But the initial fight did not come in the Senate. The Assembly was the battle-ground. The reason for this lies principally in the fact that while Assemblyman W. B. Griffiths, of Napa, raises fast horses, he is not a gambler, and is as much opposed to the bookmaking, pool-selling features of the track as Senator Walker himself. 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 Walker-Otis bill. On January 18, less than three weeks after the Legislature had assembled, Chairman Griffiths called his committee together to take up the Walker-Otis bill.

Of the nine members of the committee, seven were present, Mott and Mendenhall alone failing to answer to their names. Those present were: Griffiths, Cattell, Young, Dean, Perine, Fleisher and Wilson. The seven members went through the bill paragraph by paragraph and decided unanimously to recommend it for passage.

Had a dynamite bomb been set off under the Emeryville gambling establishment, greater consternation could scarcely have seized upon the pro-gambling element. The gamblers realized that the committee's prompt action threatened the machine's plan to delay action on the measure until the closing days of the session. For the moment all interest centered in Mott and Mendenhall, the two members of the committee who had been absent when the measure had been considered. Twenty-four hours developed the fact that Mendenhall sanctioned the action of his seven associates. This made eight of the nine committeemen for the bill. But the ninth member, Assemblyman Mott of Alameda County, was very much offended at what the committee had done.

Assemblyman Mott was elected as a Lincoln-Roosevelt League member. Probably the Lincoln-Roosevelt League does not like to be reminded of that unfortunate fact. But the lesson of Mr. Mott is so necessary for the Lincoln-Roosevelt League and all other reform 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 Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican platform of his county pledged him to it. But there is a deal of difference between supporting a measure and voting for it[26].

Mott was very much offended at what the committee had done and demanded that another meeting be held. Such a meeting, to accommodate Mr. Mott, was held - held in the office of Speaker Phil Stanton; held behind closed doors; held with Jerk Burke, Southern Pacific lobbyist, safely entrenched across the hall from Speaker Stanton's office in the back office of Sergeant-at-Arms Stafford[27].

But Mott failed to change the position of his eight associates. The further consideration of the measure by the committee which he demanded was denied. He accordingly took the fight for reconsideration to the floor of the Assembly. The fact that eight of the committee were against him, apparently had no weight at all with Mr. Mott.

Failing to force the committee to reconsider its action in recommending that the bill pass, Mott told his troubles to the Assembly. In the Assembly Mott moved that the measure be re-referred to the Committee on Public Morals, eight members of which had joined in 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 pro-gambling lobby. Mott, chagrined and discomfited, retired in confusion[28].

Assemblyman Gibbons managed at this point to tie the bill up for another day, by giving notice that on the day following, he would move that the vote by which the bill was refused reference to the Committee on Public Morals be reconsidered. The day following Mr. Gibbons made his motion but was voted down, thirty Assemblymen supporting and forty-eight opposing him[29].

The Gibbons motion having been disposed of, Assemblyman Butler moved to amend the measure, by substituting for it the Martinelli-Butler bill. But again did the anti-gambling element force the issue. The motion was lost by a vote of 23 to 52.

Other proposed amendments having been voted down, Mr. Otis moved that the bill be put on 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. Sixty-seven Assemblymen voted for it; only ten - and every one of them from San Francisco - voted against it.

By consulting the table showing the six votes on this bill - Table "D" of the appendix - it will be seen that eleven of the twenty-three Assemblymen who voted for Mott's motion to refer the measure back to the 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 Walker-Otis 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 twenty-four hours. On the 2nd Johnson made his motion to reconsider but was defeated by a vote of nineteen to fifty-seven.

The table of the six votes on the Walker-Otis bill shows at a glance who voted consistently for the measure on all of the numerous roll calls; who voted consistently against it; and who were pulled backward and forward, voting one moment to satisfy the public demand that the bill be passed, and the next on the side of the gambling interests[31].

Public opinion was running high for the passage of the Walker-Otis bill by the time the measure reached the Senate, after passing the Assembly, but the bill might still have been held up in the Senate committee[32] had it not been for the ridiculous attack which Tom Williams, president of the California jockey Club, made upon all who supported the measure, or all who Williams thought supported it.

The occasion was a public hearing before the Senate Committee on Public Morals, at which Williams was asked to present the side of the opponents of the bill. The crowd that filled the Senate chamber expected from 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 uncalled-for 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 State[33].

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, but not until Williams had effectively settled the fate of the Walker-Otis bill.

The Committee on Public Morals reported the bill back the next day with the recommendation that it do not pass. The recommendation was that of Weed, Wolfe and Leavitt. While Kennedy and Savage failed to vote for the recommendation, they made no minority report. But even with the unfavorable report, the measure passed the Senate by a vote of 33 to 7. In the eleventh hour, uncertain Senators like Welch joined the winning side, but the showing made by the gamblers was, all things considered, better than could have been expected[34].

In the Senate and Assembly, out of a total vote of 120, the gambling element, which had year after year succeeded in preventing the passage of an anti-racetrack gambling bill, commanded on the measure's final passage but seventeen votes. The incident illustrates what aroused public opinion, when it finds expression in a definite plan of action, can compel.

But even with the measure's final passage, the delays that attended it continued. It passed the Senate on Thursday, February 4. By the following Saturday, the 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 Walker-Otis bill issue, Mott in effect voted four times against the immediate passage of the measure. See Table "D."

