The moment came just before noon. Like the snap of a trap Leavitt asked for unanimous consent to take up Assembly Bill No. 6, out of order. The anti-machine Senators are never guilty of discourteous treatment of a fellow Senator. They granted the request.

Senator Wright vouched for the bill. He stated that it was a good bill and should be made a law. Senator Wolfe spoke for it, in fact led the debate to secure its passage. On the other hand, Senator Boynton very pointedly told Senator Wright that the bill was not a good measure and should not be passed "Judges of the Supreme Court tell me," said Boynton, "that this is a bad bill."

Senator Cutten made a strong speech against the bill, which he denounced as bad in principle. Holohan stated that if the measure became a law it would give a bunco steerer a chance to disqualify every decent Judge in the State. Roseberry denounced the measure as vicious.

When the vote was taken, every Senator who supported it was in his seat, but Burnett, Estudillo and Rush were absent. This would have made the vote 18 to 18, the backers of the measure requiring three more affirmative votes for its passage. But Miller and Lewis were led to vote for the measure, which made 20 votes for the bill and 16 against it. At this point the bill lacked one vote of passage. Estudillo was, however, brought in under call of the Senate, and under what amounted to misrepresentation, voted for the measure. This passed the bill by a vote of 21 to 18. Boynton changed his vote from no to aye, to give notice that on the next legislative day he would move to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been passed. But before he could give notice the Senate took its noon recess. Boynton under the rules had all day in which to notify the Senate of his intention, but to make assurance doubly sure, he told the clerk at the desk not to send the bill to the Assembly for he would as soon as the Senate re-convened, give notice of his motion to reconsider.

Nevertheless, when the Senate reconvened, Boynton found that the bill had been rushed over to the Assembly, "to save time," according to the excuse given.

Senator Boynton insisted that the bill be returned from the Assembly. Wolfe asked Boynton "as a matter of Senatorial courtesy," to permit the vote on the bill to be taken on a motion to have it returned from the Assembly. This request was so ludicrous, in view of the treatment that had been accorded Boynton, that it provoked a smile. Boynton refused to be "courteous," the bill was returned from the Assembly and regularly reconsidered the next day.

With 21 votes against the measure, there seemed little doubt that it would be reconsidered and defeated. Twenty-one votes were necessary for reconsideration. Lewis and Miller had thought better of their vote of Friday and were prepared to vote against the bill. Estudillo, understanding the measure thoroughly, was anxious to set himself right in the record by voting against it. These, with Burnett and Rush, gave twenty-one votes, enough to force reconsideration and to defeat the bill.

But there was a weak link in the combination,Kennedy. Senator Kennedy voted throughout the session consistently with the Wolfe-Leavitt element, but he voted against the Change of Venue bill. When Saturday morning came, however, Kennedy could not be found. When reconsideration of the bill came up, Burnett and Rush were out in the hallway. Miller and Lewis voted to reconsider, which made the vote eighteen to eighteen. Twenty-one votes were necessary for reconsideration. With Kennedy, Burnett and Rush, reconsideration could be forced and the bill defeated. The only way the absent Senators could be reached was through a call of the Senate, which required a majority vote of those present. A motion for a call of the Senate was defeated by a vote of eighteen to eighteen[78].

This was the real test vote on the Change of Venue bill. It will be seen that Miller and Lewis and Estudillo, who had voted for the bill the day before, voted for a call of the Senate. They would, on reconsideration, have voted against the bill, and its passage on reconsideration would have been impossible. Had Kennedy or Rush or Burnett been present, the motion for a call of the Senate would have prevailed, the vote on the Change of Venue bill been reconsidered, and the measure defeated.

Half an hour later, when Kennedy's vote was necessary to enable the machine to continue the deadlock on the Direct Primary bill, Kennedy turned up to do his part in that not very creditable performance.

In this way did the machine element secure the passage of the Change of Venue bill. It was a question of good generalship, or, if you like, trickery. Perhaps trickery is the better name for it.



[74] Black's Senate bill, 1,144, came very near being defeated in the Assembly by similar "good generalship." The measure in effect prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquors within a mile and a half of Stanford University. Assemblyman Bohnett was in charge of the bill.

Bohnett, the day that the bill was to come up, was called from the room to attend a committee meeting. Immediately did the Assembly show astonishing activity in consideration of the file. So fast did they go that the Stanford bill seemed destined to be reached while Bohnett was out of the room. Had it been reached with Bohnett away it could have been dropped to the bottom of the file, where it would have been lost, so far as the session of the Legislature of 1909 was concerned.

Charles R. Detrick, of Palo Alto, happened to go to the Assembly chamber at this critical moment and took in the situation at a glance. He accordingly hunted up Bohnett, who got back to the Assembly chamber before the bill could be reached on file. For once "good generalship" had failed at the legislative session of 1909.

[74a] In 1907, the Change of Venue bill was slipped through the Assembly, but in a form not to affect the San Francisco graft cases. In the Senate, however, it was amended to apply to Ruef, Schmitz and their associates. The exposure of this turn raised such a storm that the bill was not brought to vote. However, on the night before adjournment, the measure was slipped through the Senate as an amendment tacked on another bill. But the trick was discovered in the Assembly and defeated.

[75] Governor Gillett's reasons for vetoing the bill are set forth in footnote 1, Chapter 1.

[76] The Assembly vote on the change of venue bill was as follows:

For the Change of Venue bill - Barndollar, Beatty, Black, Cattell, Coghlan, Collier, Collum, Cronin, Drew, Feeley, Flint, Gibbons, Griffiths, Hammon, Hans, Hawk, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Holmquist, Johnson of Sacramento, Johnson of San Diego, Juilliard, Lightner, Macauley, Maher, McClellan, McManus, Melrose, Mendenhall, Moore, Mott, Pugh, Rech, Schmitt, Silver, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Transue, Wagner, Wheelan, and Wilson - 42.

Against the Change of Venue bill - Baxter, Bohnett, Butler, Callan, Cogswell, Dean, Gerdes, Gillis, Kehoe, Otis, Polsley, Preston, Sackett, Whitney, and Young - 15.

[77] The Senate Judiciary Committee for example.

[76a] The Senators whose names are printed in italics became involved in the confusion which led to the passage of the measure.

[78] The vote was as follows:

For the call of the Senate - Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Lewis, Miller, Roseberry, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker - 18.

Against the call of the Senate - Anthony, Bates, Bills, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Hurd, Leavitt, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed, Welch, Willis, Wolfe, Wright - 18.



Chapter XVII.

Passage of the Wheelan Bills.

Measures Extended Abuses Which the Commonwealth Club Bills Had Been Drawn to Prevent - Went Through Both Houses Without the Members Thoroughly Understanding Their Significance.



The so-called Wheelan bills were passed in much the same way as was the Change of Venue bill. These measures will perhaps be better understood in comparison with certain of the Commonwealth Club bills which were considered in a previous chapter.

Among the Commonwealth bills was one which denied a defendant under indictment a copy of the testimony taken in the Grand Jury room. The measure was drawn on the theory that Grand Juries deal principally with secret offenses, and that the testimony had better be brought out before the trial Court. One object of the proposed law was to prevent the defendant giving out testimony with the deliberate object of prejudicing the entire community against him, and thus increasing the difficulty of getting petty juries to try him.

Furthermore, there are instances, as when Abe Ruef was before the Grand Jury at San Francisco, when the ends of justice require that the testimony given shall be kept secret. But, in spite of these and other considerations, the measure in question was allowed to die in Committee.

On the other hand two bills requiring that transcript of such testimony be given the defendant passed both Senate and Assembly. They were introduced by Wheelan of San Francisco.

Section 925 of the Penal Code, as it stood up to the time of the opening of the session, provided that "the Grand Jury whenever criminal causes are being investigated before them, on demand of the District Attorney must appoint a competent stenographic reporter to be sworn and to report the testimony that may be given in such causes in shorthand, and reduce the same upon request of the District Attorney to long hand or typewriting." It was thus left with the District Attorney to say whether the stenographic reporter should be present, and whether his notes should be transcribed.

The first of the Wheelan bills, Assembly bill 221[79], amended the law by cutting out the words in italics "on demand of the District Attorney" and "upon request of the District Attorney," making it mandatory upon the Grand Jury to have the reporter in attendance.

Further on in the section and in Assembly bill 222[79], it was provided that a true copy of the testimony thus taken should be given the defendant at the time of his arraignment.

These two measures passed both Senate and Assembly.

