McManus A A 6 Melrose F F 6

Mendenhall F F 6 Moore F 2 3 1 Mott F A 2 4 Nelson F F 2 4 Odom F F 3 3 Otis F F 6 O'Neil A A 6 Perine

F F 5 1 Polsley F F 6 Preston F F 6 Pugh A A 6 Pulcifer F F 6 Rech F F 6 Rutherford F F 6 Sackett F F 4 2

Schmitt A 5 1 Silver F F 6 Stanton F F 6 Stuckenbruck F F 6 Telfer F F 6 Transue F F 6 Wagner F A 3 3

Webber F F 2 4 Wheelan F 1 3 2 Whitney F F 6 Wilson F F 6 Wyatt Wyllie F F 6 Young F F 6

________________________________________________________ Totals 67 10 19 57 321 137 16

______________________________________________________________________________ To Test To

refer To do Second admit vote Walker Local away Vote First Second Bell on Otis Option Bill with party

Vote Vote to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Stanford Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill.

Bill. ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ Anthony *

* * 0 0 * * Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0 * Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hare 0 0 0 * * 0 0 Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennedy 0 *

______________________________________________________________________________ Totals 3 4 6

Test Vote Local Assembly Change To Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment of reconsider

Regulation. Amendment. Bill. Amendment. to Direct Venue Change of Primary. Bill. Venue Bill.

________________________________________________________________________________ Senator

________________________________________________________________________________ Anthony

0 * 0 0 * 0 0 Burnett 0 0 * 0 Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hare 0 * 0 0 0 0 Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennedy 0 * 0 0 0 *

________________________________________________________________________________ Totals 0

P Totals __________________________________ To investigate For Against Freight Reform Reform Rates.

__________________________________ Senator Aye No __________________________________

Anthony 0 7 8 Burnett * 5 7 Finn 0 0 15 Hare 3 10 Hartman 0 0 16 Kennedy 0 5 9 Reily 0 2 12 Welch 0 4 9

(a) Changed Vote from no to aye to give notice to reconsider. Was against the bill.

______________________________________________________________________________ Drew's To

Motion to To Return Vote on To To recall amend Reject WalkerOtis Walker reconsider S. J. R. S. J.

Committee's Bill to Otis WalkerOtis No. 3 from R. No. Rules. Committee Bill. Bill. Committee. 3.

______________________________________________________________________________ Beatty * *

* 0 Beban 0 0 0 0 0 Black * 0 0 0 Callan * * * * * * Coghlan 0 0 0 0 0 Collum * 0 0 0 Cullen 0 0 0 0 0

Gerdes 0 * * * * Hopkins * 0 0 0 0 Lightner * * * * 0 Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 0 McManus 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nelson 0 0

* * 0 0 O'Neil * 0 0 0 0 0 Pugh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perine 0 * * * 0 Schmitt 0 0 0 0 Wheelan * * 0 0

______________________________________________________________________________ Totals 7 10

________________________________________________________________________________ To To

deny Test Vote amend Party Vote on Vote on on Direct Islais Circle Stanford Judicial For Against Absent

Primary. Creek Bill Bill. Column Reform Reform Harbor Second Bill. Bill. Reading.

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________ Beatty 0

* * 0 * 6 3 2 Beban 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 Black 0 0 * 0 0 2 7 2 Callan * * * * * 11 0 0 Coghlan 0 * * 0 0 2 8 1

Collum 0 * * 0 * 4 5 2 Cullen 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 Gerdes * * * * * 9 1 1 Hopkins 1 4 6 Lightner 0 0 * * * 7 3 1

Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 McManus 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 Nelson 0 * * 0 0 4 7 0 O'Neil 0 0 * 2 7 2 Pugh 0 * 0 1 8 2

________________________________________________________________________________ Totals 15

A B C D E F G ________________________________________________________________________ To

Test To refer To do Second admit vote Walker Local away Vote First Bell on Otis Option Bill with party

Vote to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill.