[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 was an anxious hour for the machine.

[28] This first test vote in the Assembly on the Walker-Otis bill was as follows:

For Mott's motion, and in effect against the bill: Baxter, Beardslee, Beban, Black, Coghlan, Collum, Cullen, Greer, Hopkins, Johnson of Sacramento (Grove L.), Johnson of San Diego, 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 Walker-Otis 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 voted against the bill he could not have secured its reconsideration.

[31] Attention is called to the vote on reconsideration of Assemblyman Feeley, of Alameda, another Lincoln-Roosevelt member Mr. Feeley was absent when the vote on Mott's motion was taken. But Mr. Feeley voted for the bill when it was on final passage, thus keeping his record straight. But Mr. Feeley hastened to vote for reconsideration of the measure.

Mr. Feeley, like Mr. Mott, was nominated by the Lincoln-Roosevelt League because he could be elected. Mr. Feeley furnishes another example of the folly of which reformers are sometimes guilty, of nominating men whose best recommendation seems to be that they can be elected. To be elected is very important, to be sure; but if a man when elected to the Legislature is to vote against reform policies, why should the anti-machine element nominate him, thereby losing all the chance they, might have had of electing a man who would be in sympathy with their endeavors?

[32] In 1907, a measure similar to the Walker-Otis bill was killed in this way. It passed the Assembly and was in the Senate referred to the Senate Committee on Public Morals. The committee refused to report it back to the Senate, and friends of the measure could not secure enough votes on the floor of the Senate to compel the committee to act. The committee (1907) consisted of Senators Irish, Leavitt, Lynch, Wolfe and Kennedy. Irish and Lynch did not sit in the Senate of 1909, and could not be reappointed to the committee. But Lieutenant- Governor Porter distinguished himself by reappointing to the committee Wolfe, Leavitt and Kennedy. Weed and Savage were added to take the places left vacant by Irish and Lynch. Weed in 1907 voted with Leavitt, Wolfe and Kennedy against compelling the committee to release the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. Senator Savage (1907) voted for the bill's release, but Senator Savage at the opening of the session of 1909, was at least counted as opposed to the Walker-Otis bill. The gambling element had no complaint to make of the Committee on Public Morals which Lieutenant- Governor Porter had appointed.

[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 Walker-Otis bill, to demand of him how it is that at the polls the gamblers of that city invariably defeat the anti-gambling element.

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

"Yes," was the reply.

"And I asked you why you were in politics?" continued Treat.

"Yes," said Daroux.

"And you told me," insisted Treat, "that you were in politics for principle."

"Yes," admitted the pool seller.

"And I asked you how you spelt it then; and I ask you how you spell it now?"

The crowd that packed the Senate Chamber, even the scores of racetrack touts that had been rushed to Sacramento to give weight to the side of the gamblers, went wild at this. Treat was cheered to the echo. Daroux slunk back into his seat silenced and was not heard from again the whole evening.

[34] The vote was as follows:

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.

Against the bill: Finn, Hare, Hartman, Leavitt, Reily, Weed, Wolfe - 7.



Chapter VIII.

The Direct Primary Bill.

Parallel Between It and the Walker-Otis 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 Measure Provided - Machine's Plan of Campaign.



The parallel between the Walker-Otis Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill and the Wright-Stanton Direct Primary bill furnishes the most suggestive feature of the 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 race-course in the interest of the gambling element; the second to prevent the domination in public affairs of the corrupt, corporation-backed political boss.

Each had been discussed in the public prints for months previous to the convening of the Legislature, and each had been made in the popular view of affairs a sort of test by which the Legislature was to be judged.

Each had the support of not only the better element of electors, but the better element of each House of the Legislature. Each had the determined secret opposition, and so far as it dared, the open opposition of the machine.

The campaign which the machine planned against the bills was practically the same in each instance - to amend the measures into a condition of ineffectiveness, and then pass them as sop to The People. This would have given The People a Direct Primary law without a direct primary; an Anti-Gambling law that would neither close poolrooms nor interfere with bookmaking.

And here the parallel ends.

The proponents of the Anti-Gambling bill introduced an Anti-Gambling measure, showed that it was the best that could be drawn, and let it be known that they (the supporters of the measure) would, if it were amended by the machine, vote against it.

The proponents of the Direct Primary bill, on the other hand, seemed possessed of the notion that they must placate the machine if any Direct Primary bill were to be passed.

The backers of the Anti-Gambling bill treated the machine leaders as recognized enemies of the measure, with whom there could be no compromise. The backers of the Direct Primary bill treated the machine leaders as friends and allies, inviting them to offer suggestion and advice.

The results of the two campaigns speak for the effectiveness of the two methods. The Anti-Gambling element put through an effective Anti-Gambling 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 its liking.

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 jelly-fish attitude of the leaders in the movement caused no little unfavorable comment.

It did not seem to occur to the self-constituted leaders that their proper course was to draw up the most effective measure possible, let its effectiveness be known to the people - as was done in the case of the Anti-Gambling bill - and insist that the Legislature go on record for or against it.

Instead, they endeavored to satisfy everybody, 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 the same time, easy victory.

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 Anti-Gambling 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 Anti-Gambling bill, and have forced that compromise which Wolfe in his speech on the Walker-Otis bill regretted so bitterly had not been made.