Assembly bill 223[79], also introduced by Wheelan, provided another cause for the setting aside of an indictment by the Court in which the defendant is arraigned, upon such defendant's motion. The Commonwealth bills aimed to prevent technical attacks upon indictments. The third of the Wheelan bills - No. 223 - opened the way for further technical attacks, by providing that the Court must set aside the indictment "when it appears from the testimony taken before the Grand jury that the defendant has been indicted upon a criminal charge without reasonable or probable cause."

This measure passed both Houses. It opened the way for review before the Court of the testimony taken in the Grand jury room, and endless technical objections, all of which by clever counsel can be employed to delay the case being brought before a trial jury, and in the end perhaps wear out the prosecution, thus preventing the case being tried on its merits. With that section in the law two years ago, it is a question whether the defendants in the graft prosecution at San Francisco would ever have been brought to trial.

It will be seen that while the Commonwealth Club bills aimed to decrease the opportunities for technical defense of men charged with crime, and thus permit the cases being tried on their merits, the Wheelan bills increased opportunity for technical objection.

The history of the passage of the Wheelan bills is practically the same in each instance.

The three bills were introduced by Mr. Wheelan on January 11th, and referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The Committee, which pigeon-holed sixty-three of the Commonwealth Club bills, and reported back the two remaining too late for passage, had better treatment in store for the Wheelan measures. They were reported back to the Assembly on March 6th, at a time when the Assembly was fairly swamped with pending measures. On March 17th, in the midst of a mass of legislation, they were slipped through the Assembly without many of the members apparently knowing what they were. The Assembly journal of that date shows that such men as Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, Flint, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, Mendenhall, Polsley, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Whitney, Wilson and Wyllie, who ordinarily voted for good measures and against bad ones, voted for the Wheelan bills.

With the exception of Bill No. 223, not one vote was cast against the measures. The vote on Bill No. 223 was the last taken. Gillis, who had voted for the two others, appears to have awakened to the fact that something was wrong. At any rate, he voted against Bill 223.

His was the only vote cast against any of the three bills in the lower House, They appear to have gone through the Assembly without thorough appreciation of their significance. At any rate, there were members enough present, who were usually against bad measures, to have prevented the Wheelan bills securing the forty-one votes necessary for their passage.

A reform measure passing the Assembly on March 17th would have had no chance whatever in the Senate. The Wheelan bills were more fortunate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, before which the Commonwealth Club bills had dragged along for weeks, received the Wheelan bills on March 17th, the day they passed the Assembly, and the same day, March 17th, reported them back to the Senate with the recommendation that they do pass. On March 18th the measures were read the second time in the Senate, and on March 20th, three days after they had passed the Assembly, the Senate passed them.

Such is the difference in action on machine-favored bills and bills which the machine does not favor. Incidentally, it may be said that at the time the Wheelan bills were before the Senate, the machine had that body tied up in the fight on the Direct Primary bill.

The reform element - at the mercy of the Senate organization - was compelled to devote its whole attention to the Direct Primary bill. The machine was thus left to run committees and Senate at its own free will. It was an admirable situation from the machine standpoint.

But by the time the Wheelan bills had been hastened to the floor of the Senate, the reform Senators apparently awoke to the fact that some sort of a job was on the way. When the bills came up for final passage, however, the anti-machine Senators were apparently as much at a loss concerning them as the anti-machine Assemblymen had been.

Bill number 221 came up first, and even Senator Bell, the staunchest opponent of bad laws of them all, voted for it. With Senator Bell voted Caminetti, Estudillo, Rush, Thompson and Walker, who were ordinarily against the passage of bad bills. As the measure received but twenty-three votes, any three of these by voting no could have defeated it.

Price, who had voted for the bill, gave notice, at the request of a fellow Senator, that on the next legislative day he would move to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been passed.

Before taking up Assembly bill 222, companion bill to 221, the Senate passed three measures and considered several others. By the time Assembly bill 222 was reached, Senator Bell had got his bearings, and voted against it. Caminetti had also found himself, and although Caminetti voted for the measure, he gave notice, that on the next legislative day he would move for its reconsideration.

The third of the bills, No. 223, followed 222, and Walker, who had voted for the two other bills, voted "no." The bill was passed by twenty-three votes, Cutten voting "aye" for the purpose of giving notice to reconsider.

The motions to reconsider were voted upon on the afternoon of Monday, March 22, the day of the final fight on the Direct Primary bill in both Senate and Assembly. Nobody was thinking of much of anything else that day. In every instance reconsideration was denied[80]. The vote by which they had passed the Senate stood.



[79] Governor Gillett signed Assembly bills Nos. 221 and 222. They are now the law of the State. Assembly bill No. 223 he did not sign. It did not, therefore, become a law.

[80] The Assembly history of March 23, fails to record that the motions to reconsider were made on the three Wheelan bills. In an article concerning these bills which the writer prepared for the Sacramento Bee, governed by the official record of the measures, the History of the House in which they originated, he stated that motions for their reconsideration were not made. The Senate Journal of March 22, however, pages 23 and 26, shows that these motions were made, and in all three cases defeated.



Chapter XVIII.

Defeat of the Local Option Bill.

Peculiar Arrangement by Which the Bill Was Sidetracked in the Assembly - Stanton Promised That It Should Pass the Lower House If It Passed the Senate - How It Was Smothered in the Upper House.



Because there is no particular reason why California should not have a Local Option law, in the face of popular demand for it, a large number of very worthy citizens assumed that one would be passed. The fact seems to have been lost sight of that the tenderloin element opposes such legislation, and that the management of the so-called liquor interests organized as the "Royal Arch," takes a shortsighted view of Local Option provisions. The machine was thus interested. Its representatives in Senate and Assembly did not propose that any Local Option bill should pass. So the Local Option bill was smothered. The smothering process most suggestively indicates how such things can be done.

The measure was introduced in the Assembly by Wyllie and in the Senate by Estudillo. In the face of the popular demand for the passage of such a bill, and the exasperation of a no small portion of the voters of the State, at the mistake - or trick - by which in 1907 the only measure resembling a Local Option law was rubbed off the statute books, it was not good policy to fight the bill in the open. So the machine proceeded to do covertly what would have been "poor politics" to do openly[81].

The same bill having been introduced both in Senate and Assembly, the first step was to tie up either the Assembly or the Senate measure, so that the whole crafty campaign against the bill's passage could be confined to one House. The way in which this was done was simplicity itself. The Wyllie bill, as introduced in the Assembly was, at the request of Speaker Stanton, held up in the Assembly Committee on Public Morals. Most plausible reason was given for this course. It was pointed out that since the Assembly had gone on record before the Senate on the anti-gambling bill, on women's suffrage[80a] and other "moral" issues, it was unfair to compel the lower House to go on record before the Senate on the Local Option bill. Speaker Stanton assured the proponents of the measure that if it passed the Senate, it should pass the Assembly.

Stanton accordingly recognized that the Assembly, given an opportunity, would pass the bill. Had it passed the Assembly before the middle of February, it would unquestionably have passed the Senate. But the proponents of the measure consented to the plan to make the Senate act first. The fight for the passage of the bill accordingly took place in the Senate.

Before taking up the Senate measure introduced by Estudillo, the Wyllie bill may as well be disposed of. It was introduced in the Assembly January 8th, and was sent to the Committee on Public Morals. There it lay until March 13th, two months and five days, when the proponents of the measure, realizing that they were being tricked, made their protest so loud that the measure was reported by the Committee, but without recommendation. There was no time then to pass the bill, and on March 15th it was withdrawn by its author.

The Estudillo bill, as it was known on the Senate side of the Capitol, had a more eventful history. Introduced in the Senate on January 8th, it had gone to the famous Committee on Election Laws, which had been stacked for the defeat of the Direct Primary bill. Estudillo was, to be sure, Chairman of the Committee, but a lamb herding lions never had a harder job on its hands than did Estudillo. He could not get his committee together to consider the well-backed Direct Primary bill, let alone the worthy but not politically supported local option measure.

Along about the middle of February, however, Estudillo succeeded in getting the committee to act. By a vote of four to four the committee refused to recommend the Local Option bill for passage. Senator Stetson, who favored the passage of the measure, to compel committee action and get the bill before the Senate, thereupon moved that the bill be referred back to the Senate with recommendation that it do not pass. Senator Stetson's motion prevailed.

Thus, the measure went back to the Senate with a majority committee report that it do not pass. But in spite of this adverse report, the Senate passed the measure on second reading and sent it to engrossment and third reading. It looked very much just then as though the bill would pass the Senate.