________________________________________________________________________ Senator Aye No

________________________________________________________________________ Anthony * * * 0 0

* Bates 0 0 * * 0 0 * Bell * * * * * * Black * * * * 0 * * Boynton * * * 0 * * Caminetti * * 0 * * 0 Cartwright

* * * * * Curtin * * * 0 * Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennedy 0 * 0 * * 0 Leavitt 0 0 0 * * * * McCartney 0 0 * 0

* Miller * * * * * Price 0 * * 0 0 0 * Reily * 0 0 0 0 0 Sanford * * 0 * * * Savage * 0 * 0 0 0 * Weed 0 0 0 *

________________________________________________________________________ Totals 5 8 9 11 16

H I J K L M ___________________________________________________________________________

Second Test Vote Local Assembly Vote Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment Stanford

___________________________________________________________________________ Senator Aye

___________________________________________________________________________ Anthony * 0 *

0 0 * Bates * 0 0 0 Bell * * * * * * Black * * * * * Boynton * * * * * Caminetti * * * 0 * * Cartwright * * * *

* Curtin * * 0 0 * * Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennedy 0 0 * 0 0 0 Leavitt 0 0 0 0 0 0 McCartney * 0 * 0 * 0 Miller

* * 0 * * * Price * 0 0 0 0 0 Reily 0 * 0 0 0 Sanford * * * 0 * * Savage * 0 0 0 0 Weed 0 0 0 0 0 Willis * 0 0

___________________________________________________________________________ Totals 14 3 8

O P Totals __________________________________________________ To To reconsider investigate For

__________________________________________________ Anthony 0 0 7 8 Bates 0 0 4 10 Bell * * 15 0

Black 11 1 Boynton * * 13 1 Caminetti * * 12 3 Cartwright * 12 0 Curtin * 10 3 Hartman 0 0 0 16 Kennedy 0

5 9 Leavitt 0 0 4 12 McCartney 0 5 8 Miller * 0 11 2 Price 0 4 11 Reily 0 0 2 12 Sanford * * 13 2 Savage 0 0

A B C D E F G ________________________________________________________________________ To

Test To refer To do Second admit vote Walker Local away Vote First Bell on Otis Option Bill with party

Vote to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill.

________________________________________________________________________ Senator Aye No

________________________________________________________________________ Bills 0 0 * * 0 0 *

Birdsall * * * 0 0 * Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0 Campbell * * * * * Cutten * * * * 0 0 * Estudillo 0 * * * * * * Finn 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Hare 0 0 0 * * 0 Holohan * * 0 * * Hurd 0 * * 0 0 * Lewis 0 * * 0 0 0 Martinelli 0 * * 0 0 0 0

Roseberry * * * * 0 * * Rush * * * 0 * * Stetson * * * * * Strobridge * * * 0 0 0 * Thompson * * * * 0 * *

________________________________________________________________________ Totals 9 8 4 16 17

H I J K L M ___________________________________________________________________________

Second Test Vote Local Assembly Vote Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment Stanford

___________________________________________________________________________ Senator Aye

___________________________________________________________________________ Bills * 0 0 0 0

0 Birdsall * * 0 * * Burnett * 0 0 * 0 Campbell * * * * * * Cutten * * * * * * Estudillo * 0 * * 0 * Finn 0 0 0

0 0 Hare 0 0 * 0 0 Holohan * * 0 * * Hurd 0 0 0 0 0 Lewis * * 0 0 0 0 Martinelli * 0 0 0 0 Roseberry * * * * *

Rush * * 0 * * Stetson * * * Strobridge * * 0 * * Thompson * * * * * * Walker * 0 * * * * Welch 0 * 0 0 0

___________________________________________________________________________ Totals 2 8 10

N O P Totals _________________________________________________________ Change To To of

reconsider investigate For Against Venue Change of Freight Reform Reform Bill. Venue Bill. Rates.

_________________________________________________________ Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No

_________________________________________________________ Bills 0 0 0 4 12 Birdsall * * * 11 3

Burnett * 5 7 Campbell * * 13 0 Cutten * * * 14 2 Estudillo 0 * * 12 4 Finn 0 0 0 15 Hare 0 0 0 3 11 Holohan

* * * 11 2 Hurd 0 0 0 3 11 Lewis 0 * 0 5 10 Martinelli 0 0 0 3 12 Roseberry * * * 14 1 Rush * 10 2 Stetson *

* 10 0 Strobridge * * 10 4 Thompson * * * 15 1 Walker * * 14 1 Welch 0 0 0 4 9 Wolfe 0 0 0 3 13

_________________________________________________________ Totals 9 9 11 7 8 6 164 119

By Senator L. H. Roseberry, Who Introduced the Postal Direct Primary Bill at the Session of 1909.