The purpose of the Direct Primary is primarily to take away from the political bosses the monopoly which the convention system gives them in naming candidates for office, and to place such nomination in the hands of The People. To this end, under the Direct Primary laws that have of recent years been adopted, the boss-controlled convention is done away with, and the candidate for office nominated by the direct vote of The People.

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

Thus, no citizen who had not supported the majority of his party candidates at the previous election, and who was unwilling to take an oath before their nomination, to support a majority of the candidates at the next ensuing election, was to be eligible for primary nomination to office.

But this, and similar unfortunate provisions were 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 primary idea the selection of United States Senators by direct vote.

The Federal laws provide that United States Senators shall be elected by the Legislature. But in States where 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 United States Senate as The People may have named.

The Legislature is thus made to abide by The People's will in electing United States Senators, precisely as the Electoral College is made to abide by The People's will in the election of the President.

To be sure, no candidate for the Legislature need take the pledge if he does not care to do so, but it is 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 same as that of any candidate for State office.

The Senatorial candidate who receives the highest number of votes is not, of course, elected to the United States Senate, but candidates to the Legislature are given opportunity to pledge themselves to respect the wishes of the voters and elect to the Senate the candidate who is thus endorsed. The Legislative candidate may sign such a pledge, or he may sign a statement that he will regard the popular vote for United States Senator as merely advisory and not binding.

But it is noticeable that in Oregon and other States where such wholesome direct primary measures have 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 electors of his party[36].

The name of a candidate for the United States Senate did not, under the original Wright-Stanton 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 United States Senators, as are The People of Oregon.

If the framers of the Wright-Stanton Primary bill thought that their compromise on the United States 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 combated the Oregon plan itself.

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 re-election of Senator Frank Flint would have been made practically impossible. So the machine fought the Wright-Stanton plan as stubbornly as it would have opposed the Oregon plan.

On the other hand, the best supporters of the Direct Primary idea were much disappointed that the Oregon plan had not been incorporated into the bill. Not a few of them grew lukewarm in their support of the measure. 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 most effective arguments against the bill were found in the bill itself.

This was demonstrated at the public hearing, held January 26th, to consider the various provisions of the measure. The principal speakers were Hiram Johnson and Judge John F. Davis.

Mr. Johnson dealt with the Direct Primary in a 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 enacted, not from the opponents of the Direct Primary theory.

Of course this dissatisfaction of the advocates of an effective law encouraged the machine to action. The measure was deliberately left with the Committee on Election Laws. The Anti-Gambling bill had passed both Houses by February 4th, one month after the session had opened. But on that date, the Committee had just begun consideration of the measure. To be sure, the Election Laws Committee had been stacked against the Direct Primary bill, but the Public Morals Committee had been stacked against the Anti-Gambling bill as well. But the opponents of racetrack gambling were satisfied with the Walker-Otis bill, while the proponents of the Direct Primary for California were by no means satisfied with the Wright-Stanton bill.

So the machine dared do with the Direct Primary bill what it did not dare do with the Anti-Gambling bill. The Walker-Otis bill had a standing which the Wright-Stanton bill did not have.

That the Committee on Election Laws did not act early in the session on the Direct Primary bill was not because of the purpose of Senator Estudillo, Chairman of the Committee. Time after time did Estudillo call meetings for consideration of the bill, and repeatedly, he found only himself, and Senators Stetson and Wright in attendance. Finally, in February, Senator Estudillo succeeded in getting his committee together for consideration of the all-important measure.

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 follows:

(1) As to candidates:

The machine proposed to amend the bill so that either a majority or a high plurality vote should be required to nominate candidates at the primary election. In the event of no candidate for a given office receiving a majority or the required plurality, the nomination was to be made by a nominating convention as under the old convention system. With such a provision it would have been easy for the machine to introduce a large number of 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 under its provisions.

(2) As to United States Senators:

To deny The People a voice in the election of United States Senators, the machine had two plans:

(A) To cut all provisions for the election of United States Senators out of the bill.

(B) Failing in this, to amend the bill so that 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 the Federal Senators were nominated and elected.



[35] In addition to the Wright-Stanton 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 of the Legislature reached Sacramento.

[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 the defeat of a meritorious measure.

[36] The original Wright-Stanton bill provided two pledges, which the candidate for the Legislature was given opportunity to sign. The first pledge bound him to abide by the choice of the electors of his party for United States Senator. It read as follows:

"I further declare to The People of California and to The People of the .......... (Senatorial or Assembly) District that during my term of office, without regard to my individual 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 Congress."

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

"I further declare to The People of California and to The People 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."



Chapter IX.

Machine Defeated in the Senate.

Reform Forces, Regardless of Party, Unite to Secure the Passage of an Effective Direct Primary Law-Agree on a Compromise Measure and Succeed in Forcing It Through the Senate - Machine Badly Beaten.



Senator Leroy A. Wright of San Diego introduced the Direct Primary bill in the Senate on January 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 machine Senators.

At the meeting of the Senate Committee on Election Laws, held February 1st, the solid six on the Committee, Leavitt, Wolfe, Savage, Hartman, Kennedy and Hare, had voted two amendments into the bill which rendered it absolutely useless for practical purposes.

The first amendment provided that a majority instead of a plurality vote should nominate, a provision as unconstitutional as impracticable. The second amendment cut out of the measure all provision for popular vote for United States Senators.

This decided action on the part of the machine had brought consternation upon Estudillo and Stetson who wanted to see an effective measure passed. Wright in this crisis took the floor to state his position.