But the resourceful machine had other plans. When the measure came up for final passage on February 24th, instead of being voted upon, and passed or defeated, it was amended.

To amend a bill on third reading exasperates those who are supporting it as nothing else can. The bill must, when thus amended, be reprinted and re-engrossed before it can be passed. The delays thus caused very often result in the defeat of the measure.

But the reprinted and re-engrossed Local Option bill got back to the Senate on February 26th, and its supporters could think of no other possible excuse for delaying its passage.

But the machine could, and did. On Senator Wolfe's motion - the reader will no doubt remember that Senator Wolfe led the fight against the Direct Primary bill, against the Anti-Gambling bill and against the effective Stetson Railroad Regulation bill - on Senator Wolfe's motion the Local Option bill, instead of being put on its final passage, was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At that time, the closing days of February, the Judiciary Committee was fairly swamped with important measures. The Railroad Regulation bills, the Initiative Amendment, the measures providing for the simplification of methods of criminal procedure and other bills of scarcely less importance were pending before that committee. Prompt action on the Local Option bill was out of the question. And, although a majority of the committee favored the passage of the bill, the minority which was against it took precious good care that no undue haste should attend its consideration. Estudillo was in constant attendance upon the committee, but to little purpose. It was not until March 4th that the committee acted. The action was, of course, recommendation that the bill do pass.

The bill had been amended from time to time, but as it was finally approved by the Judiciary Committee was a reasonably effective measure. It provided that on a petition signed by 25 per cent of the electors of any city, or town, or county, the question of license or no license must be put on the regular election ballot. If a majority of the electors voted against the issuing of liquor licenses in any city or town or township, the governing body could no longer issue saloon licenses. Outside incorporated cities and towns, the basis of prohibition was made the township, although the vote was to be taken throughout the county.

After the measure had been returned from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, Estudillo fought manfully to have it considered. He finally succeeded, on March 8th, in having the bill made a special order, that is to say, he arranged that the Senate should consider it at 8 o'clock of Thursday, March 11th.

But when Thursday came it developed that Senators Stetson and Boynton could not be present that evening, and they asked Estudillo to have the vote on the measure postponed until noon of the next day, Friday. This Estudillo attempted to do. The thing was done with other bills every day. Had Wolfe made the request, for example, or even Estudillo on any other measure than the Local Option bill, the request would have been granted without thought or comment. But on Wolfe's objection Estudillo's request was denied. The machine saw its opportunity and succeeded in having consideration of the bill postponed until the following Monday, March 15th. This meant the defeat of the bill. Even had it passed the Senate on that date, filibustering tactics would have defeated it in the Assembly.

Nevertheless, the backers of the measure - although pleaded with by weak-kneed Senators to withdraw the bill - insisted upon a vote being taken, when the measure came up on March 15th. This decision compelled Wolfe to make his famous "Fate of the Republican Party" speech, in which he predicted that if the Local Option bill became a law, utter wreck would come upon the Republican party in California. Birdsall, Caminetti, Holohan, Rush, Sanford and Strobridge, whose votes were ordinarily recorded against the machine Senators, voted against the bill, as did Anthony and Curtin. Wright voted for the measure, but otherwise those who had voted against the Walker-Otis Anti-Gambling bill, against a State-wide vote for United States Senators, against the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill, in a word, those whom for the want of a better term we call machine Senators, voted solidly against the Local Option bill[82].

The final showing for the Local Option bill was not a good one, but in spite of it, many in touch with conditions in the Senate held that had the vote been taken in the middle of February instead of the middle of March, the bill would have had a good chance for passage. After the delay of ten weeks from the time of its introduction until the final vote upon it, there was no chance at all for it to become a law.



[81] Up to the legislative session of 1907, the County Government Act provided that the Supervisors of a county could submit any question - including the matter of regulating the liquor traffic - to the voters for the purpose of ascertaining their opinion upon the issue. There was, however, no way to compel the Supervisors to take the action that might be thus decided upon by popular vote. The Supervisors could act upon the vote or ignore it, as they saw fit.

The Legislature of 1907 transferred the County Government Act to the Codes. For some reason, either by intention or oversight, the section which permitted Supervisors to submit questions to the people for an advisory vote was omitted. It has been held that this action of the Legislature repealed the section by implication. It is held, therefore, that no law is upon the Statute books by which the people may be permitted to vote even in an advisory capacity upon any question of police regulation or public policy.

[80a] A fine example of a lightning switch of plan on the part of the machine came in the fight on the Women's Suffrage Amendment. The tenderloin and liquor interests in general are opposed to the submission of this amendment to the people, which means, of course, that the machine is against it. To submit the amendment to the people, fifty-four votes are required in the Assembly and twenty-seven in the Senate. This year, the program was to let the amendment pass the Assembly and defeat it in the Senate. Assemblymen were allowed to pledge themselves to its support until there were fifty-eight Assemblymen down to vote for it. Grove L. Johnson had introduced the measure in the Assembly, and its adoption by that body seemed assured.

But the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill got in the way of Woman's Suffrage in a most curious manner. When the passage of this anti-gambling bill became a certainty, that branch of the group of tenderloin Senators whose interests were wrapped up in racetrack gambling, became "very sore." In their disgruntlement they decided to give reform full swing, and put the Woman's Suffrage Amendment through the Senate. This attitude seriously alarmed the safe, sane and respectable leaders of the machine, who see all sorts of trouble for the machine if women are given the ballot. So to prevent its tenderloin associates in the Senate doing anything rash, the machine decided rather late in the day to defeat the amendment in the Assembly.

When this decision was reached, and the order to carry it into effect given, the machine Assemblymen who had agreed to vote for the amendment coolly forgot their pledges. Instead of fifty-eight votes, only thirty-nine were cast for the amendment.

Grove L. Johnson, who had introduced it, and who pretended to support it, agreed to move for its reconsideration. When the hour for the motion for reconsideration came, Johnson huddled up in his seat, looking neither to right or left, let the opportunity pass.

The vote by which the amendment was defeated was as follows:

For the amendment: Barndollar, Bohnett, Butler, Callan, Cattell, Coghlan, Cogswell, Collum, Costar, Cronin, Drew, Gibbons, Gillis, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Holmquist, Hopkins, Johnson of Sacramento, Johnson of San Diego, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, Maher, Melrose, Mendenhall, Otis, O'Neil, Polsley, Pulcifer, Sackett, Silver, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Webber, Wheelan, Wilson, Wyllie, Young - 39.

Against the amendment: Baxter, Beardslee, Beatty, Beban, Collier, Cullen, Dean, Feeley, Flavelle, Fleisher, Flint, Gerdes, Greer, Griffiths, Hammon, Hanlon, Hans, Hawk, Johnston of Contra Costa, Leeds, Lightner, Macaulay, McClellan, McManus, Moore, Mott, Nelson, Odom, Preston, Pugh, Rech, Rutherford, Schmitt, Stanton, Transue, Wagner, Whitney - 37.

[82] The vote on the local option bill was as follows:

For the bill - Bell, Black, Boynton, Campbell, Cartwright, Cutten, Estudillo, Miller, Roseberry, Thompson, Walker, Wright - 12.

Against the bill - Anthony, Bills, Birdsall, Burnett, Caminetti, Curtin, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Holohan, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Rush, Sanford, Strobridge, Weed, Welch, Willis, Wolfe - 25.



Chapter XIX.

Defeat of the Initiative Amendment.

As in the Case of Other Reform Measures It Was Held Back Until Near the Close of the Session - Principle Adopted by Many California Municipalities - Machine Thoroughly Aroused to Its Importance.



A most estimable old lady once tried with indifferent success to hold back the incoming tide of the Atlantic with a broom. As one watches the efforts of the machine, through such agents as Gus Hartman, Eddie Wolfe and Frank Leavitt, to stem the reform movement which is sweeping the country, he is strongly reminded of the old lady's endeavor.

To be sure, the machine, at the legislative session of 1909, by trick and clever manipulation succeeded in preventing any very effective reform legislation going on the Statute books. But nevertheless the machine was compelled in response to the popular demand to permit the passage of a direct primary law, however inadequate and disappointing it may prove to be, and a railroad regulation law, however ineffective.

The machine's success was not on the whole so much in its permanent defeat of good measures as in delaying their adoption. The machine, except in the case of the race-track gamblers, could and did put off the day of the people's reckoning with machine-protected interests, but on desperately small margins at times, and under conditions which point plainly to the machine's ultimate undoing.