In order to understand the full purpose and effect of the proposed Postal Direct Primary law, it is necessary to

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 elections. It

therefore follows that that system, or primary, which will get out the largest number of votes or the greatest

expression of the people on the choice of candidates is, of necessity, the best primary law. If it is true that all

present direct primaries, 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 onehalf of the registered vote of all parties,

it then follows beyond question, that all present direct primary laws are only half successful. Upon an

examination 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 registered Republican vote was cast, and less than 25% of the Democratic vote. In the State of

Washington about 57% of the registered 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 statistics 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

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

While there is no present example of the working of a system of direct nominations through a ballot cast

through the mails for 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

commerce, Granger organizations, alumni associations, and other civic, religious and benevolent

associations, balloted on propositions submitted 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 person 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 organizations

using it to be free from any objections. This fact, together with the unanimous vote cast, led to the idea of

casting votes by mail at direct primaries for the nomination of public officers by political parties. The system

that has been proposed is extremely simple, and it appears highly reasonable and practicable. A short outline

of the provisions of the bill will assist in an understanding of the arguments offered in its favor and those

In the first place, each elector, at the time of registering, declares 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 instance, all Republican ballots throughout the State, at every

election must be printed upon pink colored paper and none other; the Democratic ballot upon white colored

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 petition. 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, addressed to the business or home address of each

separate elector, containing a selfaddressed and stamped return envelope, returnable 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 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 outside 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 postoffice box. It

then goes to the postoffice directed by law, addressed 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 out, compares each signature on each envelope with the same signature subscribed

on the original affidavit of registration, and if it be genuine, opening the envelope, removing the ballot

therefrom, without opening the same, observing 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

This makes it practically impossible for any ballot to be cast or counted other than the one lawfully mailed

and regularly received and voted and mailed in person by the elector to whom it was sent.

Even the most prejudiced opponents of the Postal Direct Primary 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 farreaching argument for the bill as a general working measure for direct nominations. 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 themselves to any scheme to deliver their primary ballots to certain persons to be voted as

At first blush, this argument appears to have some force, but upon close reading of the provisions of the bill,

and its necessary effect upon the Practical operation of a primary campaign, it must be admitted that this sole

objection is largely argumentative. 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 envelope 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 envelope and dropped in the postoffice. 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

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 tampering 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

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 remailed on the same

day received; that it would be practically impossible 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

It must appear from a broadminded 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 percentage of the

ignorant and vicious vote could be corrupted by the bosses, it certainly could not be large. It could not

possibly exceed ten per cent of the registered vote. In light of the fact that this system would bring out at least

twentyfive 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,

And it would for the first time give the intelligent and honest 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 would tend to rouse and awaken 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 suffrage. 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 honest 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.

On the afternoon of March 21, 1909, about 4:30 p. m., J. L. Martin, SergeantatArms 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 Sacramento. 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 afternoon; according to their statement, Senator

Marshall Black had arrived in Palo Alto about five days previously suffering from inflammation 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 bronchopneumonia, and symptoms

of inflammation in the lower lobe of the left lung, the temperature that afternoon was ninetynine 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 examination should be held by the Senate physician, and that such an examination in their

opinion could do 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 declined 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

Delegated by LieutenantGovernor Warren R. Porter to examine into the state of health of Senator Marshall

Whereas, Assembly Bill, No. 14, introduced by Mr. Johnson of Sacramento, and reading as follows:

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 twentyone 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

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 government of the United States

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

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 government of the United

States and the government of Japan, and because of such conflict the passage of such bill would be beyond

Whereas, The Governor of this State and the Speaker of this Assembly have conveyed to this body their

Whereas, It is the desire of this body to accede to the wishes of the Chief Executive of this State, and the

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

1. The school system of the State of California is an institution of the State alone, maintained, supported,

conducted and controlled 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

3. That the Legislature of California may properly pass any law relative to the school system of this State that

4. That by said Assembly Bill No. 14 it is not designed to deprive children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or

Japanese descent 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

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

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

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 Constitution, 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

8. And finally, while we recognize that Assembly Bill No. 14 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