"For my part," said Wright, "I would never sign a pledge to vote for the candidate for United States 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 has been introduced."

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 pro-primary fight, fell. To employ the famous expression of Speaker Stanton of the Assembly, they felt the ground slipping from under their feet. There was a sensation of farther slipping, when Wright, author of the measure, pro-primary leader and Call-heralded reformer, offered an amendment as substitute for popular State-wide choice for United States Senator, by making the vote for United States Senator advisory only[37].

The grin of satisfaction on the faces of the machine Senators broadened as Wright read his amendment while the faces of Estudillo and Stetson grew blanker. But the machine Senators were in no hurry. Things were coming their way; there was no reason for them to rush matters. So they lazily took twenty-four hours to think it over. Then they bluntly rejected Wright's compromise, the solid six, Wolfe, Leavitt, Savage, Hartman, Kennedy and Hare voting against its acceptance.

Estudillo and Stetson voted to accept the compromise. They explained their votes. Their explanations showed their earnestness in working for the best Direct Primary measure that could be passed - which indicates what might have been done under other leadership - and a loyalty to Wright, the accepted leader in the Direct Primary fight, which, to say the least, was misplaced.

"With this amendment," said Senator Stetson, in explaining his vote, "the bill is not one-half so strong as it was before. I do not like it. But I must train with one side or with the other, and for that reason shall vote for Senator Wright's substitute."

Senator Estudillo stated that he voted for the 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."

And then the six machine members rejected the amendment.

There wasn't much left of the Direct Primary bill. The measure was, on February 16th, two weeks after the application of the committee's pruning knife, reported back to the Senate with all reference to election of United States Senators stricken from it, and the unconstitutional and impracticable majority vote required for the nomination of candidates for office, instead of the constitutional and practical plurality vote, as originally provided in the bill.

The fact should not be lost sight of that the two 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 Anti-Gambling bill. Nor should it be forgotten that two of their most docile followers in the Committee on Election Laws, Kennedy and Hare, are "Democrats." There was no partisanship shown in the ranks of the opponents of the Direct Primary bill; machine Democrats and machine Republicans united for its defeat. But when anti-machine Republican and anti-machine Democrats united for its passage, Wolfe and Leavitt were shocked beyond measure.

Machine Senators denounced the anti-machine Republicans as mongrels, enemies of the Republican party, and insisted that if the anti-machine Republicans persisted in continuing with the anti-machine Democrats to secure the passage of an effective Direct Primary law, the 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 anti-machine Republicans and the anti machine Democrats together as a matter of self-defense. The anti-machine Republicans and Democrats saw the machine Democrats and Republicans united to defeat the passage of an effective Direct Primary measure. So the anti-machine Republicans and Democrats organized that they might successfully combat the organized machine Democrats and Republicans. For the first time in the history of the California Legislature, so far as the writer knows, the Senate divided on the only practical line of division for the enactment of good measures and the defeat of bad ones - with the anti-machine Senators on one side and the machine Senators on the other.

The "band-wagon" Senators of the Welch variety, and the doubtful Senators, were left for the moment to herd by themselves.

The anti-machine forces held meetings - caucuses if you like - to decide upon the course to be pursued. They numbered at first twenty members, fifteen Republicans and five Democrats. The Republicans were Bell, 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 the deliberations of the twenty.

Senator Price, however, became alarmed at the irregularity of anti-machine Republicans meeting with anti machine Democrats, gathered his virtuous partisan skirts about him and fled in dismay.

Senator Caminetti also left the meeting. Caminetti is a strong advocate of the Oregon plan for the election of United States Senators. When Caminetti found Senator Wright, the accepted leader of the pro-primary forces, opposed not only to the Oregon plan, but to any plan that would give electors a State-wide vote for United States Senators, he refused to go to Wright's assistance. Later on, however, when Wright went to Caminetti pleading for support, Caminetti agreed to abide by the decisions of the anti-machine caucus. Curiously enough, after the machine had worn the anti-machine forces out, Caminetti was the only Senator who refused to accept the machine's amendments to the bill which the anti-machine caucus had agreed upon.

With Price and Caminetti out, the anti-machine forces were reduced to eighteen Senators, although it was known that Rush sympathized with the movement but was not present because he had been unavoidably detained.

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 Wolfe-Leavitt element had done with the bill in committee, and stated that unless the anti-machine forces got together, the machine would amend the measure into ineffectiveness. Following Wright's address the anti-machine Senators considered the original Wright-Stanton bill under three heads:

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

(2) Shall the partisan features be eliminated from the measure?

(3) Shall the provisions of the measure be extended to the election of United States Senators?

The first question was brought up on Stetson's motion that a twenty-five per cent plurality be required to nominate. The machine aimed to fix the plurality at forty per cent, but even the twenty-five per cent compromise was denied. The motion received but four votes, in its favor.

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 partisan features.

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 instead of State-wide, as the original bill provided. The vote was as follows:

For Wright's motion - Burnett, Wright - 2.

Against Wright's motion - Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Cartwright, Cutten, Holohan, Miller, Roseberry, Stetson, Strobridge, Walker - 12.

Excused from voting - Campbell, Estudillo, Hurd, Thompson.