A bull once attempted to stop a freight train with his head. The train was brought to a standstill and the animal driven off the track. A short time later the bull tried the same experiment with an express train. The train did not stop, nor was it seriously delayed.

The aim of the reform movement is to place the government of Nation, State and city back into the hands of the people. To this end States and municipalities throughout the country are trying the direct primary system of nominating candidates for office, extending the principle of local option, establishing the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall, and experimenting, often with admirable success, sometimes with discouraging failure, with other "wicked innovations," as Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson would call them.

Without the machine fully appreciating what has been going on, California has for a decade or more been pushing rapidly to the fore in the promotion of these reforms. In this State the reform policies have found their best expression in recently adopted municipal charters. These charters must be ratified by the Legislature, but up to the session just closed their ratification - "wicked innovations and all" - has met with no particular opposition.

Thus we find most of the modern charters of California municipalities containing provisions for really effective primary nominations by the people[83], for the initiation of laws, for the referendum, even for the recall from office of corrupt officials, which have placed in the hands of the people of the cities a club over the machine which has proved most effective.

But the machine is now fully alive to what such provisions as the initiative and the recall mean. When, for example, the machine in control of the City Council attempted to deny the Western Pacific right of way through the City of Sacramento, the people resorted to the charter provision granting them the Initiative, and by their direct vote awarded the right of way.

Even while the Legislature was in session, one of the machine's most effective workers, Walter Parker, could not be present at his post at Sacramento, because he was required at Los Angeles, where, because of the "recall," the machine was in a peck of trouble.

The people of that city were employing the recall provision of their charter against the machine Mayor trapped in corruption. Although the then Mayor is a "Democrat" and Parker a "Republican," Parker's presence was required at Los Angeles to back the machine's efforts to hold the Mayor in his job.

So Parker could not be at Sacramento, where the machine really needed him. The machine leaders did not think it possible that a real Mayor - especially a machine Mayor - could be dismissed from office through such a "fool innovation" as the recall. But that's what, in spite of machine efforts, happened at Los Angeles.

These experiences and others like them, forced it upon the understanding of machine leaders that the initiative, recall and similar "innovations," have a business end; that they put altogether too much power into the hands of the people for the machine's safety.

Up to the session of 1909 there had been practically no opposition to the ratification of charters adopted by the several municipalities. But this year the machine leader in the Senate, Wolfe, let it be known that he would henceforth oppose "freak charters," "freak charters" to Senator Wolfe being those of the initiative-referendum-recall order.

Several municipalities - Berkeley, San Diego, Palo Alto, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, Richmond, Los Angeles, Pasadena and Oakland - had either sent new charters or important amendments to existing charters to the Legislature for ratification. Many of the charters and amendments came decidedly under Wolfe's ideas of "freak." But there are some extremes to which the machine dare not go, and it did not dare to go on record as against popular municipal government. Wolfe and his associates could and did grumble, but they did not dare refuse the several charters and charter amendments ratification.

So they let the charters and charter amendments go by them and braced themselves against granting Statewide initiative.

That issue came up in the form of a proposed amendment to the State Constitution introduced by Senator Black, which gave the people of the State the power enjoyed by the people of Oregon and of the more advanced California municipalities, the power to initiate laws.

Black's amendment provided that on petition of eight per cent of the electors of the State proposing a law or Constitutional amendment, such law or amendment must be submitted to a vote of the people at the next general election, precisely as Constitutional amendments are now submitted. If the proposed law or amendment received a majority vote it was to become a law of the State, independent of Legislative action. In a word, the people of California, had the amendment carried, would have been able to initiate the laws which govern them.

Naturally, the machine, always on thin ice at best, thoroughly aroused to what the initiative means, opposed any such "wicked innovation."

In its opposition, the machine was backed by that extreme conservatism, which, while sincere enough, forever hangs on the coattails of progress; the conservatism which even in New England as late as 1860 drew back its respectable skirts from abolition; the conservatism which, dragged protesting over a crisis, never fails to assume for itself all the credit for what has been accomplished. Thus the machine had some very respectable assistance in its efforts against the Initiative Amendment, the measure which more than any other before the Legislature was calculated to take the government of California out of machine hands[84].

On the other hand, the amendment had strong backing. It had been drawn up at the instance of the Direct Legislation League, which numbers among its members many of the foremost bankers, capitalists, educators and public men of the State - Rudolph Spreckels, Francis J. Heney, James D. Phelan, of San Francisco, and Dr. John R. Haynes of Los Angeles, and others fully as prominent being among the League's most active supporters.

In addition, the amendment had the endorsement of the State Grange, of, the Labor Unions, of the State, county and municipal Democratic conventions, and of many of the municipal and county Republican conventions.

But there were plenty of reasons given why the amendment should not be submitted to the people. Perhaps the most amusing came from Senator Wright, of Direct Primary and Railroad Regulation notoriety. Senator Wright held that inasmuch as the Direct Primary will result in the election of high-class legislators, the initiative will not be necessary.

But the two principal objections raised to the initiative were that:

1. It would lead to a flood of bills being submitted to the people.

2. That the people would not take sufficient interest in the proposed laws to consider them carefully.

Both these objections were readily answered by the proponents of the amendment, who gave the experience of States in which the initiative has been tried.

Oregon, for example, adopted the initiative in 1902. In 1904 but two proposed laws were introduced under it; in 1906, five; and in 1908, nineteen. Inasmuch as in 1908 California voted upon twenty-one constitutional amendments and statutes which had been submitted by the Legislature of 1907, it will be seen that Oregon was not particularly submerged by a flood of elector-initiated legislation.

In Canton Berne, Switzerland, where for half a century all the laws have been adopted by the initiative system, the average of laws proposed has been only two and a half a year.

As to the second objection, it was easily shown that in Oregon the keenest interest is taken in the measures proposed through the initiative. Some were shown to have been adopted by enormous majorities; others to have been rejected by majorities as large.

Thus the objections to the amendment were easily disposed of.

Their arguments answered, the opponents of the amendment schemed to prevent its consideration until the closing days of the session or prevent consideration entirely.

In the Assembly, the amendment had been introduced by Drew of Fresno. It was referred to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, where it was smothered to death. Although referred to the committee on January 11, the committee took no action upon it. Coghlan of San Francisco was chairman of the committee; associated with him were Legislators of the types of Johnson of Sacramento, McClelland and Baxter. In vain those advocating the adoption of the amendment urged the committee to act. Meetings were indeed arranged, at which the proponents of the reform would be present, but the committeemen would fail to attend.

A less exasperating, but no less effective fight was carried on in the Senate.

On the Senate side, the amendment introduced by Black went to the Judiciary Committee. This committee was made up of the nineteen lawyers in the Senate, every lawyer going on the committee. But Warren Porter named the order of their rank, and the chairman and the four ranking members of the committee voted eternally with the Wolfe-Leavitt faction. On a straight vote the majority of the committee was against the machine, as was shown in the fight for an effective railroad regulation bill. But when it came to getting results in the Senate Judiciary Committee, craft and leadership, as has been shown in previous chapters, not infrequently overcame numbers.

On February 16, the reform element of the committee insisted that action be taken on the amendment. Chairman Willis was reluctant to put the question. Few machine members of the committee were in attendance. The anti-machine members were insistent. Willis was finally forced to put the question, and the amendment, after the percentage of voters required to sign a petition for the initiation of a law had been raised from eight to twelve per cent, was favorably reported back to the Senate.

But Senator Willis was able to do on the floor of the Senate what he had been unable to do in the committee, namely, secure further delay. He protested to the Senate at the "snap judgment" of his committee, with the result that it was re-referred to that body. The committee, however, for the second time sent it back to the Senate with the recommendation that it be adopted.

Then followed a series of delays in the Senate, so that the measure was not brought to vote until March 11th.

For the adoption of a Constitutional amendment, a two-thirds vote - twenty-seven - is required in the Senate. The proponents of the amendment had good reason to believe that that number of Senators would vote for its adoption. The Senators counted upon to vote for the amendment were: Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Hare, Kennedy, McCartney, Reily, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stetson, Thompson, Walker, Welch - 20, who actually voted for the amendment; Finn, Strobridge, Cartwright and Holohan, who were absent when the vote was taken, but who were pledged to the reform; Lewis, Bills, Curtin and Miller, who were counted on the side of the amendment until it came to a vote. This made twenty-eight votes, one more than enough for adoption.