A scene of great confusion followed. Campbell, who had refused to vote because he insisted upon the Oregon plan of electing United States Senators by direct vote of The People, insisted that the provision be incorporated into the bill. He refused to be bound by any plan that would restrict the election within party lines. So they blocked Campbell in one corner of the room with a table, and reasoned with him. Twenty-one votes were required to pass the Direct Primary bill in the Senate. At that time counting Rush, who was not present at the caucus, the anti-machine forces had only nineteen. They could not afford to lose even one of their number.

Above the confusion, Senator Holohan managed to make his voice heard.

"Gentlemen," he said, "I would like to have the 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 had been agreed upon.

The uniting of the anti-machine Senators to fight the combined machine Democrats and Republicans called down upon the anti-machine element the denunciation of the machine press. The Catkins newspapers, for example, sputtered their condemnation of Republican Senators who would unite with Democratic Senators in "rump caucus."

On the other hand the San Francisco Call, at that time warmly supporting the anti-machine movement in the Senate, was extreme in denouncing Lieutenant-Governor Porter, presiding officer of the Senate, Leavitt, Wolfe, and all others who were opposing the passage of the Direct Primary measure as it had originally been introduced by Wright, and as it had been agreed upon in the reform caucus[38].

The fight in the Senate came on the second reading of the bill February 18th. On the 16th, however, the setting for the contest had been fixed by the majority of the Committee on Election Laws, which reported with favorable recommendation the measure as the Committee had cut it to pieces. The minority of the Committee, Estudillo, Stetson and Wright, reported back the bill agreed upon by the non-partisan caucus of anti-machine Senators.

But the fight did not come over either report. When the bill came up on the 18th for second reading and amendment, Senator McCartney, on behalf of the machine forces, introduced a resolution over which the contest waged. McCartney's resolution provided that the bill should be so amended that the primary vote for United States Senator should be by districts and advisory only, and that for county and local offices a vote of 25 per cent and for State offices a vote of 40 per cent should nominate[39].

The debate was over this resolution. The motion for its adoption was defeated by a vote of twenty-seven against to thirteen for[40].

Incidentally, the debate settled one of the most 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 anti-machine 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 Cutten's speech, and the defeat of the McCartney amendment.

Naturally, the anti-machine 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 outcome:

"Twenty-seven Senators at Sacramento stood true to their party pledges, and voiced the will of the people in their votes on the Direct Primary bill yesterday. Thirteen other Senators wrote into the record conclusive proof of their unfitness for the offices they hold, when they voted against the Wright-Stanton bill, and for the corrupt political machine which is the Southern Pacific Railroad. Every man of these thirteen confessed corruptionists knew what he was doing, knew whose will he was putting above The People's. Every one of these thirteen betrayers of the public weal has written the epitaph of his political tombstone."

The Call was as generous in its praise of the anti-machine Democrats and Republicans as it was bitter against the machine Senators who had endeavored to force the McCartney amendment into the bill. While that paper printed the names of the thirteen in bold, black type on the first page under the heading, "These Men Voted for the Machine," in type just as bold and just as black it printed in an honor column the names of the twenty-seven who had voted against the McCartney amendment, under the heading, "These Men Voted for the People."

Said the Call in its admirable report of the defeat of the McCartney amendment, of the original nineteen anti-machine Senators who had organized to resist the machine:

"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 co-operation of the unbossed Democrats and Republicans."

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

"The Direct Primary bill is The People's bill. Such men as Dooling, Wright, Stanton, Davis and Cartwright made it. There is no honest argument against it, there will be no honest Senators against it."

Such was the view of the Call on February 18. Few were willing to believe on that date that within a month the Call would have thrown its influence on the side of Leavitt and Wolfe and Warren Porter in an attempt to force part of the McCartney amendment into the Direct Primary bill. It did not seem possible then that within a month the Call would be denouncing, ridiculing and misrepresenting Senators whose efforts had resulted in the defeat of the McCartney amendment because of the refusal of these anti-machine Senators to join with the machine Senators whom they had once defeated, and 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 editors so strongly.

But such was to be. And, too, the combination of Calkins Syndicate, Lieutenant-Governor Porter, Senator Leroy A. Wright, the San Francisco Call and the thirteen "betrayers of the public weal" proved too much for the little band of anti-machine Senators. And what is more, backed by the Call, the machine leaders finally amended the Direct Primary bill, which on February 18th the Call had stated very positively no honest Senator would be against.



[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 the sentiment of the voters in their respective parties."

[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."

Of Leavitt and other machine Senators, the Call on the same date said:

"Leavitt, who bossed the fight against the Otis-Walker bill, will furnish the brains for the fight against the Direct Primary bill, and every one of the seven who voted against the Otis-Walker bill, are more or less frankly against the primary bill. Savage, who did not vote against the Walker-Otis bill because his vote would have done no good, and Hartman and Hare, who did vote against the Otis-Walker bill, have gone on record against honest direct Primaries, as members of the majority of the Senate Committee on Election Laws. Savage is frank enough to admit that he is opposed to any direct primary law."

[39] The McCartney resolution was in full-as follows:

"Resolved, That Senate Bill No. 3, and all pending amendments thereto, be and the same is hereby referred to the Committee on Elections and Election Laws, with the following instructions:

"1. Amend the bill so as to give an advisory vote by districts on United States Senators."

"2. Amend the bill by providing for a percentage of votes 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 voted on by direct vote."

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

[40] The vote in full was as follows:

Against the McCartney amendment and in effect for the bill agreed upon by the anti-machine Senators: Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Hurd, Lewis, Martinelli, Miller, Price, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker, Welch, Wright - 27.