Kennedy, Reily, Welch, Finn and Hare, usually against reform legislation, were counted for the Initiative because of convention obligations which could not well be ignored. Lewis, McCartney and Bills were counted for it because of their alleged promise of its support; Curtin and Miller because the Democratic State Convention had endorsed the Initiative, and for the further reason that Curtin and Miller were ordinarily for reform legislation.

But on the vote, the unfortunate Hare, Kennedy, Reily, McCartney and Welch remained true to their obligations, while Curtin and Miller disappointed those who had expected their support. The negative vote of Bills and Lewis did not cause much disappointment, for little else was to have been expected, and anyway, the negative votes of Curtin and Miller were enough to defeat the amendment.

Curtin and Miller, in spite of their party's endorsement of the policy, expressed themselves as "scandalized" at such an idea as the Initiative. But as good men as Miller and Curtin were scandalized at the idea of abolition in 1860, only to become the most earnest supporters of the Emancipation Proclamation three years later.

Reform waves, like the Atlantic Ocean, are not kept back with brooms - or Gus Hartmans.



[83] For example the charters of Los Angeles and of Berkeley. The Berkeley charter is a model in this respect. It provides that any qualified citizen may become a candidate for municipal office, by petition of twenty-five electors, AND IN NO OTHER WAY. The party tag is thus done away with. At the election, if a candidate receive a majority of the votes he is declared elected. If no candidate receive a majority, then a second election is held at which the two candidates receiving the highest pluralities become candidates, the names of all other candidates who participated at the first election are dropped. The candidate at the second election who receives the majority is declared elected. A movement is on foot to have a similar provision incorporated into the San Francisco charter.

[84] "As a source of public education upon which free government must always rest, as a means of conservative progress, upon which the continued life of all nations depends, as a check upon paternalism and rich gifts calculated to lull to sleep the love of freedom, as the key that may be used to open the door to equal opportunity, the Initiative is fundamentally more important than all other proposed reforms put together. " - Arthur Twining Hadley, LL. D., in "The Constitutional Position of Property in America."

It is interesting to note, that nearly a quarter of a century ago. Bryce in his American Commonwealth, pointed out that this country could not without the initiation of laws by The People enjoy the fruits of its institutions.



Chapter XX.

Defeat of the Anti-Japanese Bills[86].

Stir Storm in the Assembly, But All the Bills Were Finally Defeated - Grove L. Johnson Denounces Action of Governor Gillett and President Roosevelt - Speaker Stanton Places Himself in a Very Embarrassing Position - His Effective Speech Becomes a Joke.



The Japanese problem under the bludgeoning of the big stick in the skilled hands of President Roosevelt, and free application of the organization switch in the hands of Governor Gillett, was kept fairly well under control during the entire session. That the problem is real was demonstrated by the numerous resolutions and alien-regulation bills which were introduced in both Houses. The Assembly, however, was the scene of the final defeat of the anti-Japanese element. There the legislative campaign against the Japanese was fought out, and there it was lost.

The contest in the Assembly narrowed down to three measures, Assembly Bill 78, introduced by Drew of Fresno, known as the "Alien Land Bill"; Assembly Bill 14, known as the "Anti-Japanese School Bill," and Assembly Bill 32, known as the "Municipal Segregation Bill," both introduced by Johnson of Sacramento. The final defeat of these bills settled the Japanese question so far as the legislative session of 1909 was concerned.

Drew's Alien Land bill was by far the most important of the three. It was in effect a copy of the alien land law at present in force in the State of Illinois, and generally known as the "Illinois Law." Under its provisions an alien acquiring title to lands situate in this State, was given five years in which to become a citizen of the United States; failing to become a citizen, he was required to dispose of his holdings to a citizen; failing so to do, the necessary machinery was provided for the District Attorney of the county in which the land was situated to dispose of it, and turn the proceeds of the sale over to the alien owner. Ample protection was provided for alien minors who might possess or might become possessed of California real property. Furthermore, under the provisions of the law, the leasing of land to aliens for a longer period than one year was prohibited.

Though the word, "Japanese," did not appear, the bill's introduction was a shot which if not heard round the world, at least reached Washington on the East and Tokio on the West. Finally, on January 25, Governor Gillett made the Alien bills pending before the Legislature subject of a special message to Senate and Assembly, in which he urged the Legislature to do nothing that would disrupt the pleasant relations existing between America and Japan, and recommended that an appropriation be made to enable the Labor Commissioner to take a census showing the number of Japanese now in the State, with such other information regarding them as could be used in making a proper report to the President and Congress[87a].

Governor Gillett in the paragraph of his message[87] which dealt with the Alien Land bill, stated that the measure might be amended so that its passage would not embarrass the Federal Government. Mr. Drew promptly sent the Governor a note, inquiring "how amended." The Governor replied[88], stating that, in his judgment the best possible law that could be passed on the question of alien ownership of land would be the law which had been adopted by Oklahoma. Furthermore, the Governor expressed the opinion that such a law would be satisfactory to President Roosevelt and Secretary Root.

Mr. Drew was quick to act on the suggestion. He not only yielded to the Governor's wishes[89], but in the teeth of the severest opposition from the San Francisco delegation, forced delay of the passage of his bill until the Oklahoma law could be substituted for that taken from the Illinois Statutes.

The substitute measure provided that "no alien shall acquire title or own land in the State of California," but the provisions of the act further provided that the law "shall not apply to lands now owned in this State by aliens so long as they are held by their present owners."

The substitute measure was introduced on February 1st; it came up for passage on February 3rd. In the two days which elapsed between the introduction and final action on the bill, the high State authorities decided to oppose it. Speaker Phil Stanton employed his influence against it; one by one its supports who could "be reached" were "pulled down." Drew found himself at the final with slight following. The bill was defeated by the decisive vote of 28 to 48. Mott gave notice of motion to reconsider, but the next day reconsideration was denied.

The day following the defeat of the Alien Land bill, February 4th, the "Anti-Japanese School Bill" and the "Municipal Segregation Bill" came up for final action. There was also Assembly Bill 15, classed as an anti-Japanese measure, which came up on the same day. It, as in the case of the two others, had been introduced by Johnson of Sacramento, by far the ablest parliamentarian in the Legislature. Drew had used facts and figures when arguing for his alien land bills; Johnson seasoned his statistics with a sarcasm[90] as peppery as one of Mr. Roosevelt's ingenuous opinions on "nature fakers." But while Mr. Johnson entertained with his wit and his invective, he failed to overcome the tremendous influence, State and Federal, that had been brought to bear against his bills. Assembly Bill 15, denying aliens the right to serve as directors on California corporations, was defeated by a vote of 15 for to 53 against. Assembly Bill 32, the "Municipal Segregation Bill,"[91] was defeated by the close vote of 39 for to 35 against, 41 votes being required for its passage.

And then the Assembly took another tack, and by a vote of 45 to 29, passed Assembly Bill 14, the Anti-Japanese School bill. Leeds changed his vote from no to aye to give notice that he would the next legislative day move to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been passed. The Assembly then adjourned. The day had been eventful. A more eventful was to follow.

The passage of Assembly Bill 14, after the defeat of the other so-called anti-Japanese measures, brought a characteristic telegram from President Roosevelt to Governor Gillett. "This (Assembly Bill 14) is the most offensive bill of them all," telegraphed the President, "and in my judgment is clearly unconstitutional, and we should at once have to test it in the courts. Can it not be stopped in the Legislature or by veto?"

Governor Gillett incorporated that telegram in a message which he sent to Senate and Assembly the next day. "A telegram so forcible as this," said the Governor, "from the President of the United States, is entitled to full consideration, and demands that no hasty or ill-considered action be taken by this State which may involve the whole country. It seems to me that it is time to lay sentiment and personal opinion and considerations aside and take a broad and unprejudiced view of the important question involved in the proposed legislation, and in a calm and dispassionate manner pass upon them, keeping in mind not only the interests of our State, but of the Nation as well, and the duty we owe to it in observing the treaties entered into by it with a friendly power."

"I trust," concluded the Governor, "that no action will be taken which will violate any treaty made by our country or in any manner question its good faith. I most respectfully submit this message to you with the full hope and belief that when final action shall be taken nothing will be done which can be the subject of criticism by the people of this Nation, and that no law will be enacted which will be in contravention of the Constitution or any treaty of the United States."

The Governor's message was not at all well received[92]; in fact, Governor and message were denounced by both Republican and Democratic Assemblymen.

From the hour that the bill had been passed, the Governor had been in consultation with his lieutenants in the Assembly. Speaker Stanton made canvass of the situation. But little headway was made. That reconsideration would be denied was evident. Leeds, to save the situation, moved that reconsideration be postponed until February 10th. An amendment was made that it be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee. It was on this amended motion that the issue was fought out.

"I know what you want," declared Johnson of Sacramento in his opening speech, "and you know it. You want to bury this bill. You want time to hold another caucus on the question and decide what you will do. You want time to take another canvass of this Assembly."

Had the question been put when Johnson had concluded, reconsideration would unquestionably have been denied. In the emergency, Speaker Stanton left his desk and took the floor to plead for delay. For once in his life, at least, Phil Stanton was impressive. He did not say much, - and as the sequel showed he had little to say - but there was a suggestion of thundering guns and sacked cities and marching armies in his words, that caused the listening statesmen to follow him with unstatesmen-like uneasiness.

"It was not my intention," said Stanton, "to take the floor unless we were confronted by some grave crisis. Such a crisis is, in my opinion, upon us. I not only believe it, but I know it. But my lips are sealed."

"I would that I could tell you what I know, but I cannot for the present. But I can tell you that we are treading upon dangerous ground. I can feel it slipping from under my feet."

"In my judgment this matter should be postponed. I believe that further information will, within a few days, be given you."

The psychological moment had come in the history of Assembly Bill 14. All eyes were turned on Johnson of Sacramento. It was for him to say whether the postponement asked should be granted. Had Johnson said "no," such was the attitude of the Assembly at that moment, reconsideration of the measure would unquestionably have been denied, and Assembly Bill 14 declared passed by the House of its origin.

But Johnson did not say "no."[93] Instead, he entered upon a rambling excuse for advocating acquiescence in Stanton's request for delay. He rambled on that he believed that Governor Gillett had been indiscreet; that he (Johnson) did not propose to be dictated to by a "fanatical President eternally seeking the limelight."

"But," concluded Johnson, "I have listened to the words of our Speaker, and I see that he is profoundly moved. For this reason I am willing that the bill go over until Wednesday, but out of respect to our Speaker, and for no one else on earth."

When Johnson sat down, one could have heard a pin drop. Not a dissenting voice was heard. Further consideration of the measure was postponed until February 10.

The day preceding final action on the bill was given over to conferences and caucuses. The Democrats caucused and agreed to stand as a unit for the bill. Grove L. Johnson's immediate followers rallied to its support. On the other hand, a conference of those opposing the measure was held in Governor Gillett's office. Grove L. Johnson is alleged to have been called to the carpet. He was asked to withdraw his support of the measure. Johnson is quoted as replying:

"Show me why I should not support it. Give me the reasons, the facts and figures, why Roosevelt has any right to interfere with this measure. I want something definite. I have heard these suppositions and insinuations for years and years. Let me know, gentlemen, what information you have confided to you that should induce me to withdraw my support and bow to the telegram from Roosevelt."

The hour for reconsideration of the bill, 11 a. m. of February 10, arrived with the situation practically unchanged. Assemblyman Transue, Stanton's right hand man in the fight against the bill, presented an elaborate resolution, laboriously prepared by the opponents of the measure, setting forth why it should be defeated[94]. In it the right of the State to pass such school-regulating laws as it may see fit was affirmed, and the constitutionality of the pending measure alleged, but the Assembly was urged to do nothing to disturb the relations existing between this Government and a friendly power. The resolution did not strengthen the position of the opponents of the bill in the least. In fact, several of their number were estranged. So worked up had the Assemblymen become, that Beardslee of San Joaquin moved that Transue's resolution be considered in executive session, but the motion was lost. The resolution was later withdrawn.

The debate turned principally on demands from the supporters of the bill, that Speaker Stanton tell why he had felt "the ground slipping from under his feet" in his speech of six days before. But Stanton wouldn't or couldn't tell. He leaned on his gavel through it all looking very foolish indeed.

These speeches of denunciation pleased the supporters of the bill immensely, but the luxury of denouncing Stanton defeated the bill. Had the vote been taken at the forenoon session, reconsideration would undoubtedly have been denied. But so much time was taken in making Stanton feel foolish, that the hour of recess arrived, and the Assembly scattered until two o'clock.

This brief respite gave the opponents of the measure a last opportunity. They improved it by bringing over to their side enough members of the San Francisco delegation to win reconsideration, and the measure's defeat. When the Assembly re-convened after the noon recess, the members by a vote of 43 to 34 granted the bill reconsideration, and by a vote of 37 ayes to 41 noes defeated it[95].

Although the Senate escaped the sensational scenes that attended the suppression of the Japanese problem in the Assembly, nevertheless Japanese bills and resolutions, with attending debates, made their appearance there. Caminetti, for example, introduced a duplicate of the Johnson anti-Japanese School bill, which was referred to the Senate Committee on Education and never heard from again.

Senate Bill No. 492, introduced by Senator Anthony, made more trouble. This measure gave the people of the State an opportunity to express themselves at the polls on the Japanese question. The Committee on Labor, Capital and Immigration recommended the measure for passage, and it was finally forced to a vote, being defeated by twelve votes for and twenty-two against[96].

A series of Senate anti-Japanese resolutions which were finally included in Senate joint Resolution No. 6[97], almost led to a riot in the Assembly. After a deal of pulling and hauling in the Senate the resolution was finally adopted and went to the Assembly. In the Assembly, Speaker Stanton, as "a select committee of one," took the resolution under his protection. The indications being that the "select committee of one" would fail to report, a storm was started by an attack on Stanton's authority to be a "select committee of one" at all. The assailants were repulsed. Nevertheless, "the select committee of one," after holding the measure a week, recommended that it be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. The measure was finally adopted and went to the Governor.



[86] The Assembly vote on the four principal Japanese issues will be found in Table I of the Appendix.

[87a] A bill providing funds for such a census was introduced and became a law.

[87] The paragraph in Governor Gillett's message which deals with the Alien Land bill, read as follows:

"If you believe the general policy of this State and its future development demands that all aliens, that is, citizens of other countries, should be discouraged in making investments here, and that no alien should be permitted to become the owner in fee simple of any lands within this State - agricultural, grazing or mineral, or of any city property for the purposes of trade, commerce or manufacturing - then enact a law forbidding the same, but see to it that it affects the subjects of all nations alike, and that under its provisions the citizens of Japan shall have equal privileges with those of England and other favored nations; otherwise you might create a situation which may prove to be embarrassing to the Federal Government. Mr. Drew's bill might be so amended, but in its present form it clearly, as no doubt was intended, discriminates against the citizens of China and Japan. Whether any bill should pass at this time which will discourage foreign capital from seeking investments in our State is a most serious question and one not lightly to be considered. But that is a question I leave for you to solve."

[88] The Governor's letter was in full as follows:

Hon. A. M. Drew: Your little note was received.

"I am inclined to think that the best possible law that can be passed on the question of alien ownership of land would be the law adopted by Oklahoma. You will find it in the session laws of the State of Oklahoma, 1907 and 1908. The book is on file in the State Library. The Act is on page 481.

"I would strike out of the first line the words 'who is not a citizen of the United States,' because that is useless. No alien is a citizen of the United States, and cannot be.

"Then I notice the second line of Section 3, instead of having 'devise,' the word is 'device.' I suppose this must be a typographical error.

"To this bill might be added the last section of your bill, extending the time in which leases can be given - so many years on agricultural property and so many years on city property. I think one year is rather short; inasmuch as this would apply to all aliens alike, I would be reasonable as to the length of time for which leases should be granted.

"I am also of the opinion that President Roosevelt and Secretary Root would agree that this bill would be all right - in fact, I have telegrams from them which would indicate such to be the fact. Of course, the question whether or not it would be policy to pass an alien law in this State is something that the Legislature would have to consider, but if such a law is to pass, as I say, I am inclined to believe that one like the Oklahoma law would probably be the best."

[89] Assemblyman Drew's reply to the Governor's letter suggesting that the Oklahoma law be substituted for the original bill, was as follows:

"Your esteemed favor of the 26th inst., is before me, and I can assure you that I appreciate the spirit in which you have considered the Alien Land bill, presented by myself in the Assembly. I am strictly in accord with the changes you suggest. The words 'who is not a citizen of the United States' are surplusage and could easily have been left out, but they are found in both the Illinois and Oklahoma laws. I am glad the President takes the view of the matter that he does, and you may rest assured that I will work in harmony with yourself. However, I deem it advisable that some law should be enacted at this session of the Legislature. I think it will be wisdom on our part to take this step, and surely our neighbor, Japan, cannot complain so long as the bill is applicable to all aliens alike. I will submit to you a draft of the amended bill as soon as I can get it in shape."