For the McCartney amendment and in effect against the bill agreed upon by the anti-machine Senators: Bates, Bills, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Kennedy, Leavitt, McCartney, Reily, Savage, Weed, Willis, Wolfe - 13.

[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 California Supreme Court has so held also.

In The People vs. Cavanaugh, 112 California, the Supreme Court held that any primary election that should become mandatory becomes an election and only those primaries that may be optional with a party as to whether or not they should be held, are not elections.

The Wright-Stanton bill and the Direct Primary amendment to the Constitution make the direct primaries mandatory, nor is there anything in the State Constitution providing that anything other than a plurality vote shall be required to nominate. For the Legislature to have yielded to the machine's demand that a 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 plurality vote can be required to nominate.

Were a majority or even high percentage plurality vote required to nominate, the Direct Primary law would have been made unconstitutional, because:

1. A plurality might not be equal to the percentage or majority.

2. A percentage or majority contemplates a convention to nominate in case the candidate does not receive the percentage or majority, and a convention, the best authorities hold, is prohibited under the constitutional amendment providing for the primary election.



Chapter X.

Fight Over Assembly Amendments.

Machine Succeeds in Amending the Direct Primary Bill in the Assembly - Assemblyman Pulcifer at Critical Moment Votes with the Machine - Senate, Although Held Up By Machine Element for a Week, Refuses to Concur in Assembly's Action.



The machine Senators, having failed to amend the Direct Primary bill on its second reading, apparently accepted their whipping, and allowed the measure to go through third reading and final passage without opposition[42].

Twenty-seven Senators at the final roll call voted for it; not one vote was cast against it. Even Leavitt and Wolfe voted for it. The anti-machine Senators had won "a glorious victory."

But the victory was one tempered with grave 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 errors, which bobbed up at most inopportune times.

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 could be corrected was by amendment.

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 by leaving the Assembly to make the corrections.

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 typographical defects.

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 amendments, which had been defeated in the Senate, into the bill.

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, instead of a mere plurality.

Leeds and Johnson, taken together, stood for precisely what the machine had stood for in the Senate, namely, an advisory, district vote for United States Senators and a 40 per cent plurality vote to nominate.

Speaker Stanton, although not a member of the 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 after their nomination. This last amendment was defeated in the Assembly.

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 State-wide vote for United States Senators, therefore, fell on Hinkle.

He fought well.

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

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 anti-machine Senators. Leavitt and Wolfe and Warren Porter were for the amendment, but the anti-machine Senators continued against it as they had on February 18th, the day of their "glorious victory" over the machine in the Direct Primary fight.

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 vote amendments."

That sentence was shown about the Capitol, and on it was based the story that Hinkle had "fallen down," and would vote with the machine. All this added to the confusion of the situation.

But Hinkle had not "fallen down." He was in the fight just as hard as ever, and with Assemblyman Bohnett organized the reform element in the Assembly to fight the machine amendments.

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 anti-machine Senators. For example, the San Francisco Call of March 4th said of it:

"The amendments proposed by Leeds and supported by Stanton are not even remotely related to the McCartney proposition, which was voted down in the Senate."

The Call's statement was easily disproved, but it unquestionably confused the anti-machine legislators, who were insisting upon retaining the provision for State-wide vote for Senators in the bill[45].

And then came the cry that those who were opposing the Leeds-McCartney amendment were enemies of the Direct Primary, for the Assembly, it was alleged, was overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment, and would not pass the bill without it. Jere Burke, John C. Lynch, and other patriots of their ilk were most insistent in expression of this fear. But such men as Bohnett, Hinkle, Drew and other recognized anti-machine leaders in the Assembly were not to be bluffed in this way. They stood firmly for the passage of the bill as it had passed the Senate.

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 final passage.

At this critical moment in the bill's history, however, Assemblyman Pulcifer[46], the Lincoln-Roosevelt League member from Alameda county, got into action. He had voted against the amendment. But with his vote really meaning defeat for the machine element, he promptly changed his vote from no to aye. This made the vote 38 for the amendment and 36 against it. The amendment which the anti-machine Senators had fought so valiantly and so effectively was finally read into the bill[47].

The amendments necessary to correct the 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 anti-machine 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 success for the anti-machine forces.

But in spite of the situation in the Assembly, Senator Wright, who was by this time working openly with Wolfe, Leavitt and Warren Porter to secure the adoption of the Leeds amendment (which as the McCartney amendment the Senate had already rejected), was 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 being cut to pieces in Free Conference Committee.

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

Senator Stetson was absent when the vote was taken, being ill at his home in Alameda county. Had he been present he would have voted against concurrence in the amendments. This would have made the vote 20 to 20.

Originally, on February 18th, twenty-seven Senators had voted against the Leeds-McCartney amendment, but when Senator Wright switched to the machine, Senators Hurd and Burnett wobbled along after him. The four band-wagon Senators, Lewis, Martinelli, Price and Welch, tagged along after them. This made the vote:

Against concurrence in the amendment and for the bill as it passed the Senate - Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Miller, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker - 19.

For concurrence in the amendment and against the bill as it originally passed the Senate - Bates, Bills, Burnett, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed, Welch, Willis, Wolfe, Wright - 20.

Every one of the thirteen Senators who opposed the bill when it was first before the Senate, voted to concur. Wright, Welch, Price, Martinelli, Lewis, Burnett and 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 the Senate, in this case Warren Porter, has the casting vote.

Had Senator Stetson been present, he would have voted with the anti-machine Senators. This would have made the vote 20 to 20. Warren Porter would then have had the deciding vote. He would have voted to concur. Senator Stetson's illness temporarily saved the Direct Primary bill.

In the ordinary course of legislative business, the Senate having refused to concur in the Assembly 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 quick-witted Wolfe saw a way to prevent such action. He promptly moved that the Senate reconsider the vote by which it had refused to concur in the Assembly amendment. Wolfe commanded twenty votes of the Senators present, the anti-machine element nineteen. Wolfe required, however, twenty-one to compel reconsideration. But when the question came up, Wolfe still lacked the one vote necessary for reconsideration, the anti-machine element was still without the necessary twenty votes to tie the Senate, thus giving Warren 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 good-government man present. The machine because it controlled the Senate organization could and did arrogantly override the rights of the Senate, giving the ultimatum that no business should be transacted until the anti-machine Senators had concurred in the machine amendments to the Direct Primary bill.

The machine's play was to bully, bluff or beg one of the anti-machine Senators to desert to the machine, which would have given the machine twenty-one votes, enough for concurrence, or, failing in this, to force the 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 anti-machine Senators to the echo. There were no cheers for the machine, but on one occasion at least the machine was hissed, when one of its creatures attempted an attack on Senator Black.

Never did the machine work harder to switch anti-machine Senators to its side. Jere Burke had characteristic corner conferences, Johnny Lynch labored with anti-machine Senators openly on the floor of the Senate chamber, as did Warren Porter. From a southern county came the Chairman of the Republican County Committee to tell his Senator who was voting with the anti-machine element what a mistake he was making. P. H. 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]. Anti-machine Senators found their pet bills being held up in Assembly Committees.

But the nineteen anti-machine members stood firm, in spite of the fact that Senator Wright, who had 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 has written the epitaph of his political tombstone."

And then the machine forces attacked Senator Black. Although Senator Black was lying ill at his home at Palo Alto, the Call on March 18 stated that he was in hiding in Sacramento.

The Call on the same date expressed its deep regret for and its utter condemnation of, the "asinine filibuster, designed to prevent a tie vote which would be decided by the Lieutenant-Governor, Warren Porter, in favor of concurrence in the Assembly amendment to the Direct Primary bill."

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

"To-day 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 Lieutenant-Governor of the fatted soul, who professes all the virtues and practices all political evil, will be the whipper-in."

One month later, March 18, the Call was complaining bitterly that the anti-machine Senators would not permit the same "Lieutenant-Governor of the fatted soul" to whip them into line for the amendment to the Direct Primary bill, which they had rejected on February 18, and for which the Call had praised them generously. The Call's special representative at Sacramento, George 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 anti-machine Senators whom the Call had formerly backed in their efforts against the machine, had become "pin-head 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 anti-machine 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 pro-primary Senators[51]. The paper was bitterly denounced on the floor of the Senate.

But throughout the State the newspapers which stand for good government, and incidentally for an effective direct primary law, were firm in their support of the anti-machine Senators. Just before Senator Black was taken ill, for example, at the time when Senator Stetson was unable to be at the capital, the Sacramento Star, in an editorial article under the heading, "Illness a Blessing," cleverly put in a nutshell what the people were thinking and the reform press was saying. "We do not desire to wish Senator Stetson any bad luck," said The Star, "but if his slight indisposition should continue for a few 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 Walker-Otis bill-introduced a resolution, authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring Senator Black to Sacramento, even though a special engine and coach be chartered for the purpose[53]. The resolution brought forth indignant protest from the anti-machine 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 Sergeant-at-Arms to investigate the sick Senator. Montgomery's investigations seem to have been confined to the outside of Senator Black's house[55]. At any rate he did not see Senator Black. The performance was given its sordid feature by Montgomery charging the 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 district-vote plan for the election of United States Senators. For the second time the anti-machine element in the Senate, in its efforts to secure the passage of an effective direct primary measure, had, fighting fair, and in the open, and above board always, defeated the machine. The machine thereupon met the anti-machine element with a trick that completely turned the tables, a trick by which the anti-machine forces were defeated, and the machine element placed in a position to amend the bill as it might see fit.



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

[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 as follows:

"Party candidates for the office of United States Senator shall have their names placed on the official primary election ballots of their respective parties in the manner herein provided for State officers, provided, however, that the vote for candidates for United States Senator shall be an advisory vote for the purpose of 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 related; were, in effect, the same.

[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 thirty-five votes were cast for the measure and twenty-nine against. Six more votes would have passed it. Had there been full attendance the bill would have been passed. A call of the House was ordered to compel such attendance, but was finally 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 brought in, the measure would probably have been passed.

[47] The vote in full was as follows:

For the amendment and against the bill as it had passed the Senate: Barndollar, Beatty, Beban, Black, Butler, Coghlan, 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, Wheelan - 38.

Against the amendment and for the bill as it passed the Senate: Beardslee, Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, Costar, Dean, Drew, Flint, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Griffiths, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Holmquist, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, Maher, Mendenhall, Moore, Odom, Otis, Polsley, Preston, Sackett, Silver, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Whitney, Wilson, Wyllie, Young - 36.