[90] Johnson addressed himself directly to President Roosevelt and Governor Gillett. The following paragraphs are taken at random from his speech:

"I expect some member of the Assembly to introduce a bill here, the first section of which shall read: 'Before any legislation is enacted it shall bear the approval of James N. Gillett and President Roosevelt and if it is denied, the bill shall be withdrawn.' "

"Some of you think legislation is like patent medicine. It must bear on the bill, the label: 'None genuine without the note, This is a good bill, James N. Gillett.' "

"What right have we, mere Assemblymen, to have an opinion on any matter? Why should we, who were sent here by the people for the sake of convenience and formality, have any independence in our thought? What right have we to do anything but listen in awe and reverence to the words of wisdom that drop from the tongues of Governor James N. Gillett and Theodore Roosevelt?

"Of course we must surrender our individual opinion, and bow to the superior intellects of the 'Imperial Power,' which Mr. Beardslee loves so well. Since we must vote, as a matter of course, what right have we to vote otherwise than as the distinguished Governor and President say in their infinite certainty?"

Johnson complained bitterly of the interference of the President with the State and of the Governor with the Legislature.

"I have," said Johnson, "all respect for the intellect of James N. Gillett, Governor of California, and for his superior, President Roosevelt. But I am sent into this Chamber by my constituents and not by Governor James N. Gillett. I have been returned here again and again, and not because I bowed to the authority of James N. Gillett. I am here for the good of my people, the people who supported me, and who expect me to support them. I know more about the Japanese than Governor Gillett and President Roosevelt put together. I am not responsible to either of them."

"I am responsible to the mothers and fathers of Sacramento County who have their little daughters sitting side by side in the school rooms with matured Japs, with their base minds, their lascivious thoughts, multiplied by their race and strengthened by their mode of life."

"I am here to protect the children of these parents. To do all that I can to keep any Asiatic man from mingling in the same school with the daughters of our people. You know the results of such a condition; you know how far it will go, and I have seen Japanese 25 years old sitting in the seats next to the pure maids of California. I shuddered then and I shudder now, the same as any other parent will shudder to think of such a condition."

[91] The purpose of the Municipal Segregation bill, as set forth in its title, was "to confer power upon municipalities to protect the health, morals and peace of their inhabitants by restricting undesirable, improper and unhealthy persons and persons whose practices are dangerous to public morals and health and peace to certain prescribed limits, and prescribing a punishment for a violation of this Act."

The bill in full was as follows:

"Section 1. Whenever in the opinion of the governing body of any municipality the presence of undesirable, improper and unhealthy persons, or the presence of persons whose practices are dangerous to public morals and health and peace is deemed to exist in the said municipality and to be dangerous to the public morals and health and peace of said municipality and its inhabitants, the said governing body is hereby empowered to so declare by ordinance and is hereby empowered and authorized to prescribe by ordinance the district and limits within which said persons shall reside in said municipality, and thereafter it shall be unlawful for any person of the class so declared to reside in any other portion of said municipality than within the said district and limits so fixed.

"See. 2. A violation of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed a misdemeanor and shall be punished as such."

[92] "Never before have I heard of a time," said Assemblyman Cronin, "when a Governor has sent such a message to a Legislature. I am responsible to my constituents for my actions on this floor and I resent such interference. I hold the Governor's action to be indiscreet. He has no more right to send such a message to this House than have we to dictate to the Supreme Court a policy on any action pending before it, on the ground that the best interests of the State depend upon their regarding our Instructions.

"Can we dictate to the Governor the course that is to be pursued in an executive matter? Let us stand by our guns."

"If the men change their votes on account of this fanciful talk from the President and the Governor," said Johnson of Sacramento, "I shall certainly be pained and surprised. They do not know the conditions as I know them. We have a right to protect our State, and it will not interfere with any international relations, and they know it. Their specious argument will not change my vote one bit. I know what The People want - what I want. I know influence has been brought to bear. It will be further brought to bear. Now I trust this vote will not suffer by you men changing your minds for such groundless reasons."

"Since yesterday," said Assemblyman Gibbons, "I have changed my views. I thought there were three departments in this Government, but I find I was mistaken. I recognize the error of my youthful belief. I know now that the Legislative and the Executive are one, or, rather, that the Executive is the Legislative."

[93] The question has been asked - was Johnson sincere in his advocacy of the Anti-Japanese measures? The writer does not presume to answer; the workings of Grove L. Johnson's mind and conscience are, for the writer at least, too intricate for analysis. But Grove L. Johnson voted for anti-racetrack gambling bills for years, spoke for them and fought for them as keenly as he did for the Anti-Japanese bills, always on the losing side. But when an anti-racetrack gambling bill was before the Assembly with some prospect of passage, Grove L. Johnson was found the leader of those opposed to its passage. In the case in point, to Grove L. Johnson, and not President Roosevelt or Governor Gillett, or even Phil Stanton, is due the credit for postponement of consideration of Assembly Bill 14, a postponement which meant its defeat.

[94] The Transue resolution will be found in full In the appendix.

[95] Speaker Stanton very modestly took much credit for the defeat of the bill. The following telegram was on its way to Washington almost before the vote had been announced:

"Sacramento, February 10.-Theodore Roosevelt, White House Washington, D. C. - The Assembly just reconsidered and refused passage of the Japanese School bill. My congratulations.

P. A. STANTON."

The reply was as follows:

"Washington, February 10.-Hon. P. A. Stanton, Speaker of the Assembly, Sacramento, Cal. - Accept my heartiest thanks and congratulations for the great service you have rendered on behalf of The People of the United States. I thank the people of California and their representatives in the Legislature.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT."

A further telegram was sent to Governor Gillett:

"Washington, February 10. - To Governor J. N. Gillett, Sacramento Cal. - Accept my heartiest congratulations. All good Americans appreciate what you have done. Pray extend my congratulations individually to all who have aided you. I feel that the way in which California has done what was right for the Nation makes it more than ever obligatory on the Nation in every way to safeguard the interests of California. All that I personally can do toward this end, whether in public or private life, shall most certainly be done. THEODORE ROOSEVELT."

[96] The vote on Senate Bill 492 was as follows:

For the bill - Anthony, Black, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Finn, Hartman, Holohan, Reily, Sanford, and Welch - 12.

Against the bill - Bates, Bell, Bills, Birdsall, Boynton, Curtin, Cutten, Hurd, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Miller, Price, Rush, Savage, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker, Weed, Willis, and Wright - 22.

Absentees - Estudillo, Hare, Kennedy, Roseberry, Stetson, and Wolfe - 6.

[97] Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, which, as finally adopted, was a committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 17. It follows:

Whereas, The progress, happiness, and prosperity of the people of a nation depend upon a homogeneous population;

Whereas, The influx from overpopulated nations of Asia of people who are unsuited for American citizenship or for assimilation with the Caucasian race, has resulted and will result in lowering the American standard of life and the dignity and wage-earning capacity of American labor;

Whereas, The exclusion of Chinese laborers under the existing exclusion laws of the United States has tended to preserve the economic and social welfare of the people;

Whereas, We view with alarm any proposed repeal of such exclusion laws and the substituting therefor of general laws;

Whereas, The interest of California can best be safeguarded by the retention of said exclusion laws, and by extending their terms and provisions to other Asiatic people;

Whereas, The people of the Eastern states, and the United States generally, have an erroneous impression as to the real sentiment of the people of the Pacific Coast relative to the Asiatic question;

Whereas, We think it right and proper that the people of this country should be advised as to our true position on that question; therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Senate and Assembly jointly, That we respectfully urge the Congress of the United States to maintain intact the present Chinese exclusion laws and instead of taking any action looking to the repeal of said exclusion laws, to extend the terms and provisions thereof so as to apply to and include all Asiatics;

Resolved, That our Senators be instructed and Representatives in Congress requested to use all honorable means to carry out the foregoing recommendation and requests;

Resolved, That the Governor of California be, and he is, directed to transmit a certified copy of these resolutions to the President and Speaker, respectively, of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress.

The resolution was adopted in the Senate by the following vote:

Ayes - Senators Anthony, Bates, Bills, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Holohan, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, McCartney, Miller, Reily, Rush, Sanford, Savage, Walker, Welch, and Wolfe - 28.

Noes - Senators Bell, Price, Roseberry, Stetson, Thompson, Weed, and Willis - 7.