[48] When a bill passed by the Senate is amended in the Assembly the measure goes back to the Senate. If the Senate concur in the amendments, that settles the matter. But if the Senate refuse to concur, then the bill goes back to the Assembly, where that body may recede from its amendments or refuse to recede.

If the Assembly recede, the measure goes to the Governor just as it passed the Senate. If the Assembly refuse to recede, the measure is referred to a conference committee of six, three appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and three by the President of the Senate.

The Conference Committee may consider only the amendments adopted by the Assembly. If the Conference Committee fail to agree, or if either Senate or Assembly reject its report, then the bill goes to a Committee on Free Conference. The Committee on Free Conference is permitted to make any amendment it sees fit. If its report be rejected by either Senate or Assembly, the bill gets no further; is dead, without possibility of resurrection.

Such was the maze of technicality into which Lincoln-Roosevelt Leaguer Pulcifer threw the Direct Primary bill when he changed his vote from no to aye on the Leeds amendment.

[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. Twenty-one 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 anti-machine element, and hence enough to postpone from hour to hour consideration of Wolfe's motion.

[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 other friends of good government in the Legislature."

[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 State-wide 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 Assembly."

"When the question of concurring in the Assembly amendments comes up, we find the 'Call' and Senator Wright deserting the men who made the primary fight in the Senate and going over to the camp of the 'push' politicians, who have always favored the district plan of nominating United States Senators."

"I take issue with the 'Call' when it says: 'As a matter of fact, the whole question of the United States Senatorship is of little importance to the people of California,' etc."

"The United States Senatorship is the most important office to be filled by the people of California under the provisions of the proposed Direct Primary law. The so-called district plan for nominating United States Senators is worse than a makeshift. it provides for no pledge on the part of candidates and would be purely a straw vote, binding on nobody."

"The stubborn fact remains that the 'Call,' after leading in the fight for an honest Direct Primary law for two years and a half, has deserted the cause of the people at the most critical moment of the struggle."

"MARSHALL BLACK."

[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 Lieutenant-Governor, would break the tie by casting his vote for the machine.

"The evident intention of Senators who stand for the Wright bill in its original form, which is a start toward a real direct primary (and that doesn't include Senator Wright, more's the pity) to dodge the possibility of the tie vote by absenting themselves without leave is regrettable - regrettable only because it is 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 into line to stand by the 'organization' and defeat the will of the people.

"It's hard to be very sorry just now over Senator Stetson's illness, but he deserves a vote of thanks for contracting that cold. And another for being on the right side."

[53] The Weed resolution reads as follows: "Resolved, By the Senate of the State of California, That the President of the Senate be and he is hereby authorized to instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to Proceed at once to Palo Alto with a competent physician, to be named by the President of the Senate, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is safe for Senator Black to proceed at once to Sacramento, to attend as a member of the Senate the thirty-eighth session of the California Legislature, and

"Be it further resolved, That in the event that such examination results in disclosing a state of health wherein it will be safe for Senator Black to be present, then the Sergeant-at-Arms shall bring him at once to Sacramento and, if necessary, to secure an engine and coach for that purpose."

[54] Black's answering telegram was in full as follows: "I beg to inform you (Lieutenant-Governor Porter) and through you the Senate of California that I regard the resolutions adopted last Saturday in reference to my absence, as discourteous, as a 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 return to Sacramento.

"Ample evidence of my physical condition has been presented to your representatives by four reputable physicians, and these physicians have furnished and will furnish evidence of my condition from time to time as requested by you or by the Senate.

"MARSHALL BLACK."

[55] Dr. Montgomery's $400 report will be found in the appendix.

[56] The schemes resorted to to get Black back to Sacramento are almost beyond belief. It was even intimated to him that his bills would be held up if he did not return. The following telegram scarcely requires comment:

Sacramento Cal Mch 20-09 Hon. Marshall Black,

Palo Alto, Cal.

Your bill to issue bonds for general improvement fund before me. I would like to have you here to explain its provisions and the necessity for it. 12-50Pm J. N. GILLETT.



Chapter XI.

Machine Amends Direct Primary Bill[57].

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 Amend.



It is a very good rule to be sure that your rattlesnake is dead before placing yourself in a position to be bitten. The reform Senators neglected this rule, with the result that after they had the machine element whipped on the direct primary issue, they placed themselves in a position where the "performers" struck at them viciously, and snatched victory from 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 anti-machine 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 State-wide 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 anti-machine Senators to support the so called vicious Assembly amendments.

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 Assembly. The purpose of the two machine leaders was apparent.

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 on a second.

As a substitute Wolfe moved that the seventeen amendments be passed upon under one roll call.

At first Senators Cutten and Stetson apparently could not see the trend of Wolfe's scheming. In the debate that ensued Wolfe pretended indignation that his motives were being questioned.

There was very good reason for questioning Senator Wolfe's motives, but Cutten and Stetson and even Walker assured Wolfe that no reflection upon him was intended. What these men should have done was to have denounced Wolfe right there as a trickster and made no bones about it. But on the absurd assumption that a member of the State Senate is necessarily a gentleman, the much deserved denunciation did not come.

However, Wolfe's motion did not prevail and the amendments were taken up one by one. Six of the seven vicious amendments were rejected, the first of the six by a vote of 19 to 20.

This brought the Senate to the amendments intended to correct typographical and clerical errors. And here the vote switched. The reformers had up to this time been voting to reject the amendments, because the 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 anti-machine Senators, of course, voted to concur in them.