The resolution was adopted in the Assembly on March 23. There was no call for the ayes and noes, and no record was made of the vote.



Chapter XXI.

The Rule Against Lobbying.

Scandals of the Session of 1907 and the Dread of Pinkerton Detectives Led to a Rule Under Which Machine Lobbyists Could Work with Perfect Safety, While Advocates of Reform Measures Could Be Barred From Both Senate and Assembly.



One of the principal scandals of the Legislative session of 1907 was the openness with which machine lobbyists invaded Senate and Assembly chamber. They went so far as to move from member to member during roll-calls, giving Senator or Assemblyman, as the case might be, a proprietary tap on the shoulder, to direct his vote.

Word of the scandal got as far away from Sacramento as San Luis Obispo County, where A. E. Campbell became a candidate for the Senate against H. W. Lynch, largely on the machine issue. Campbell pledged himself ,to denounce such lobbyists as Jere Burke, the Southern Pacific attorney, if they appeared on the floor of the Senate, and to have them ejected from the chamber.

When Campbell reached Sacramento he let it be known that such would be his policy. Campbell is thickset and shaggy of eyebrow; his beard shows black on his face two hours after shaving. He has all the earmarks of a born fighter. He didn't look good to the machine, and his words didn't sound good. Incidentally, Jere Burke discreetly kept out of the Senate chamber while the Senate was in session.

Another thing which gave machine members of both Houses, as well as machine hangers-on, much concern, was the rumor started along in December that certain public-spirited citizens of Los Angeles and San Francisco would maintain at the Capital during the session a lobby to protect the interests of the people, just as the machine lobby looks after the well-being of machine-protected corporations and individuals.

This rumor caused great distress. It had all sorts of versions. One story was that a corps of Pinkertons would be employed to look for bugs in bills, boodle in sacks, and boodle-itching palms. Another account had it that the supervision was to be carried on by the San Francisco graft prosecution, and that Burns men would be in constant attendance. A report, started early in the session, that a Burns detective had secured a job as Assembly clerk almost threw that body into hysterics.

Campbell's threats and the anti-machine lobby rumors seem to have had their effect upon the Committee on Rules of each House. At any rate, both Senate and Assembly adopted rules that no person engaged in presenting any business to the Legislature or its Committees should be permitted to do business with a member while the House to which the member belonged was in session. Persons transgressing this rule were to be removed from the floor of the House in which the offense was committed, and kept out during the remainder of the session.

The rule was employed in one instance only. George Baker Anderson, of The People's Legislative Bureau, was ruled out of the Assembly, and, in effect, out of the Senate Chamber. Jere Burke kept away from both, but it was probably Campbell's threat more than the rule that influenced Burke. With these two exceptions, the lobbyists had pretty much the run of both chambers. It should be said, however, that while none of those lobbyists were threatened with expulsion from the floor of either House for advocating machine-backed measures and policies, persons advocating reform measures were threatened with the anti-lobbying rules. But Anderson was the only one to suffer because of them.

The curious feature of Anderson's case was that nobody seems to have been able to discover that he ever did any lobbying, or asked a member of either body to support or oppose any measure or policy, or that he even so much as spoke to a legislator while the House to which the legislator belonged was in session.

Anderson was in charge of a Legislative Bureau, one purpose of which was to keep the newspapers of the State which were not represented by correspondents at the Capital, informed of the votes on the various measures, and other items of importance or interest. Somebody early in the session called the bureau a "lobby," and somebody else improved the title by calling it "People's Lobby."

And then certain Senators and Assemblymen awoke to the startling discovery that in the Legislative Bureau, presided over by Anderson, was the People's Lobby that was to employ Pinkerton's or Burns' men to watch the Legislature. Anderson was a marked man from that moment.

Curiously enough this theory of Anderson's purpose didn't anger a single member of Senate or Assembly who, during the nearly three months that followed, voted against machine-advocated measures, and for measures which the machine opposed. Assemblymen of the type of Bohnett, Hinkle, Cattell, Callan and Drew, Senators like Bell, Black, Campbell and Holohan either treated the Pinkerton story as a joke or thought that a little Pinkerton watchfulness might be a pretty good proposition, all things considered.

On the other hand, many of the Senators and Assemblymen who were in constant opposition to reform policies, were very much exercised that anybody should have the audacity to have a watch kept upon the Legislature. This intense feeling found perhaps its best expression in Assemblyman McManus' denunciation of Anderson, when the question of having Anderson "investigated" was before the Assembly.

"It is a sad state of affairs," said McManus, "if a band of Pinkertons are here to follow the members up. We aren't everyday street-car conductors. We don't have to have spotters to watch us."

But perhaps the most astonishing feature of the whole astonishing Anderson incident is that nobody was ever able to connect him with a detective of any stripe whatsoever, Burns, Pinkerton, or unclassified. But this did not prevent his being ruled off the floor of the Assembly, and, in effect, of the Senate.

As the most amazing rumors about Anderson - many started as jokes[98] - multiplied, the indignation of certain Assemblymen and Senators increased. Matters came to a climax when Anderson sent a number of letters to members who had been absent from the chamber when the first vote was taken on the Walker-Otis Anti-Gambling bill, asking them if they would be willing to give the reasons for their absence.

The difference in the effect of the letters was astonishing. Assemblyman Prescott F. Cogswell, who had been favored with one of them, stated on the floor of the Assembly that he had been glad of the opportunity to make known the cause of his absence when the vote was taken. On the other hand, Assemblyman Wheelan, who had received a duplicate of the letter which Cogswell had welcomed, was very much cast down. Wheelan, arising to a question of personal privilege, read the letter, and wanted to know if he hadn't been "insulted[99]."

Assemblyman Beardslee hastened to assure Mr. Wheelan that he had been. Furthermore, Beardslee thumped his ample chest a thump, and announced:

"I, too, am insulted, for my brother has been insulted, and who insults my brother, insults me."

That seemed to settle it. The Committee on Rules was instructed to investigate the letter incident.

The Committee on Rules consisted of Johnston of Contra Costa, Transue, Grove L. Johnson, Beardslee and Stanton, the Committee, by the way, of "gag rules" notoriety. The investigation was held behind closed doors.

Anderson was asked about the letter and his purpose in writing it, to all of which he replied directly and without hesitation. And then came the burning question of the hour:

"How many Pinkertons are there in your employ in Sacramento, Mr. Anderson?" asked Johnson.

Anderson refused to answer the question. His wiser course would perhaps have been to answer truthfully, "None at all," and end the joke. But that was Anderson's business. He declined to answer.

Anderson's refusal to answer was solemnly reported by the committee back to the Assembly. Some members when the report was read laughed, others were made very serious indeed. It was finally decided that the investigation of Anderson should be turned over to the Judiciary Committee, of which Grove L. Johnson was chairman.

The Judiciary Committee was solemnly authorized to send for persons and papers, and administer oaths. While the investigation was pending, Anderson was denied admittance to the Assembly chamber. As the press badge, admitting Anderson to both Assembly and Senate chambers had been taken from him, he was unable to enter the Senate chamber either.

And the Assembly Judiciary Committee failed to investigate. Although Anderson demanded that he be given a hearing, and the matter settled, one way or the other, the Judiciary Committee would not and did not act. Under the Assembly resolution ordering the investigation, however, Anderson was for nearly two months barred from both the Assembly and Senate chambers. The session closed without the investigation being held.

It may be said in this connection that neither in the State Statutes, nor in the rules of either Senate or Assembly, is there a word which prohibits the employing of detectives at a Legislative session. Even though Johnson's committee had investigated Anderson's case, and discovered that he was really employing detectives, it is difficult to see how his punishment could have been justified. The incident is certainly one of the most extraordinary of the session - of any Legislative session ever held in this State, in fact.

The most interesting point in the Anderson case was that when pinned down for a reason for excluding him from the Assembly chamber, the offended Assemblyman would invariably reply that he was excluded under the rule which prohibited lobbying.

Curiously enough, however, lobbying, in spite of the rule, continued on the floors of both Houses even during sessions.

When the Islais Creek Harbor bill was under consideration in the Assembly, for example, Carroll Cook, and others interested in the defeat of the measure as it had passed the Senate, appeared openly on the floor and in the lobby of the Assembly, even when the debate was going on, and worked for amendment of the measure to suit their aims. All this resulted in the greatest confusion. But Speaker Stanton seemed absolutely unable to cope with the situation. The lobbying and the confusion continued in spite of Stanton's efforts to enforce something of the appearance of order.